Global Research

Editor’s note: In light of the recently-introduced Anti-terrorism Act (Bill C-51), and the upcoming Canadian federal election, an investigation into the history of the Arab community in Canada is necessary. Bill C-51 could be used arbitrarily in derogation of civil rights of  Canadians belonging to the Arab Community. The following article was originally published in November 2014.

Introduction: The Beginning

Exactly a century and a quarter ago, amid the numerous immigrants then pouring into Canada, a 19-year-old youth landed in Montreal. It was 1882, just 6 years after the establishment of Canada as a federal state, and Abraham Bounader from Zahle, a small town in The Lebanon (then part of Syria) overlooking the fertile Beka’ valley, had become Canada’s first Arab immigrant. By 1901, there were 2,000 others of Arab origin in Canada, by 1941 this number had grown to about 12,000 persons, and today it is estimated that there are about 600,000 Canadians of Arab origin (i.e., about 1.8% of Canada’s total population).

Syrians (including Lebanese) have sailed forth from their relatively small, resource-poor land for many thousand of years. Their perpetual Odyssey has led them to the farthest parts of the earth. If one knows how to identify them, he can find Lebanese (and Syrians) in almost every country, in almost every major city. And so they came eventually to Canada; from one rocky shore to another. Gradually they make a new home; gradually they took root and grew. As they did, they transformed both themselves and their new country.

They voyaged not only to political liberty and stability and better economic opportunities although these were important motives. They voyaged, too, for adventure, for excitement, for the taste of something new. Their ancestors, the Phoenicians, sailed and traded throughout the ancient world and established colonies in several locations (Cadiz in Spain, and Carthage in Tunisia, are two famous examples). It is not known for certain what caused the Phoenicians to adopt their commercial role, but it is likely that their region’s poverty in natural resources and the raggedness of its terrain were contributing factors. Certainly, these factors were of great importance in 19^thand 20^th century emigration from Lebanon.

Virtually all early Arab immigrants to Canada came from the regions included in the contemporary states of Lebanon and Syria. The earliest migrants from the Fertile Crescent were not distinguished as Syrians or Lebanese. Until 1956, Canadian immigration statistics grouped the two together.

Anecdotes of Arab immigrant pioneers reflect the importance of the steamship lines factor. One Colorado pioneer had jumped ship in Canada, and traveled south; a group of travelers rejected in New York in 1885 returned to Halifax, and from there traveled overland to New York. Mr. Howar, builder of the famous Islamic Centre of Washington, D.C., journeyed by chance from his home in Palestine to Egypt, India, and England before arriving in the United States around the turn of the last century. He went to Washington because that was where the President lived. According to historical records, the first Lebanese to settle in Canada came via New York. In those early years, it was only the very adventurous few, mostly Lebanese and Syrian, who left home and ventured to seek their fortune in distant lands. The majority went to the United States, but few made it to Canada.

The immigration patterns of these early years illustrate clearly the factors that determined the rate at which immigrants, Arabs and others came to Canada. Immigration legislation provides excellent insight into the prevailing values and beliefs of the day. In the 19^th and early 20^th century, the salient view among most English Canadians was that the values and way of life of the “white race” were superior to all others. Preference was therefore given to British and American immigrants, followed by immigrants from western and northern Europe, then from the rest of Europe. Asians and Blacks were the least preferred of all immigrants and were allowed in only when there was a demonstrated need for their labour (e.g., building the Canadian Pacific Railroad in the 1890s allowed thousands of Chinese immigrants into Canada. Yet during the next 50 years, when “orientalphobia” was widespread among Anglophiles, less than a 100 Chinese were admitted into the country).

It was only in the second half of the 20^th century that discriminatory restrictions on immigration began to ease. The Second World War forced Canadians to re-examine their view of immigrants. In the years leading up to the war, Canadians had become guilty of excessive human rights violations against local minorities, the most infamous of which was the treatment of the Japanese in 1942. But other groups suffered as well (e.g., Germans and Italians). The injustices committed against these minorities became all the more pronounced because the Second World War was to a larger extent a war against the concept of racial superiority. Canada’s joining of the United Nations in 1945 was the final blow to a long history of discriminatory practices against non-whites, and to the preferential treatment given to Anglophiles. It was then only a matter of time before artificial barriers to immigration had to come down even though old attitudes and beliefs persisted for a while longer and have occasionally surfaced since then.

The Post World War II Period

With each change in immigration laws and regulations, it became easier for Arabs to immigrate to Canada, mostly through sponsorship. The post WWII period witnessed a dramatic increase in the number of Arab immigrants to Canada. Unfavourable conditions in their home countries, coupled with more liberal immigration policies in Canada made Canada a choice destination for many an Arab immigrant.

The period following the War was one of social tranquility and economic prosperity in Canada. In the Arab world, this same period saw nothing but one disaster after the other (Al-Nakba in Palestine in 1948, the Suez War of 1956 following the Egyptian Revolution of 1952, the Six-Day-War of June 1967, the 1973 War, the Civil War in Lebanon, the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-88, the 1991 Gulf War and subsequent invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003, the Civil Wars in Sudan, Somalia and Algeria, and the continuing Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories). It was these “push factors” that largely determined the origin, religion and other socio-economic profile of Arabs who immigrated to Canada.

Canada Egyptians are a case in point. Starting in the mid-1950s there was a significant upsurge in the number of Arab immigrants from Egypt even though their number in Canada until 1954 was relatively insignificant. Yet within a period of less than twenty years, (1956-1974), over 17,000 Arab immigrants who came to Canada gave Egypt as their country of origin. Today, Egyptians (as well as Iraqis) are only second to the Lebanese in making up the Canadian Arab population.

The Egyptian immigrants of the 1950s and 1960s were largely Copts and middle class Muslim Egyptians who were disaffected with the socialist transformation of their country by President Nasser. Concerned about religious and economic freedom, they left their country in search of better living conditions elsewhere. Many came to Canada.

The same was, and still is, true for immigrants from other Arab countries, especially Iraq, Palestine, Sudan, and the North African states of Tunisia, Libya, Algeria, and Morocco. The precarious balance that had kept in check volatile and explosive religious and political forces in the Lebanon came apart with horrendous consequences for the Lebanese people in the mid-seventies. A civil war erupted with a level of destruction not seen anywhere in many generations. Tens of thousands of Lebanese came to Canada where many of them had relatives who could either sponsor or nominate them. Some came under the new immigration category of business investors while other came as refugees. Many, in the latter group, were probably of Palestinian origin.

More recently, the human catastrophe that has befallen Iraq precipitated a massive wave of Iraqi immigrants to Canada. The same can be said about the Palestinians. These people have been direct victims of the creation of the State of Israel in 1948, the subsequent Israeli expansionist policies in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and scapegoats for Arab conflicts. The number of Palestinians in Canada is significantly higher than those reported by either the Census or immigration statistics. Because they do not have their own state, Palestinians hold the citizenship of various Arab and non-Arab countries, so that when they come to Canada, Palestinians are likely to be counted as nationals of the countries from which they have just arrived (e.g., Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates), or of countries whose citizenship they hold (e.g., Jordan and Syria).

The Changing Profile of Arab Canadians

The period following WWII, particularly the last five decades, has witnessed not only a substantial growth in Arab immigration to Canada, but also significant changes in the socio-economic characteristics and national origins of Arab immigrants.

Prior to 1954, virtually all Arab immigrants to Canada were from Syria and Lebanon, the majority of them were Christians who came from the many villages and towns that dot the Lebanese and Syrian mountains. After 1945, the national origins of Arab immigrants became far more diversified; their composition in Canada became more representative of the Arab world by region, religion, and social class.

Arab Canadians can be found in virtually all Canadian provinces and major urban centres. However, Ontario, and to a lesser extent Quebec, have always been the provinces of choice for immigrants from the Arab world since the 1950s. According to the most recent Census figures, Ontario is now home to more than 40% of the total Arab population in Canada. The Greater Toronto Area (GTA) alone is home to almost half of Ontario Arabs and close to one-fifth of all Arab Canadians. Such residential concentration has proven to have quite an impact on social and institutional development. It has resulted in the formation of Arab cultural niches. In Toronto, for example, one can drive along a two-kilometre stretch of Lawrence Avenue and find Arab stores dotting both sides of the street; supermarkets whose shelves stock all kinds of Arabic (and Middle Eastern) food and other products, a bakery that produces and sells thousands of pita bread daily, confectionery/sweet shops whose colourful delights match – in sight, if not always in taste – the best that is produced anywhere in the Arab world. There are also a number of restaurants, which in recent years have been responsible for introducing Canadians to such Arabic foods asFalafel, Hummus, Couscos, Tabouleh and so forth. On a typical Saturday, the parking lot of what must be dubbed the “Nasr Plaza” is crowded with people who speak different dialects of Arabic and exchange pleasantries, gossip, and news about the local community and their home countries. The same developments have occurred elsewhere in Mississauga, Montreal, Ottawa, Edmonton, London, Windsor, Hamilton, Halifax and other major urban centres throughout Canada.

Age and Sex Composition

The age and sex composition of an ethnic group has social, economic, and even political consequences. Masculinity ratios – number of males per 100 females – for example, may have an impact on the rate of mixed marriages. Also, the age profile of a group will have an effect on such economic factors as participation in the labour force, and the demands that are placed on such social services as health, education, and employment benefits.

Arab Canadians, when compared with other Canadians, tend to have a younger age profile. This may be due to the fact that the great majority of the Arab Canadian population is made up of recent immigrants who tend to be younger in age. Initially, they also maintain the relatively high fertility rate of the Arab world.

The net effect of this age distribution is that (1) the per capita demands made on government health and other support services for seniors of Arab origin is less than that of the average for the total Canadian population; and (2) that the relatively younger profile of the Arab Canadian population will contribute positively to future entrants into the labour force.

For the Arab community in Canada, there are considerably more males than females. As a result, masculinity rates for Arab Canadians are quite high, especially when compared with national averages. A shortage of females within one’s own ethnic group will, out of necessity if nothing else, force eligible males to seek marriage partners from outside the group. Some may overcome this problem by finding a mate from the “old country”, but the majority will be left with no option but to seek a mate outside their own ethnic group.

Religious Affiliation and Diversity

Although the great majority of Arabs, well in excess of 90%, are Muslims, the religious affiliation of the first wave of Arab immigrants to Canada which lasted until the WWII was predominantly Christian. They brought with them a version of Christianity which, at least in name, was not all that easily recognizable to the average Canadian Catholic or Protestant. They were mostly Melkites, Syrian Orthodox and Maronites.

In the post-Second World War period, the proportion of Muslim Arabs immigrants increased dramatically with the upsurge of immigration from the Arab world. Those Arab immigrants who came from Egypt in the 50s and 60s were largely Christian. They brought with them a version of Christianity known as Coptic, a Christian sect with deep historical roots in Egypt. The same can be said about Christian immigrants from Iraq who belong to the Assyrian and/or Chaldaean branch of Christianity.

In Canada, the early history of the Arab Muslims goes back to the last half of the 19^th century when a few began to immigrate to North America from the Greater Syria area. According to the Canadian Census, in 1871 there were only 12 Muslims in Canada – all living in Ontario. In 1931, there were 645 Muslim residents, probably mostly Arab, spread throughout different regions of Canada. Small size and relatively even geographical spread underlay the slow development of Mosques and related Muslim institutions. In 1938, as many as 20 families residing in Edmonton, Alberta, built the first Canadian Mosque – declared a historic site in 1978 – in that city.

After the Second World War, the Muslim population increased rapidly, mostly in Ontario. Today, there are well over 1.2 million Muslims in Canada – about 33% being of Indo-Pakistani origin, followed closely by Somalis and other Arabs. There are also a good number originating from East and South Africa, the Caribbean, Iran, Turkey, and Europe – principally from Albania, Bosnia and Croatia. Canada is home to roughly 1.2 million Muslims Canadians (about 3.6% of Canada’s total population).

By far the largest Islamic religious education and community services are concentrated in the Greater Toronto Area. In this prosperous Canadian city, the Muslims have established a series of religious institutions to cater to the nearly 300,000 members of these Toronto Islamic organizations. To meet the expanding need, old mosques are being expanded and new ones are continuously being built.

The Arab Canadian community has undergone a remarkable degree of institutional development involving religious, social, and secular organizations. The most prominent of secular and pan-Arab Canadian organization is the Canadian Arab Federation (CAF) that was founded in 1967 as a direct by-product of the Six Day War of June of that fateful year. Currently, there are numerous newspapers and other types of popular Canadian Arab media outlets. Both the religious and secular ethnic institutions have provided a link with the ancestral land, reinforcing the maintenance of cultural and linguistic identity. At the same time, they have played an important role adaptive role, encouraging acculturative change and integration with the host society.

A Socio-Economic Profile of Arab Canadians

The first wave of Arab immigrants to Canada which lasted until the WWII was characterized by people who were mostly uneducated and unskilled. They were quite young, single, and primarily interested in making money (A good example of that generation is the family of Leon’s Furniture Stores). Handicapped by their limited knowledge of North American culture and the English language, they sought jobs that did not require familiarity with either of these. The majority of them made a living working as industrial labourers, as peddlers or as shopkeepers.

The more recent immigrants from the Arab world, however, have been better educated, more professionally qualified and more adept at coping with the demands of modern society. Add to this the emphasis that Arabs have traditionally placed on education, and the result is an Arab community in Canada whose members, on average, enjoy high levels of educations, of income, and of occupational status.

The economic adaptation of the early Arab immigrants was often linked with a keen desire for economic and occupational success. (The story of Clair Haddad and her remarkably successful career in the fashion industry could be used as an example). Many of the early Syrian immigrants entered the labour force through peddlery, an independent but relatively low status occupation. Through devotion to hard work, frugality and reciprocal support, the three elements of what can be described as the “Levantine Ethic”, peddlers often experienced a steady rise in their economic fortunes and a broadening of their entrepreneurial functions (The story of the founders of Leon’s Furniture stores is an excellent example).

The post-war immigrants entered Canada with higher average educational and occupational qualifications and the majority of them planned to follow professional and other white collar careers. Thus the economic/occupational characteristics of the typical Arab immigrant have been changing.

Economic adaptation is a central life concern, relevant not only to the material but also the social, psychological and spiritual well-being of the individual immigrant and his/her ethnic community. Throughout the years, Arab immigrants and their descendants have entered all levels of the occupational hierarchy, some of them achieving renown in their respective fields (Clair Haddad: Fashion designer, Leon’s Furniture; the late Joe Ghiz, former premier of PEI is a powerful symbol of how Prince Edward Island’s Lebanese community has overcome prejudice and won the respect of the Islanders; virtually every Canadian university has one of more faculty member who is of Arab origin).

Adaptation to Canadian Life

The successful adjustment of Arab immigrants requires both linguistic and psychological adaptation. It requires that they learn or improve their knowledge of one or both of Canada’s official languages and, as well, that they develop new attitudes and commitments, which may be reflected in such things as acquiring Canadian citizenship, deciding to make Canada a permanent home and developing a general liking for Canadian society and culture.

The acculturation experience, how an ethnic group adapts to the host society, is greatly influenced by (1) how it is perceived by the other dominant groups; (2) how it perceives the other groups; and (3) how it perceives itself.

It is generally accepted that the higher is the level of education or occupational status, the easier it is for the immigrant to cope with the challenges of entering a new society. Among other things, education provides a person knowledge, language and conceptual skills, and problem solving tools that enable him/her to deal better with the demands of acculturation. Good occupational qualifications also make it easier for the immigrant to deal with one of the most pressing practical problems upon entry, finding a job.

There has been a strong tendency for immigrants from the Arab world to be favourable to permanent residence in Canada and to the acquisition of Canadian citizenship. There is no doubt about their generally positive feelings towards the new way of life, despite attachment to certain aspects of the Arab heritage. Having experienced both East and West, and having chosen the West, Arab immigrants see acculturative change, in the form of integration, as desirable, yet they and their descendants have continued to maintain links with the ancestral heritage.

Whether or not an Arab Canadian knows Arabic, links with the ancestral heritage can be, and have been, maintained through such things as Arabic food, music, dances, mass media exposure, visits to the Old Country (or homeland), and correspondence with friends and relatives left behind.

Arab cultural identity in Canada is not likely to be reduced to a uniform configuration among Arab Canadians, and we will probably always encounter patterned variations in its strength. Because of the relative youthfulness of the immigrant generation, coupled with its numerical dominance, Arab ethnicity will continue to be vigorously manifested, especially with continued immigration from the Arab world. Also, the federal government’s policy of multiculturalism and relatively tolerant public attitude towards ethnic differences, if continued, will enhance the development and preservation of ethnic identity without diminishing loyalty to Canada as the chosen land. Pluralism is one of Canada’s foundational values. It is based on the recognition that our diversity is a source of strength and that every individual and community has an equal voice and can, and should, use that voice to participate as a full member of the Canadian society.

For Arab Canadians, living in Canada has meant the adoption of many Canadian norms and values. To be sure, they have also retained, in varying degrees, their ethnic identity and elements of the cultural heritage; but the demands of the new socio-cultural system have necessitated the development of new orientations and modes of behaviour. As a consequence, they now have in common the experience of having abandoned, or even rejected some of the ways of the Old Country, in the process of embracing the ways of the new land. This process appears to intensify with each succeeding generation and with economic advancement.

At the same time, there are also pressures towards the maintenance of ethnic identity, reflected in part in a moderate degree of institutional development within the Arab Canadian community. The ethnic institutions developed include churches, mosques, secular associations, newspapers, radio and TV programs. In addition, the Arab-Canadian family has played a role in maintaining aspects of the ancestral heritage. In all other spheres, Arab Canadians have been, and still are, integrated with the institutions of the larger society.

The Future

We have already pointed out the major reasons why Arab immigrates to Canada: wars, population displacement, political instability, religious persecution (real or imagined), economic deprivation, and the existence of attractive conditions in Canada. Unfortunately, there is little reason to believe that the political and social conditions in the Arab world is likely to improve in the foreseeable future.

Economically, the Arab world is in dire straits. The widening gulf between rich and poor is festering a growing frustration among millions of the Arab masses. Many of them can easily become convinced that Arab wealth, in the form of oil, is being squandered by the few in collusion with a decadent West. Increases in population size coupled with improvements in education have produced a large class of qualified and energetic young people who have very limited employment prospects in the Arab countries. Furthermore, the initial optimism that characterized the earlier phase of the Palestinian-Israeli peace talks, there is now the realization that peace is not likely to break out soon.

The festering Arab-Israeli conflict with its destabilizing effects on the whole region, combined with the dangerous situation in the Gulf (i.e., the conflict with Iraq), and the mounting social and political problems throughout the Arab world, will no doubt put pressure on Canada to admit more, rather than less, immigrants from Arab countries.

In conclusion one may be justified to say that the Canadian Arab community (1) is growing in numbers and influence; (2) is diverse but culturally unified; (3) has an integrationist mode of acculturation; and (4) is a misunderstood community.

There is video and audio. It exists. The Pentagon says it’s critically important. Congress has asked for it and been refused. WikiLeaks is offering $50,000 to the next brave soul willing to be punished for a good deed in the manner of Chelsea Manning, Thomas Drake, Edward Snowden, and so many others. You can petition the White House to hand it over here.

The entire world thinks the U.S. military intentionally attacked a hospital because it considered some of the patients enemies, didn’t give a damn about the others, and has zero respect for the rule of law in the course of waging an illegal war. Even Congress members think this. All the Pentagon would have to do to exonerate itself would be to hand over the audio and video of the pilots talking with each other and with their co-conspirators on the ground during the commission of the crime — that is, if there is something exculpatory on the tapes, such as, “Hey, John, you’re sure they evacuated all the patients last week, right?”

All Congress would have to do to settle the matter would be to take the following steps one-at-a-time until one of them succeeds: publicly demand the recordings; send a subpoena for the recordings and the appearance of the Secretary of “Defense” from any committee or subcommittee in either house; exercise the long dormant power of inherent contempt by locking up said Secretary until he complies; open impeachment hearings against both the same Secretary and his Commander in Chief; impeach them; try them; convict them. A serious threat of this series of steps would make most or all of the steps unnecessary.

Since the Pentagon won’t act and Congress won’t act and the President won’t act (except by apologizing for having attacked a location containing white people with access to means of communication), and since we have numerous similar past incidents to base our analysis on, we are left to assume that it is highly unlikely that the hidden recordings include any exculpatory comments, but more likely conversation resembling that recorded in the collateral murder video (“Well it’s their fault for bringing their kids into a battle.”)

There isn’t actually any question that the U.S. military intentionally targeted what it knew to be a hospital. The only mystery is really how colorful, blood-thirsty, and racist the language was in the cockpit. Left in the dark, we will tend to assume the worst, since past revelations have usually measured up to that standard.

For those of you working to compel police officers in the United States to wear body cameras, it’s worth noting that the U.S. military already has them. The planes record their acts of murder. Even the unmanned planes, the drones, record video of their victims before, during, and after murdering them. These videos are not turned over to any grand juries or legislators or the people of the “democracy” for which so many people and places are being blown into little bits.

Law professors that measure up to the standards of Congressional hearings on kill lists never seem to ask for the videos; they always ask for the legal memos that make the drone murders around the world part of a war and therefore acceptable. Because in wars, they imply, all is fair. Doctors Without Borders, on the other hand, declares that even in wars there are rules. Actually, in life there are rules, and one of them is that war is a crime. It’s a crime under the U.N. Charter and under the Kellogg-Briand Pact, and when one mass-murder out of millions makes the news, we ought to seize that opportunity to draw attention, outrage, and criminal prosecution to all the others.

I don’t want the video and audio recordings of the hospital bombing. I want the video and audio recordings of every bombing of the past 14 years. I want Youtube and Facebook and Twitter full, not just of racist cops murdering black men for walking or chewing gum, but also of racist pilots (and drone “pilots”) murdering dark-skinned men, women, and children for living in the wrong countries. Exposing that material would be a healing act beyond national prejudice and truly worthy of honoring Doctors Without Borders.

2007 — Yangtze River Dolphin, Lipotes vexillifer

(Source: “Lipotes vexillifer” by Alessio Marrucci)

2004 — Po’o-uli, Melamprosops phaeosoma

(Source: “Poʻouli” by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)

2002 — Vine Raiatea Tree Snail, Partula labrusca

(Source: Islandbiodiversity)

To Read Complete Article (with photos) click below

http://www.pixable.com/article/heres-every-single-animal-that-became-extinct-in-the-last-100-years-photos-67674/

When it comes to official and media opinion on Obama’s crowning trade “achievements”, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade And Investment Partnership (TTIP), the party line is united. As previously noted, Barack Obama has assured the population that this treaty is going to be wonderful for everyone:

 In hailing the agreement, Obama said, “Congress and the American people will have months to read every word” before he signs the deal that he described as a win for all sides.

“If we can get this agreement to my desk, then we can help our businesses sell more Made in America goods and services around the world, and we can help more American workers compete and win,” Obama said.

The mainstream media’s chorus of support for these trade deal is likewise deafening: here are some indicative headlines from this past Monday:

• Time Magazine: “Pacific Trade Deal Is Good for the U.S. and Obama’s Legacy”
• The Washington Post: “The Trans-Pacific Partnership is a trade deal worth celebrating”

The far less popular opposing view, one repeatedly presented here, is that like with every other “free trade” agreement that the U.S. has entered into since World War II, the exact opposite is what will actually happen: the outcome will be that the US trade deficit (which excluding petroleum is already back to record levels) will get even larger, and we will see even more jobs and even more businesses go overseas, thus explaining the secrecy and the fast-track nature of the TPP and TTIP’s passage through Congress.

And while the US population, which is far more perturbed by what Caitlyn Jenner will wear tomorrow than D.C.’s plans on the future of world trade, has been mute in its response to the passage of the first part of the trade treaty, the TPP – after all the MSM isn’t there to tell it how to feel about it, aside to assure it that everything will be great even as millions of highly-paid jobs mysteriously become line cooks – other countries are standing up against globalist trade interests meant to serve a handful of corporations.

Case in point Germany, where today hundreds of thousands of people marched in Berlin in protest against the planned “free trade” deal between Europe and the United States which they say is anti-democratic and will lower food safety, labor and environmental standards.

TTIP critics fear that it would lead to worse safeguards in Europe, bringing down standards for consumer safety, food and health or labor rights down to those in America. European nations have stricter regulations for things like genetically modified foods or workers benefits than the US does. There is also discontent with the secretive nature of the negotiations, which prompts skeptics to assume the worst about the document they would eventually produce.

The organizers – an alliance of environmental groups, charities and opposition parties – claimed that 250,000 people were taking part in the rally against free trade deals with both the United States and Canada, far more than they had anticipated.

As many as 250,000 protesters gathered in Berlin, according to organizers
 

“This is the biggest protest that this country has seen for many, many years,” Christoph Bautz, director of citizens’ movement Campact told protesters in a speech.

According to Reuters, “opposition to the so-called Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) has risen over the past year in Germany, with critics fearing the pact will hand too much power to big multinationals at the expense of consumers and workers.”

Popular anger appears to be focused on the encroachment by corporations into every corner around the globe:

“What bothers me the most is that I don’t want all our consumer laws to be softened,” Oliver Zloty told Reuters TV. “And I don’t want to have a dictatorship by any companies.”

Other are mostly concerned about the secrecy covering the treaty and its negotiations: “Dieter Bartsch, deputy leader of the parliamentary group for the Left party, who was taking part in the rally said he was concerned about the lack of transparency surrounding the talks. “We definitely need to know what is supposed to be being decided,” he said.”

As Deutsche Welle adds, the EU and US aim to conclude the negotiations, which began in 2013, by sometime next year. The next round of negotiations is set to begin later this year. Once completed, TTIP would create the world’s largest free-trade zone, home to some 800 million consumers.

Campaigners are particularly concerned about a provision in the deal that would allow companies to sue governments in special tribunals. Such an arrangement, they fear, would lead to an erosion of labor and environmental protections . TTIP’s supporters dismiss such thinking and argue that the deal would boost the EU’s economy by removing tariffs and creating common standards.

Gerhard Handke, who heads the Federation of German Wholesale, Foreign Trade and Services, told DW that TTIP would even help uphold such standards. Europe, he explained, would soon be overshadowed by other economic players, such as India and China. “Now is the time to set standards, rather than have other countries dictate them later on,” he said. “Otherwise, one day, we’ll have Asia setting those standards, without anyone asking us what we think.”

Those gathered in Berlin, though, take a very different view. “We have heard these promises before, these promises of jobs and prosperity and growth,” Larry Brown, a trade unionist from Canada – which is negotiating a similar trade deal with the EU – shouted into a microphone on Saturday as demonstrators clapped and cheered and several police looked on. “They are lies. They have to be stopped.”

* * *

Oddly, few in the US aside from the fringe media, share any of these concerns.

In Germany however, the marchers banged drums, blew whistles and held up posters reading “Yes we can – Stop TTIP.”

As Reuters adds, the level of resistance “has taken Chancellor Angela Merkel’s government by surprise and underscores the challenge it faces to turn the tide in favor of the deal which proponents say will create a market of 800 million and serve as a counterweight to China’s economic clout.”

And just like in the US, the government is scrambling to soften the popular opposition before the deal is scuttled:

 In a full-page letter published in several German newspapers on Saturday, Economy Minister Sigmar Gabriel warned against “scaremongering”.

“We have the chance to set new and goods standards for growing global trade. With ambitious, standards for the environment and consumers and with fair conditions for investment and workers. This must be our aim,” Gabriel wrote.

“A fair and comprehensive free trade deal promotes growth and prosperity in Europe. We should actively participate in the rules for world trade of tomorrow,” Ulrich Grillo, head of the BDI Federation of German industries, said in a statement.

Businesses hope the trade deal will deliver over $100 billion of economic gains on both sides of the Atlantic.

Which, naturally, is jargon for millions in cost-cuts and layoffs, meant to boost profitability and shareholder equity.

For now the U.S. public remains largely inert to the TPP and TTIP concerns sweeping the globe; we expect that to last until the next major round of layoffs hits the US, just in time for the NBER to admit the country has been in a recession for at least 6 months.

This is how the protest looked like covered by social networks and other non-US media outlets:

The steel barricades that surrounded this year’s Tory party conference in Manchester are gone. They were torn down not long after all the political VIPs departed this city to turn the speeches of the home secretary, the chancellor and the prime minister into policies that will effect not only this country, but the EU and the Middle East.

By all accounts and no matter how much Tory policy wonks gild the lilly, Britain will be subjected to more austerity according to the speeches uttered by this government’s ministers. Between euphemism and rancour, the words this week of George Osborne and Theresa May has promised Britain: unsustainable devolution to economically disadvantaged cities and a draconian response to a refugee crisis not seen since the end of the Second World War.

Both the democratic rights of trade unions, along with the rights of senior citizens to dignity in old age free of want were held in contempt by ministers at fringe events that were more a celebration of unmitigated capitalism rather than good governance.

Still, no matter the right-wing excess displayed at the Tory party convention from ministers and delegates − which made it appear more like a tribal feast celebrating the return of hunters who had great success in stalking and killing deadly prey that had threatened their village, than a political event − this conference would not have been unique, save for David Cameron’s leader’s speech.

It was in that address that the prime minister mixed in with mellifluous words of a Greater Britain with broken shards of glass for Jeremy Corbyn. David Cameron did more than attack a political opponent in his speech, he crossed the line from partisan politics to the nefarious McCarthyism of the 1950s.

Cameron’s attack on Jeremy Corbyn resurrects the politics of the Cold War, when people of good will, politicians, activists, gays, artists and ordinary citizens were deemed enemies of the state because they opposed colonialism, racism and nuclear weapons or embraced their sexual orientation in a time of homophobia.

In those days, whether here or in the United States, when political demagogues attacked their opposition by smearing them as unpatriotic or sympathetic to communism or socialism it was done not through jurisprudence but as a witch-hunt whose only purpose was to diminish the democratic rights of a free people.

So, when a 21^st century British prime minister spends a portion of his leader’s conference speech characterising his political opponent as a man who doesn’t love his country and is a threat to the security of this nation, we must grow concerned for this new Tory politics. It is as if David Cameron and the Conservative party want to draw an iron curtain around fair play and common sense in a cynical attempt to maintain power through fear.

The question that now must be asked is if the Tories believe Jeremy Corbyn is unpatriotic, does that mean that those who support his policies on the environment, on the EU and on the Middle East are also unpatriotic and a threat to this country’s security?

In his speech the prime minister spoke of what is not written but he should also remember what is written and that is our nation’s history both noble and ignoble. Britain’s legacy is glorious and also fraught with great misdeeds but it does teach us that great politicians, political movements and societies aren’t built upon propaganda, rancour and discord.

Great politicians, like great societies, stem from discipline, prudence, empathy and vision that invites all of its citizens to enjoy the benefits and responsibilities of democracy. But the politics envisioned by Cameron suggests that over the next five years Britain will see a Conservative party push its ideological agenda of austerity and privatisation with the cruelty of zealots to the detriment of our democratic institutions and many of this country’s citizens.

Harry Leslie Smith is a 92-year-old Second World War veteran, activist and writer. His first book, Harry’s Last Stand, was published in June 2014 and his second, Love Among the Ruins, is out now. Check out www.harryslaststand.com and follow him on Twitter at @Harryslaststand

The world is beginning to realize that a seachange in world affairs occured on September 28 when President Putin of Russia stated in his UN speech that Russia can no longer tolerate Washington’s vicious, stupid, and failed policies that have unleashed chaos, which is engulfing the Middle East and now Europe. Two days later, Russia took over the military situation in Syria and began the destruction of the Islamic State forces.

Perhaps among Obama’s advisors there are a few who are not drowning in hubris and can understand this seachange. Sputnik news reports that some high-level security advisors to Obama have advised him to withdraw US military forces from Syria and give up his plan to overthrow Assad. They advised Obama to cooperate with Russia in order to stop the refugee flow that is overwhelming Washington’s vassals in Europe. The influx of unwanted peoples is making Europeans aware of the high cost of enabling US foreign policy. Advisors have told Obama that the idiocy of the neoconservatives’ policies threaten Washington’s empire in Europe.

Several commentators, such as Mike Whitney and Stephen Lendman, have concluded, correctly, that there is nothing that Washington can do about Russian actions against the Islamic State. The neoconservatives’ plan for a UN no-fly zone over Syria in order to push out the Russians is a pipedream. No such resolution will come out of the UN. Indeed, the Russians have already established a de facto no-fly zone.

Putin, without issuing any verbal threats or engaging in any name-calling, has decisively shifted the power balance, and the world knows it.

Washington’s response consists of name-calling, bluster and more lies, some of which is echoed by some of Washington’s ever more doubtful vassals. The only effect is to demonstrate Washington’s impotence.

If Obama has any sense, he will dismiss from his government the neoconservative morons who have squandered Washington’s power, and he will focus instead on holding on to Europe by working with Russia to destroy, rather than to sponsor, the terrorism in the Middle East that is overwhelming Europe with refugees.

If Obama cannot admit a mistake, the United States will continue to lose credibility and prestige around the world.

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.

If you really think we live in a free and independent society, think again. What sovereignty are we left with, when we have already forfeited our birthright to multinationals?

What freedom are we talking about when a private company can challenge our laws in court, according to the various so-called free-trade agreements, negotiated by our governments in secret: NAFTA, the Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union (CETA) and now the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)?

Trade is the new euphemism for a Bill of Rights for Corporations.

The Obama administration Friday announced an “operational pause” of the disastrously failed Pentagon program for arming and training “vetted rebels” in Turkey and sending them back across the border into Syria.

Instead, Pentagon and White House officials indicated, the focus will now shift to cementing ties with leaders of existing “rebel” militias, consisting overwhelmingly of Sunni Islamist forces with connections to Al Qaeda. US backing to these groups will apparently include both arms and ammunition as well as close air support from warplanes deployed by the US and its so-called coalition.

The policy shift follows the revelation last month by General Lloyd Austin, the commander of US Central Command, that only “four or five” individual US-trained fighters were then on the ground in Syria, and barely 100 more were undergoing training. This, after the allocation of $500 million for the Pentagon to train over 5,000 such fighters within the first year.

Austin’s revelation was followed within weeks by the Pentagon being forced to retract its initial denial of verified reports that a group of US-trained fighters sent into Syria had immediately turned over its vehicles and weaponry to the al-Nusra Front, Al Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate.

The change in strategy also follows a first week of Russian airstrikes against Islamist forces in Syria, including some that had previously received arms shipments organized by the CIA. Beginning in 2011, the US spy agency set up a clandestine station in Turkey and organized the funneling into Syria of weaponry from Libyan stockpiles after the US-NATO war for regime change had succeeded in toppling and murdering Muammar Gaddafi.

Both Washington and Moscow claim to be waging their respective military campaigns in Syria for the purpose of destroying the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), an Al Qaeda offshoot that is the direct product of the unleashing of death and destruction against Iraq, Libya and Syria itself by the US military and CIA.

In reality, however, the US and Russian governments are fighting for opposite aims: Washington, to topple the government of President Bashar al-Assad and install an American puppet regime; and Moscow to prop up the Assad government, its sole Middle Eastern ally.

The administration has come under increasing criticism from Republican opponents and sections of the US military and intelligence complex for its supposed “inaction” in the face of the Russian offensive in Syria. This found expression Friday in a column published under the joint byline of Obama’s former defense secretary, Robert Gates, and former Bush administration national security adviser Condoleezza Rice entitled “Countering Putin.”

It calls for actions to “create a better military balance of power on the ground,” including the creation of “no-fly zones” as well as “robust support” for various anti-regime forces and an effort to “solidify our relationship with Turkey,” a principal sponsor of the Islamist militias inside Syria.

The Obama administration’s announcement was also preceded by a letter sent to the White House, the Pentagon and the CIA by a bipartisan group of Senate critics of the administration’s Syria policy calling for an end to the “rebel” training program.

“The Syria Train and Equip Program goes beyond simply being an inefficient use of taxpayer dollars. As many of us initially warned, it is now aiding the very forces we aim to defeat,” stated the letter, which was signed by Democratic senators Tom Udall (New Mexico), Joe Manchin (West Virginia) and Chris Murphy (Connecticut) along with Republican Mike Lee (Utah).

The shift in policy announced Friday will not alter this aspect of the program, but only remove the fig leaf of “moderate” Syrian forces, with the handing over of weapons directly to the Islamists who constitute the dominant force among the anti-Assad “rebels.”

The Pentagon has acknowledged that among the principal obstacles to its training program was the vetting process that was supposed to have excluded those whose views were close to Al Qaeda’s, and the requirement that they engage ISIS as the main enemy, rather than the Assad government. It was unable to find such recruits in anywhere near the numbers projected.

President Barack Obama acknowledged in a press conference last week that the Pentagon’s train-and-equip program “has not worked the way it was supposed to.” He added, “And part of the reason, frankly, is because when we tried to get them to just focus on ISIL,” i.e., ISIS.

It appears that the administration’s answer to this failure is to drop these previous restrictions, providing direct US military aid to forces fighting for the overthrow of the Syrian government, including Islamists who would have been excluded from the Pentagon training program.

In the first announcement of the new program, Defense Secretary Ash Carter, speaking in London following a meeting with his British counterpart, Michael Fallon, said that it would be modeled on “the work we’ve done with the Kurds in northern Syria … That’s exactly the kind of example that we would like to pursue with other groups in other parts of Syria going forward. That is going to be the core of the President’s concept.”

The US coordination with the Kurds, particularly during the ISIS siege of the Syrian city of Kobani, on the Turkish border, involved Kurds providing ground forces, while identifying targets and calling in airstrikes by US warplanes.

As part of the new program, Pentagon officials said that the US military would train “enablers,” leading members of various militias, who would be instructed in how to coordinate with American warplanes in targeting and striking forces on the ground.

The Kurdish “example” has been rendered problematic by Washington’s alliance with Turkey, which has allowed US airstrikes to be launched from Incirlik Air Base and other bases inside Turkey in return for Washington’s tacit approval of Turkish bombing of the Kurds.

The identity of the “other groups” with whom Washington wants to replicate this strategy is far from clear. Some media reports named the “Syrian Arab Coalition” as a likely recipient of US weapons and close air support. Prior to Friday’s announcement, however, no one had ever heard of this coalition, which appears to be something that the Pentagon hopes to cobble together from existing “rebel” groups.

The dominant forces fighting the Assad government consist of ISIS, which Washington claims to be committed to destroying, the al-Nusra Front, which is on the State Department’s list of foreign terrorist organizations, and Ahrar al-Sham, another Islamist group whose founders came out of Al Qaeda. Other smaller factions are largely fighting in alliance with these forces.

To the extent that the US military provides air support to these militias, it may well come into direct conflict with Russian warplanes that are bombing them.

Far from a tactical retreat, it appears that the suspension of the Pentagon’s train-and-equip program is only setting the stage for a far bloodier war inside Syria, while heightening the real danger of a military clash between the world’s two largest nuclear powers, the United States and Russia.

Two F16 aircrafts belonging to the so-called US-led coalition violated the Syrian airspace on Saturday, targeting the infrastructure and destroying two power plants in al-Rudwaniya area to the east of Aleppo city, a military source said.

According to the source, the two aircrafts violated the Syrian airspace at 10:00 AM Saturday morning.

The source considered the incident a “breach of the international law.”

The attack caused power outage in the targeted area, the source added.

Russia doesn’t want to fight a war with Turkey, so Russian generals devised a simple, but effective plan to discourage Turkey from taking any action that could lead to a clash between the two nations.

Last week, Russian warplanes intruded into Turkish airspace twice. Both incidents caused consternation in Ankara and send Turkish leaders into a furor.  On both occasions, officials in Moscow politely apologized for the incursions claiming they were unintentional (“navigational errors”) and that they would try to avoid similar intrusions in the future.

Then there was a third incident, a more serious incident, that was not a mistake. It was clearly intended to send a message to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.  Here’s a short summary of what happened from an article at the World Socialist Web Site:

Turkish officials claimed a third incident on Monday, when an unidentified MiG-29 fighter jet locked its radar for four and a half minutes on eight Turkish F-16 jets that were on patrol on their side of the border, in apparent preparation to open fire.

(“US, NATO step up threats to Russia over Syria“, World Socialist Web Site)

This was no mistake. The only time a fighter pilot adopts these protocols is when he plans to take down an enemy plane. This was a message, and while it might have been over-the-heads of the politicians and the media but, I assure you, every general in the Turkish High-Command knows what’s it means. This is a wake-up call.  Moscow is indicating that there’s a new sheriff in town and that Turkey had better behave itself or there’s going to be trouble. There’s not going to be any US-Turkey no-fly zone over North Syria, there’s not going to be any aerial attacks on Syrian sites from the Turkish side of the border, and there certainly is not going to be any ground invasion of Turkish troops into Syria.  The Russian Aerospace Defence Forces now control the skies over Syria and they are determined to defend Syria’s sovereign borders. That’s the message. Period.

This is a good example of how “preemption” can actually prevent conflicts rather than starting them. By firing a shot over Turkey’s bow, Moscow has dampened Erdogan’s plan to annex part of N. Syria and declare it a “safe zone”. Turkey will have to scrap that plan now realizing that any attempt to seize-and-hold Syrian territory will trigger a swift and powerful Russian retaliation. Seen in this light,  Russia’s incursion looks like an extremely effective way to prevent a broader war by simply telegraphing to potential adversaries what they can and can’t do. Simply put: Putin has rewritten the rules of the game in Syria and Erdogan had better comply or else. Here’s more on Turkey from Patrick Cockburn in The Independent:

A Turkish ground invasion into Syria, though still a possibility, would now be riskier with Russian aircraft operating in areas where Turkey would be most likely to launch an incursion.

The danger for the Turks is that they now have two Kurdish quasi-states, one in Syria and one in Iraq, immediately to the south. Worse, the Syrian-Kurdish one…is run by the Democratic Union Party (PYD) which is effectively the Syrian branch of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) which has been fighting the Turkish state since 1984. Any insurgency by the PKK in Kurdish areas in south-east Turkey in future will be strengthened by the fact that the PKK has a de facto state of its own.

It appears that Turkey’s four-year attempt to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad has failed. It is unclear what Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan can do about this since support from Nato is at this stage purely rhetorical. As for Turkey’s relations with Russia, Mr Erdogan says that any attack on Turkey is an attack on Nato and that “if Russia loses a friend like Turkey with whom it has co-operated on many issues, it will lose a lot.” But in Syria, at least, it appears that it is Turkey that is the loser.

(“Russia in Syria: Russian Radar Locks on to Turkish Fighter Jets“, The Unz Review)

Poor Erdogan. He rolled the dice and came up snake-eyes. He figured he could expand his would-be Ottoman Empire into Northern Syria, and now his dream is in a shambles. Should he deploy his warplanes to N Syria and openly challenge the Russian airforce?  No, he’s not that foolish. He’s going to stay on his side of the border, stomp his feet, and lash out at “evil Putin”, but at the end of the day, he’ll do nothing.

And Washington’s not going to do anything either. Yes, Hillary and McCain have been calling for a no-fly zone over Syria, but that’s not going to happen. Putin won’t allow it and neither will the Security Council. And, on what pretext anyway? Is Obama really going to request a no-fly zone on the basis that Putin is killing “moderate” terrorists along with the “extreme” terrorists? That’s not a very compelling argument, in fact, even the American people are having a hard time swallowing that one. If Obama wants something from Putin, he’s going to have sit-down at a bargaining table and hash out a deal. So far, he has refused to do that, because he still thinks regime change is within his grasp. There are signs of this everywhere like this article in Turkey’s Today’s Zaman titled “İncirlik base to increase capacity by 2,250 to accommodate new personnel”:

A tent city within İncirlik has been undergoing reconstruction for modern prefabricated houses, which will host 2,250 US military personnel, the Doğan news agency reported on Friday. During the Gulf War of 1991, a tent city was established to accommodate military personnel serving with Operation Provide Comfort (OPC) and was shut down with the end of the OPC.

On Aug. 20, work began to transform the site of the tent city into a new area named “Patriot Town.” After construction is completed, the İncirlik base will have the largest capacity among the US bases in Europe…

The expansion of the İncirlik base’s capacity comes at a time when Russia has launched the biggest intervention in the Middle East in decades….Moscow’s intervention means the conflict in Syria has been transformed from a proxy war.. into an international conflict in which the world’s main military powers… are directly involved in fighting.

(“İncirlik base to increase capacity by 2,250 to accommodate new personnel“, Today’s Zaman)

This article smacks of US ambitions in the Middle East. As readers can plainly see,  Washington is gearing up for another war just like it did in 1991.  And the US air war is going to be launched from “Patriot Town” at Incirlik just like we’ve been predicting since July when the deal was finalized. Here’s more background from an article at Hurriyet:

U.S. Air Force Central Command has started deploying search and rescue helicopters and airmen at Turkey’s southeastern Diyarbakır Air Base in order to help with recovery operations in neighboring Iraq and Syria, it has announced….

NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander in Europe and the commander of U.S. European Command, Gen. Phillip Breedlove, has said the mission will be temporary.

“We will be guests of the government of Turkey at Diyarbakir Air Base. There are no plans for a permanent U.S. presence at this location … This marks yet another successful cooperative effort between the Turkish and U.S. militaries,” Breedlove said.

(“US deploys recovery aircraft in Turkey’s southeast“, Hurriyet)

“US Search and rescue helicopters” just a couple miles from Turkey’s southeastern border?

Yep.  In other words,  if an F-16 is shot down somewhere over Syria while trying to impose an illegal no-fly zone, then– Presto– the search and rescue helicopters are just 20 minutes away.

How convenient.

So you can see that– even though Putin has thrown a wrench in the works–  the Obama team is still moving ahead with its “Topple Assad” plan.  Nothing has changed, the Russian intervention just makes the future much more uncertain which is why frustrated geopolitical strategists, like Zbigniew Brzezinski, have begun to pop-up in the op-ed pages of leading newspapers blasting Putin for sabotaging their plans for regional hegemony. It’s worth noting that Brzezinski is the spiritual godfather of Islamic extremism, the man who figured out how religious nutcases could be used to foment hysteria and advance US geopolitical objectives around the world. Thus, it’s only natural that Brzezinski would want to offer his advice now in a desperate effort to avoid a legacy of failure and disgrace. Check out this clip from Politico:

The United States should threaten to retaliate if Russia does not stop attacking U.S. assets in Syria, former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote in a Financial Times op-ed published Sunday, urging “strategic boldness,” with American credibility in the Middle East and the region itself at stake….And if Russia continues to pursue non-ISIL targets, the U.S. should retaliate, he added.

“In these rapidly unfolding circumstances the U.S. has only one real option if it is to protect its wider stakes in the region: to convey to Moscow the demand that it cease and desist from military actions that directly affect American assets,” he said.

(“Brzezinski: Obama should retaliate if Russia doesn’t stop attacking U.S. assets“, Politico)

The people who Brzezinski breezily refers to as “American assets” in Syria are terrorists. It’s that simple. Putin doesn’t distinguish between the “moderate” terrorists and the “radical” terrorists, the good terrorists and the bad terrorists. It’s a joke. They’re all in the same pool and they’re all going to meet the same fate. They all have to be rooted out, apprehended or killed. End of story.

By tweaking the war on terror narrative in a way that supports some, but condemns others, the Obama administration has backed themselves into an ideological cul de sac from which there is no way out. What they are doing is wrong and they know it is wrong. And that’s why it’s going to be so difficult to make the case for war. In a recent “must see” interview, Putin called out Obama on this very point. Here’s what he said:

President Obama frequently mentions the threat of ISIS. Well, who on earth armed them? And who created the political climate that facilitated the current situation?  Who delivered arms to the area? Do you really not know who is fighting in Syria? They’re mercenaries mostly. They are paid money. Mercenaries work for whatever side pays more. We even know how much they are paid. We know they fight for awhile and then see that someone else pays a little more, so they go there…..

The US says “We must support the civilized, democratic opposition in Syria”. So they support them, arm them, and then they join ISIS. Is it impossible for the US to think one step ahead?  We do not support this kind of policy at all. We think it’s wrong.

(Putin explains who started ISIS, you tube, 1:38 to 4:03)

See? Everyone knows what’s going on. Barack Obama is not going to initiate a confrontation with Russia to defend a fundamentally immoral CIA program that has gone south.  He will, however, do what the US always does when dealing with an adversary that can actually defend itself.  He’s going to hector, harass, threaten, demean, demonize, ridicule, and bully. He might launch another attack on the ruble, or fiddle with oil prices or impose more economic sanctions. But he’s not going to start a war with Russia,  that’s just not going to happen.

But don’t give up hope just yet, after all, there is a silver lining to this fiasco, and all of the main players know exactly what it is.

It’s called Geneva. Geneva is the endgame.

Geneva is the UN-backed road map for ending the war in Syria. Its provisions allow for the “establishment of a transitional governing body”, the  “participation of all groups… in a meaningful national dialogue,” and “free and fair multi-party elections.”

The treaty is straightforward and uncontroversial. The one sticking point, is whether Assad will be allowed to participate in the transitional government or not.

Putin says “Yes”.  Obama says “No”.

Putin is going to win this battle. Eventually, the administration will cave in and withdraw their demand that Assad step down. Their plans for regime change through the use of jihadi-proxies will have failed, and Putin will have moved the Middle East one step closer to a lasting peace and genuine security.

That’s the silver lining and that’s how the war in Syria will end.

Bravo, Putin.

The sheer hubris of a bully would not allow him to acknowledge defeat and give up a botched plan to loot, hurt or murder. Instead, in the face of failure or a precarious position, he would try to wiggle his way out of the adverse situation in order to regain strength and prepare for another attack in an opportune time.

The U.S. call in recent weeks for negotiations in Syria follows a similar pattern: in the face of the debacle of its policy in Syria, it is now signaling to shift the gears of its war machine from the plan to overthrow the Syrian government to “negotiations and a political settlement”!

From the time it embarked on the criminal mission of regime change in Syria nearly five years ago, the U.S. and its puppet and mercenary allies rejected all attempts to negotiate with the government of President Bashar Al-Assad or its geopolitical allies Russia and Iran. Now, all of a sudden, it is calling for negotiation with these same adversaries in pursuit of “de-escalation” and a political deal that would not include President Assad’s immediate removal from power. The long-term strategic goal of removing him from power, however, remains unchanged; it is simply postponed. It would be fulfilled consequent to a negotiated political settlement, or at the end of a “transitional period.”

Why the change of tactics? What prompted the shift of the gears of the war juggernaut?

A major factor behind the Obama administration’s call for negotiation is the disastrous failure of its policy to overthrow the government of President Assad by proxy forces that are armed, trained and funded by the U.S. and its allies. While the number of its mercenary forces, the so-called “moderate” opposition, is dwindling to literally a handful, the ranks and reach of the Frankenstein (the ISIS) that the U.S. and its partners have created are expanding. And while the anti-Assad coalition has recently been significantly weakened following the refugee crisis and hesitations of European “partners” to continue with the agenda of regime change in Syria, the position of the Assad government and its Russian, Iranian and Hezbollah supporters has been strengthened.

These humiliating developments were recently acknowledged by (among others) the head of U.S. Central Command General Lloyd Austin in a congressional testimony in which he admitted that a year after it was launched at a cost of $500 million, the Pentagon’s program to recruit and train a “moderate” U.S. proxy fighting force in Syria had been able to field a grand total of “four or five” fighters inside the country.

Another factor behind the Obama administration’s call for negotiations has been the realization that even if the Assad government is overthrown, the successor powers would most probably be much worse than those now roaming Libya following the criminal overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi.

A further factor that has contributed to the U.S. readiness for negotiation is the refugee crisis. The crisis—The heart breaking scenes of death and desperation, the daunting task of resettling the refugees and the resulting tensions that have been created in Europe and other “host” countries—has effectively exposed to the entire world the brutality of the U.S. policy of regime change as the culprit of the incalculable disaster.

An additional contributory factor to the U.S. call for negotiations seems to be its plan or hope to coopt the Western-oriented government of President Rouhani of Iran, thereby weakening or undermining the support for the Syrian government. Considering the Rouhani administration’s eagerness to please the U.S. and other Western powers, this is not a far-fetched hope or plan on the part of the United States.

The U.S. claims that its direct interference in Syria nearly five years ago was prompted by the defense of a “democratic” uprising against the “dictatorial” rule of the Assad government. Irrefutable evidence shows, however, that plans of regime change in Syria (and elsewhere in the region) had been drawn much earlier. Let us take a brief look at those earlier plans of regime change.

A Brief Historical Background

Under the two-camp, or two-bloc, world order of the Cold War era most of the world counties were divided between the U.S. and Soviet camps. Accordingly, a number of the Arab/Muslim countries in the broader Middle East and North Africa that aspired to independence from colonial/imperial domination of their countries aligned themselves with the Soviet Union, overthrew the old monarchical allies of Western powers, adopted the Soviet “Non-capitalist” or “Arab socialist” paths of economic development, and instituted extensive welfare state programs. These included Syria and Iraq under the Baathist regimes, Egypt under the late Jamal Abdel Nasser and Libya under Muammar Gaddafi.

Other Muslim/Arab regime, however, survived the anti-colonial, anti-imperial national liberation movements of the 1920s–1960s years and continued to remain in the U.S. camp. These included all of the current U.S. allies in the region, as well as Iran until the 1979 revolution, which overthrew the U.S.–allied monarch, known as the Shah of Iran.

Taking advantage of the Soviet support, the “enlightened dictators” in Damascus, Baghdad and Tripoli implemented extensive nationalizations of the infrastructural or strategic industries and put in place wide-ranging social safety-net welfare programs. They also challenged the imperialistic agendas of Western powers in the region. In addition, they challenged the expansionist policies of the Zionist regime in Israel and called for its withdrawal from the occupied Palestinian territories. These pro-Soviet modernizing nationalist leaders also often poked fun at the unreformed, incorrigible kingdoms and sheikhdoms such as Saudi Arabia for being historically obsolete and politically dependent on the imperial Powers of the West.

Not surprisingly, all these three groups of countries—the Western powers, their Arab/Muslim allies in the region and the colonial settler state of Israel—intensely detested the pro-Soviet nationalist leaders ruling Syria, Iraq and Libya. However, they could not do anything about it as long as the Soviet Union was in existence.

Also not surprisingly, soon after the demise of the Soviet Union, that is, in the early 1990s, the U.S. began to draw plans of replacing these “unfriendly,” “rogue states” with  “friendly” or “moderate” ones—hence the official entry of the terms “rogue states” and/or “regime change” into the lexicon of the U.S. foreign policy.

The demise of the Soviet Union and demands for the so-called peace dividends in the United States, that is, demands for the conversion of a portion of the military to non-military social spending, provided an added urgency for the beneficiaries of war dividends to find or invent new “threats” in place of the “communist threat” of the Cold War era in order to fend off peace dividends. Beneficiaries of war and militarism, the military-industrial-intelligence-security complex, argued that the new, post-Cold War threats came from “rogue states,” “global terrorism,” “enemies of democracy,” and “radical Islam” which, they contended, were more “dangerous” than the communist threat of the Soviet era, as they were unpredictable and unreliable.

Early in 1990, the White House unveiled a new National Security Strategy before the Congress that focused on “unpredictable turbulent spots in the Third World” as new sources of attention for the U.S. military power in the post-Cold War era: “In the new era, we foresee that our military power will remain an essential underpinning of the global balance . . . that the more likely demands for the use of our military forces may not involve the Soviet Union and may be in the Third World, where new capabilities and approaches may be required” [1].

Proponents of war and militarism unabashedly offered the strategy of regime change, especially in the Middle East and North Africa, as an effective way to counter the “threats” of the post-Soviet multi-polar world.

In the immediate aftermath of the Cold War, a number of militaristic think tanks (such as The American Enterprise Institute, Project for the New American Century, America Israel Public Affairs Committee, Washington Institute for Near East Policy, National Institute for Public Policy, and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs) published a number of policy papers that clearly and forcefully advocated plans for border change and/or regime change in the Middle East.

For example, in 1996 an influential Israeli think tank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, sponsored and published a policy document titled “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm” which, among other things, presented a plan whereby Israel would “shape its strategic environment,” beginning with the removal of Saddam Hussein and the installation of a Hashemite monarchy in Baghdad, to serve as a first step toward eliminating the anti-Israeli governments of Syria, Lebanon and Iran [2].

It follows from this brief historical overview that Powerful beneficiaries of militarism need war and military adventures abroad in order to win the financial war at home, that is, the war over budgetary allocation of tax dollars, or the national/Federal budget.

However, while the beneficiaries of war dividends need military adventures, wars of regime change and geopolitical convulsions, they also need to keep such wars and military adventures manageable, that is, to keep them under control at the local or regional levels so that they would not become cataclysmic world wars on the scale of WW I or WW II, as this would destroy or paralyze global financial/economic markets, thereby hurting the war-mongers’ own vital interests.

This explains the occasional imperialist calls for negotiations with their nemeses when their wars of choice threaten to get out of hand and place global markets and international business in jeopardy—hence, the recent U.S. call for negotiations in Syria.

The Purpose of Negotiations

As already noted, the United States’ new approach to the war in Syria is essentially tactical: the long-term or ultimate strategy of regime change remains unchanged.

Reflecting the purely tactical nature of the change in the approach to Syria, the New York Times reported on 28 September 2015 that “There are intense discussions underway on how long that transitional period should be and how many in Mr. Assad’s close circle would have to go, several United Nations Security Council diplomats said.”

In a similar vein, President Obama recently indicated (in his 90-minute talk with President Putin in New York) that while any long-term arrangement had to include the removal of Assad from power, he can for now remain as president during an unspecified “transitional period.”

In essence, what President Obama is asking President Assad (through the proposed negotiations) boils down to this: “since we could not or cannot overthrow your government by force, we will put off that task for now until we are ready to do so at a later date. In the meantime, we can negotiate and explore various ways of how best to accomplish this”!

Although no details of the proposed negotiations are revealed, one can fairly confidently surmise what the U.S. would offer or try to accomplish during the envisioned negotiations and/or transitional period. It would most probably offer a period of ceasefire, or “cessation of hostilities,” during which time the Syrian government forces would be asked to pull back from their strategic or advantageous positions at the war front. However, while asking government forces to de-escalate, the U.S. and its allies would not agree to disarm and disband the various mercenary groups they have been training, arming and funding.

At the same time the U.S. would also try to undermine or weaken the Russian and Iranian support for the Assad government by promising them some vague or unspecific economic sanctions relief. This strategy could prove to be somewhat successful as both President Rouhani of Iran and President Putin of Russia, especially President Rouhani, seem to be quite susceptible to falling for such promises or prospects of sanctions relief.

In the meantime, as the Syrian government and its supporters are kept busy with these and similar agendas of negotiations, the U.S. and it allies would surreptitiously regroup, reinforce and prepare for another attack—an attack that would more likely focus on the use of “soft-power” tactics or tools to overthrow the government of President Assad. Such an attack could take the form of a color-coded revolution, a bogus elections ritual funded and orchestrated from abroad, and the like.

That’s the essence or the goal of the proposed U.S. negotiations. And that has, indeed, been the pattern of its negotiations ever since it supplanted the British imperialism as the world’s bully.

Ismael Hossein-zadeh is Professor Emeritus of Economics (Drake University). He is the author of Beyond Mainstream Explanations of the Financial Crisis (Routledge 2014), The Political Economy of U.S. Militarism (Palgrave–Macmillan 2007), and the Soviet Non-capitalist Development: The Case of Nasser’s Egypt (Praeger Publishers 1989). He is also a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion.

References

[1] Chalmers Johnson, The Sorrows of Empire (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2004), pp. 20-21.

[2] Stephen J. Sniegoski, “The War on Iraq: Conceived in Israel,” http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_conc1.htm; see also Ismael Hossein-zadeh, The Political Economy of U.S. Militarism (Palgrave-Macmillan 2007), Chapter 6. 

Netanyahu’s premeditated state terror against defenseless Palestinians continues. Multiple Israeli provocations began things. Palestinians responded in self-defense as expected and justified. Israel calls it terrorism.

The latest incident involved murdering six Gazan youths on Friday, wounding 60 others, 10 in serious condition.

Scores of Palestinians protested Israeli West Bank violence by throwing stones across the heavily guarded barbed wire fencing, separating Gaza from Israel.

Israeli soldiers responded with live fire, committing cold-blooded murder. Clashes continued Fridaythroughout the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

The Palestinian Red Crescent Society (PRCS) reported 1,640 Palestinians injured so far – 101 from live fire, hundreds more from rubber-coated steel bullets, many from toxic tear gas inhalation. Another 31 bystanders were brutally beaten by soldiers.

Separately, Israeli border police murdered a Palestinian youth. Hours earlier, soldiers shot and killed a Palestinian woman. Israel claimed it foiled an attempted stabbing incident. Video footage showed she threatened no one.

At an emergency Thursday evening press conference, Netanyahu declared war on Palestine, vowing tougher tactics than already against “inciters and attackers,” blaming Palestinians for Israeli crimes.

Saying Hamas and PA officials instigated “wild and mendacious incitement,” ignoring his own mandate, ordering state terror unleashed throughout the Occupied Territories.

Palestinian Stop the Wall activists said “rebellion unfolding in the West Bank and increasingly across the Green Line is a direct response to Israel’s intensified ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people and its almost seven decades old regime of occupation, apartheid and settler colonialism.”

“(M)urderous attacks by Israeli forces and settlers” continue. On Friday, tens of thousands of Palestinians filled Ramallah’s entire city center for Muhannad Halabi’s funeral – murdered by Israeli soldiers in cold blood.

Slogans were shouted condemning Oslo and urging a third intifada – Palestinians saying they’ll sacrifice and march in millions for justice. Palestinian women joined the fight with their male counterparts.

Justifiable Palestinian anger is more intense than any time since the early days of the Second Intifada. It’s too early to know if a third began.

No known leadership is directing ongoing resistance. Lacking it may cause activist energy to wane. For now, it remains intense, thousands of Palestinians involved throughout the Territories. Many more thousands may join them. A bloodbath may follow. Israel is notoriously merciless, like its US paymaster.

The New York Times is notoriously pro-Israeli, disdainful of Palestinian rights. Its latest headline shows it, saying “Israeli Officials Struggle to Contain Spate of Violent Attacks” – instead of accurately accusing Israel of inciting violence, murdering and brutalizing Palestinians responding in self-defense.

Jodi Rudoren reports from Jerusalem, blaming Palestinians for Israeli crimes, substituting government and IDF press releases for legitimate journalism, accusing Palestinians of “a spate of…stabbings” instead of saying they threatened no one. Israeli soldiers and police murdered them in cold blood, using live fire on defenseless civilians.

She quoted Israeli officials calling for tougher crackdowns than already – at the same time, citing aFriday Yediot Aharonot propaganda piece, claiming 17 Jews were detained on suspicion of involvement in terrorist attacks.

Rubbish! Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon admitted knowing which settlers killed three Dawabsha family members by immolation but refuses to arrest them.

They’re free to kill again like many other Zionist zealots infesting Israel’s illegal settlements, protected by soldiers and police, allowed to commit near-daily violence and vandalism against defenseless Palestinians including young children, virtually never arrested or held accountable for their crimes.

B’Tselem has video footage documenting Israeli soldiers accompanying Yitzhar settlement zealots rampaging violently – attacking Palestinians freely, vandalizing their property.

Soldiers protecting them “used crowd-control weapons against” victimized Palestinians, said B’Tselem, calling the incident “(t)he most blatant example of the tacit support of the settler rampage by forces on the ground, as well as the shirking of the military’s obligation to provide protection (for) Palestinians…”

It filmed another “large scale settler attack,” involving setting Palestinian agricultural land ablaze and vandalizing olive trees. Soldiers witnessing the crime did nothing to stop it – instead “fired tear gas and rubber coated bullets at the Palestinian youths who came to the olive groves to defend their property.”

Western media largely ignore Israeli violence, blaming Palestinians instead for instigating it – instead of explaining they respond in self-defense. They’re not militants or terrorist. They’re viciously persecuted people fighting for the lives and welfare.

In a separate article, Rudoren disgracefully accused “Hamas Islamists (of) egg(ing) on the attackers.” They’re viciously persecuted human beings courageously fighting for their rights against one of the world’s most ruthless regimes – fully supported by fascist neocons running America.

Rudoren quoted IDF spokesman Lt. Col. Peter Lerner’s Big Lie, claiming “(o)nly after firing warning shots in the air (do) we fire at the main instigators to get them to stop.”

Fact: Israel uses live fire indiscriminately against unarmed Palestinian civilians – aiming for upper body areas with intent to kill or seriously injure. ThroughFriday, over 100 Palestinians sustained bullet wounds, many in serious condition.

At least 14 Palestinians were killed, including women and children. Video evidence showed soldiers viciously beating Palestinian youths.

Teenager Shrouk Dowiyyat is one of many Palestinian victims – shot by an Israeli settler, now in a coma, required surgery to try saving her. She remains in critical condition.

Israel outrageously blames her for the incident, saying she’ll be tried in military court when out of coma. Palestinians are unjustly accused of terrorist attacks – Israel’s invented pretext for violent rampaging and murdering them in cold blood.

Obama’s silence is deafening, his full support for Israeli viciousness a high crime against humanity.

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 1PMCentral time plus two prerecorded archived programs.

Next to secret warfare, new militarism has involved a selected range of major and overt “quickie” interventions…

Western militarism constitutes, next to climate change and poverty, the world’s greatest scourge. As internationally acclaimed Canadian academic Michel Chossudovsky has pointed out, NATO’s aggressive expansion into Eurasia and the Middle East has brought about the possibility of a “World War Three scenario.”

Since the Second World War, the USA and UK have deployed troops nearly every year: Between 1950 and 1991 the USA used or threatened to use force about 500 times. The 1982 Falklands War constituted the 88th deployment of British troops since 1945, in a total of 51 countries.

Most of these interventions have occurred in secret. Traditional militarism of the type seen during World War II and the Vietnam War posed various problems for Western elites. During World War II, the centralisation of the economy and mass conscript participation helped to advance the power of organised labour. As a consequence, the “free-enterprise” economic model preferred by corporate business elites came under challenge from progressive working class activism. During the Vietnam War, broad mass movements exposed the aims and effects of Western militarism and challenged the foundations of the social order. The “New Left” exposed the USA as a rogue aggressor state. For Western elites, this became to be known as the “Vietnam Syndrome.” As a counter measure, new militarist strategies were implemented in order to avoid extensive military adventures and their socio-political repercussions.

At the heart of what scholar Richard Keeble, in his book Secret State, Silent Press, terms “new militarism” has been the Low Intensity Conflict (LIC) strategy. LIC involves the use of special-forces, secret services, proxy armies, air raids and modernised war technology together with diplomatic, economic, trade, social and cultural forms of warfare which are largely applied in secrecy. According to Keeble, LIC was “developed in response to the perceived threats to vulnerable US strategic interests,” to avoid unpopular “mass participatory warfare” and act without declaring war in order to keep political aspects and gruesome details about conflicts off the public agenda.

As John Stockwell has argued in his book The Praetorian Guard, the CIA had already by 1990 been secretly involved in 3,000 major and 10,000 minor operations, which were “all illegal, and all designed to disrupt, destabilize, or modify the activities of other countries.”

Examples of post-Cold War LIC policies include the 1990s sanction regime imposed on Iraq as well as US/Coalition “counter-insurgency” policies during the occupation that fuelled a Sunni/Shia civil war and the rise of ISIS. Another more recent case of LIC constitutes Western support for “rebels” in Syria and Libya which also strengthened ISIS and further led to the fragmentation and destruction of the region. Remote controlled warfare, such as US President Barack Obama’s Drone programme, is also an essential part of LIC.

Next to secret warfare, new militarism has involved a selected range of major and overt “quickie” interventions against Iraq, Somalia, the Former Republic of Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Libya among other countries. These constituted manufactured, media-hyped “operations” against vulnerable enemy states or movements who were depicted as existential threats. According to Keeble “these ‘operations’ are then spectacular, essentially PR, events providing the theatre in which the US and its allies can claim their so-called ‘victories’” – despite the devastating consequences for the target countries which have largely been ignored by the mainstream news media.

In 2012, annual military spending in the USA had increased to about $1 Trillion (see Robert W. McChesney, Digital Disconnect). Western militarism has been driven by this war economy. The funds invested in the military-industrial complex must be redistributed. The vast military machine needs to be dismantled. This can only be achieved by the concerted and peaceful efforts of an international grass roots movement.

As US attempts to extort a settlement in Syria built on regime-change, US senators and generals conspire to arm and back a new terrorist army aimed at Iran. 

An October 7, 2015 hearing before the US Senate Committee on Armed Forces (SASC) titled, “Iranian Influence in Iraq and the Case of Camp Liberty,” served as a reaffirmation of America’s commitment to back the terrorist organization Mujahedeen e-Khalq (MEK) and specifically 2,400 members of the organization being harbored on a former US military base in Iraq.

Providing testimony was former US Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, former US Marine Corps Commandant and former Supreme Allied Commander Europe General James Jones, USMC (Ret.), and Colonel Wesley Martin, US Army (Ret.).

All three witnesses made passionate pleas before a room full of nodding senators for America to continue backing not only MEK terrorists currently harbored on a former US military base in Iraq, but to back groups like MEK inside of Iran itself to threaten the very survival of the government in Tehran.

In the opening remarks by Lieberman, he stated:

It was not only right and just that we took them off the foreign terrorist organization list, but the truth is now that we ought to be supportive of them and others in opposition to the government in Iran more than we have been.

Lieberman would also state (emphasis added):

Here’s my point Mr. Chairman, we ought to compartmentalize that agreement also, that nuclear agreement. We ought to put it over there, and not let it stop us from confronting what they’re doing in Syria. Continuing the sanctions for human rights violations in Iran in support of terrorism. And here’s the point I want to make about the National Council of Resistance of Iran and other democratic opposition groups that are Iranian – we ought to be supporting them. 

This regime in Tehran is hopeless. It’s not going to change. There’s no evidence … every piece of evidence says the contrary. So I hope we can find a way, we used to do this not so long ago, supporting opposition groups in Iran. They deserve our support, and actually they would constitute a form of pressure on the government in Tehran that would unsettle them as much as anything else we could do because it would threaten the survival of the regime which from every objective indicator I can see is a very unpopular regime in Iran. 

The United States, unrepentant regarding the arc of chaos, mass murder, terrorism, civilizational destruction it has created stretching from Libya to Syria, now seeks openly to extend it further into Iran using precisely the same tactics – the use of terrorist proxies – to dismantle and destroy Iranian society.

While Lieberman, General Jones, and Colonel Martin all failed categorically to accurately describe the true nature of the MEK terrorists they seek to support in a proxy war with Iran, the US policy papers these three lobbyists are reading from have done so and in great detail.

MEK is a Listed Terror Organization for a Reason

MEK has carried out decades of brutal terrorist attacks, assassinations, and espionage against the Iranian government and its people, as well as targeting Americans including the attempted kidnapping of US Ambassador Douglas MacArthur II, the attempted assassination of USAF Brigadier General Harold Price, the successful assassination of Lieutenant Colonel Louis Lee Hawkins, the double assassinations ofColonel Paul Shaffer and Lieutenant Colonel Jack Turner, and the successful ambush and killing of American Rockwell International employees William Cottrell, Donald Smith, and Robert Krongard.

Image: MEK terrorists in Iraq, 1997. Saddam Hussein used MEK terrorists to wage proxy war on Iran. Ironically despite accusing Hussein of state-sponsored terrorism for just such a policy, the US eagerly inherited the terrorist organization and has since then aspired to use MEK in a similar fashion.

Admissions to the deaths of the Rockwell International employees can be found within a report written by former US State Department and Department of Defense official Lincoln Bloomfield Jr. on behalf of the lobbying firm Akin Gump in an attempt to dismiss concerns over MEK’s violent past and how it connects to its current campaign of armed terror – a testament to the depths of depravity from which Washington and London lobbyists operate.

To this day MEK terrorists have been carrying out attacks inside of Iran killing political opponents, attacking civilian targets, as well as carrying out the US-Israeli program of targeting and assassinating Iranian scientists. MEK terrorists are also suspected of handling patsies in recent false flag operations carried out in India, Georgia, and Thailand, which have been ham-handedly blamed on the Iranian government.

MEK is described by Council on Foreign Relations Senior Fellow Ray Takeyh as a “cult-like organization” with “totalitarian tendencies.” While Takeyh fails to expand on what he meant by “cult-like” and “totalitarian,” an interview with US State Department-run Radio Free Europe-Radio Liberty reported that a MEK Camp Ashraf escapee claimed the terrorist organization bans marriage, using radios, the Internet, and holds many members against their will with the threat of death if ever they are caught attempting to escape.

Not once is any of this backstory mentioned in the testimony of any of the witnesses before the senate hearing, defiling the memories of those who have been murdered and otherwise victimized by this terrorist organization. The de-listing of MEK in 2012 as a foreign terrorist organization by the US State Department is another indictment of the utter lack of principles the US clearly hides behind rather than in any way upholds as a matter of executing foreign policy.

American Support of Anti-Iranian Mercenaries a Prelude to Wider War 

MEK has already afforded the US the ability to wage a low-intensity conflict with Iran. MEK’s role in doing so was eagerly discussed in 2009, several years before it was even de-listed as a terrorist organization by the US State Department in the Brooking Institution’s policy paper “Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy Toward Iran” (PDF).

The report stated (emphasis added):

Perhaps the most prominent (and certainly the most controversial) opposition group that has attracted attention as a potential U.S. proxy is the NCRI (National Council of Resistance of Iran), the political movement established by the MEK (Mujahedin-e Khalq). Critics believe the group to be undemocratic and unpopular, and indeed anti-American.

In contrast, the group’s champions contend that the movement’s long-standing opposition to the Iranian regime and record of successful attacks on and intelligence-gathering operations against the regime make it worthy of U.S. support. They also argue that the group is no longer anti-American and question the merit of earlier accusations. Raymond Tanter, one of the group’s supporters in the United States, contends that the MEK and the NCRI are allies for regime change in Tehran and also act as a useful proxy for gathering intelligence. The MEK’s greatest intelligence coup was the provision of intelligence in 2002 that led to the discovery of a secret site in Iran for enriching uranium.  

Despite its defenders’ claims, the MEK remains on the U.S. government list of foreign terrorist organizations. In the 1970s, the group killed three U.S. officers and three civilian contractors in Iran. During the 1979-1980 hostage crisis, the group praised the decision to take America hostages and Elaine Sciolino reported that while group leaders publicly condemned the 9/11 attacks, within the group celebrations were widespread.

Undeniably, the group has conducted terrorist attacks—often excused by the MEK’s advocates because they are directed against the Iranian government. For example, in 1981, the group bombed the headquarters of the Islamic Republic Party, which was then the clerical leadership’s main political organization, killing an estimated 70 senior officials. More recently, the group has claimed credit for over a dozen mortar attacks, assassinations, and other assaults on Iranian civilian and military targets between 1998 and 2001. At the very least, to work more closely with the group (at least in an overt manner), Washington would need to remove it from the list of foreign terrorist organizations.

Proof that Brookings’ policy paper was more than a mere theoretical exercise, in 2012 MEK would indeed be de-listed by the US State Department with support for the terrorist organization expanded. The fact that former senators and retired generals representing well-funded corporate think tanks even just this week are plotting to use MEK to overthrow the Iranian government should raise alarms that other criminality conspired within the pages of this policy paper may still well be in play.

Lieberman himself suggests that proxy war and regime-change should proceed regardless of the so-called “nuclear deal” – with the 2009 Brookings report itself having stated that (emphasis added):

…any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context—both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to minimize the blowback from it. The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer—one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians “brought it on themselves” by refusing a very good deal. 

Clearly, both Brookings in 2009, and Lieberman this week have conspired to use the so-called “Iranian Nuclear Deal” as cover for betrayal and regime change.

For those wondering why Russia has intervened in Syria in the matter that it has, it should be plainly obvious. The US has no intention to stop in Syria. With Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya behind it, and Syria within its clutches, it is clear that Iran is next, and inevitably this global blitzkrieg will not stop until it reaches Moscow and Beijing.

Image: Russia is not in Syria to merely “prop up” the Syrian government – it is in Syria to stop a global blitzkrieg that has consumed several nations before Syria, and will consume all nations after Syria, including Russia itself.

Even as the US adamantly denies the obvious – that is has intentionally created and is currently perpetuating Al Qaeda, the so-called “Islamic State,” and other terrorist groups in Syria, it is openly conspiring to use another army of terrorists against neighboring Iran, live before a US Senate hearing. Should the US succeed in Syria, it would not be the end of the conflict, but only the end of the beginning of a much wider world war.

The 2015 Canadian federal election is right around the corner.  On October 19, the incumbent Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, will either be voted out of power or re-elected by the Canadian populace.

There are good, bad, and ugly features in every political system. The prudent voter is aware of this reality. However, mainstream news in Canada does not incite prudence; a great deal of media outlets have omitted to mention the coverup and fraud instigated by the Conservative Party in the 2011 election, not to mention its complicity with the US war agenda in the Middle East. The Canadian media in this regard is in the business of concealing a corrupt system that merely buys and sells pseudo-politicians.

Global Research brings to the attention of its readers a selection of articles that highlight these examples of political corruption in the country.

SELECTED ARTICLES:

Harper’s Conservatives and Canada’s 2011 Voter Suppression Scandal. “Suppressing Our Knowledge of Voter Suppression”

By Prof Michael Keefer, October 10, 2015

That 2011 voter-suppression scandal, the “robocalls” fraud: it was all smoke and mirrors, right? So how could Harper’s Conservatives have organized a fraud that never happened? 

Canada: The 2011 Voter Suppression Fraud Instigated by Harper Conservatives, Gravely Underreported (Part 2)

By Prof Michael Keefer, October 10 2015

Next week, October 19, Canadians go the polls. It is important for Canadian voters be fully aware of what is known and documented, namely that Conservative Party and the outgoing Prime minister of Canada Stephen Harper were involved in a carefully engineered rigging of the 2011 parliamentary elections.

Canada’s Elections: PR Strategist Lynton Crosby Retained by Stephen Harper

By Binoy Kampmark, October 08, 2015

Lynton Crosby has a full schedule. He is the modern electoral PR hitman for parties in dire straits. He is hired to stir the pot of resentment and undermine hopes for change. His very existence suggests that democracies are shadows of their actual function, operating on traditional platforms of populism when required.

Taking the Leap: Climate Policy and the Canadian Election

Global Research News Hour episode 114

By Michael Welch and Dahr Jamail, October 01, 2015

The warning signs of abrupt climate disruption are evident to anyone willing to look…Given the gravity of the situation, and the stakes for humanity, Canada’s policy on addressing the climate catastrophe warrants serious attention in the country’s federal election. Sadly, none of the major political parties appear to do much more than offer lip service in the face of a global dilemma that threatens the future of humanity.

Note: This article was originally published in 2014.

On occasion a reader will ask if I can give readers some good news.  The answer is: not unless I lie to you like “your” government and the mainstream media do.  If you want faked “good news,” you need to retreat into The Matrix.  In exchange for less stress and worry, you will be led unknowingly into financial ruin and nuclear armageddon.

If you want to be forewarned, and possibly prepared, for what “your” government is bringing you, and have some small chance of redirecting the course of events, read and support this site.  It is your site.  I already know these things.  I write for you.

The neoconservatives, a small group of warmongers strongly allied with the military/industrial complex and Israel, gave us Granada and the Contras affair in Nicaragua. President Reagan fired them, and they were prosecuted, but subsequently pardoned by Reagan’s successor, George H.W. Bush.

Ensconced in think tanks and protected by Israeli and military/security complex money, the neoconservatives reemerged in the Clinton administration and engineered the breakup of Yugoslavia, the war against Serbia, and the expansion of NATO to Russia’s borders.

Neoconservatives dominated the George W. Bush regime. They controlled the Pentagon, the National Security Council, the Office of the Vice President, and much else.  Neoconservatives gave us 9/11 and its coverup, the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, the beginning of the destabilizations of Pakistan and Yemen, the U.S. Africa Command, the invasion of South Ossetia by Georgia, the demise of the anti-ABM Treaty, unconstitutional and illegal spying on American citizens without warrants, loss of constitutional protections, torture, and the unaccountability of the executive branch to law, Congress, and the judiciary.  In short, the neoconservatives laid the foundation for dictatorship and for WW III.

The Obama regime held no one accountable for the crimes of the Bush regime, thus creating the precedent that the executive branch is above the law. Instead, the Obama regime prosecuted whistleblowers who told the truth about government crimes.

Neoconservatives remain very influential in the Obama regime.  As examples, Obama appointed neoconservative Susan Rice as his National Security Advisor.  Obama appointed neoconservative Smantha Power as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. Obama appointed neoconservative Victoria Nuland as Assistant Secretary of State. Nuland’s office, working with the CIA and Washington-financed NGOs, organized the U.S. coup in Ukraine.

Neoconservatism is the only extant political ideology.  The ideology is “America uber alles.” Neoconservatives believe that History has chosen the United States to exercise hegemony over the world, thereby making the U.S. “exceptional” and “indispensable.”  Obama himself has declared as much.  This ideology gives neoconservatives tremendous confidence and drive, just as Karl Marx’s conclusion that history had chosen the workers to be the ruling class gave early communists confidence and drive.

This confidence and drive makes the neoconservatives reckless.

To advance their agenda neoconservatives propagandize the populations of the U.S. and Washington’s vassal states.  The presstitutes deliver the neoconservatives’ lies to the unsuspecting public:  Russia has invaded and annexed Ukrainian provinces; Putin intends to reconstitute the Soviet Empire; Russia is a gangster state without democracy; Russia is a threat to the Baltics, Poland, and all of Europe, necessitating a U.S./NATO military buildup on Russia’s borders; China, a Russian ally, must be militarily contained with new U.S. naval and air bases surrounding China and controlling Chinese sea lanes.

The neoconservatives and President Obama have made it completely clear that the U.S. will not accept Russia and China as sovereign countries with economic and foreign policies independent of the interests of Washington.

Russia and China are acceptable only as vassal states, like the UK, Europe, Japan, Canada, and Australia.

Clearly, the neoconservative formula is a formula for the final war.

All of humanity is endangered by a handful of evil men and women ensconced in positions of power in Washington. 

Anti-Russia propaganda has gone into high gear. Putin is the “new Hitler.”

Daniel Zubov reports on a joint conference held by three U.S. think tanks.

The conference blamed Russia for the failures of Washington’s foreign policy. Read this article:  to see how neoconservatives operate in order to control the explanations.  Even Henry Kissinger is under attack for stating the obvious truth that Russia has a legitimate interest in Ukraine, a land long part of Russia and located in Russia’s legitimate sphere of influence.

Since the Clinton regime, Washington has been acting against Russian interests. In his forthcoming book, The Globalization of War:  America’s Long War against Humanity, Professor Michel Chossudovsky presents a realistic appraisal of how close Washington has brought the world to its demise in nuclear war.  This passage is from the Preface:

“The ‘globalization of war’ is a hegemonic project. Major military and covert intelligence operations are being undertaken simultaneously in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and the Far East. The US military agenda combines both major theater operations as well as covert actions geared towards destabilizing sovereign states.

“Under a global military agenda, the actions undertaken by the Western military alliance (US-NATO-Israel) in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Palestine, Ukraine, Syria and Iraq are coordinated at the highest levels of the military hierarchy. We are not dealing with piecemeal military and intelligence operations. The July-August 2014 attack on Gaza by Israeli forces was undertaken in close consultation with the United States and NATO. In turn, the actions in Ukraine and their timing coincided with the onslaught of the attack on Gaza.

“In turn, military undertakings are closely coordinated with a process of economic warfare which consists not only in imposing sanctions on sovereign countries but also in deliberate acts of destabilization of financial and currency markets, with a view to undermining the enemies’ national economies.

“The United States and its allies have launched a military adventure which threatens the future of humanity. As we go to press, US and NATO forces have been deployed in Eastern Europe. US military intervention under a humanitarian mandate is proceeding in sub-Saharan Africa. The US and its allies are threatening China under President Obama’s

‘Pivot to Asia’.

“In turn, military maneuvers are being conducted at Russia’s  doorstep which could lead to escalation. “The US airstrikes initiated in September 2014 directed against Iraq and Syria under the pretext of going after the Islamic State are part of a scenario of military escalation extending from North Africa and the Eastern Mediterranean to Central and South Asia.

The Western military alliance is in an advanced state of readiness.

“And so is Russia.”

As I have often remarked, Americans are an insouciant people.  They are simply unaware.  Suppose they were aware, suppose that the entire population understood the peril, could anything be done, or have the insouciant Americans fallen under the control of the police state that Washington has created?

I don’t think there is much hope from the American people. The American people cannot tell genuine from fake leadership, and the ruling private elites will not permit real leaders to emerge.  Moreover, there is no organized movement in opposition to the neoconservatives.

The hope comes from outside the political system.  The hope is that the House of Cards and rigged markets erected by policymakers for the benefit of the One Percent collapses.  David Stockman regards this outcome as a highly likely one. The collapse that Stockman sees as being on its way is the same collapse about which I have warned.  Moreover, the number of Black Swans which can originate collapse are even more numerous than the ones Stockman correctly identifies.  Some financial organizations are worried about a lack of liquidity in the fixed income (bonds) and derivatives markets.  Barbara Novack, co-chair of Black Rock, is lobbying hard for a derivatives bailout mechanism.

David Stockman’s article is important.  Read it until you understand it, and you will know more than most everyone. http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/12/david-stockman/duck-and-cover%E2%80%A8/

Many will ask:  If the wealth of the One Percent is vulnerable to economic collapse, will war be initiated to protect this wealth and to blame the Russians or Chinese for the hardships that engulf the American population?  My answer is that the kind of collapse that I expect, and that David Stockman, Nomi Prins, Pam Martens, Dave Kranzler, and no doubt others expect, presents government with such social, political, and economic insecurity that organizing for a major war becomes impossible.

Whereas the political impotence of the American people and the vassalage of the Western World impose no constraints on Washington, economic collapse brings revolutions and the demise of the existing order.

As hard as collapse would make it for people to survive, the chances for survival are higher than in the event of nuclear war.

High-level security advisors to US President Barack Obama recommended that the US should withdraw its military forces from Syria and abandon plans of Assad’s resignation, DWN wrote.

 A massive blast has killed at least 30 and injured over 100 more in NATO-member Turkey’s capital of Ankara. The blast appears to have targeted the pro-Kurdish Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP) who was holding a peace rally at the moment of the explosion.

CNN would report in their article, “30 killed in bombing near main train station in Turkey’s capital,” that:

At least one powerful bomb hit near the main train station in the Turkish capital Saturday morning, killing 30 people,authorities said, making it the deadliest attack in Ankara in recent memory.

It would also claim that:

No group has yet claimed responsibility for the attack, though suspicion immediately fell on the ISIS terrorist group or on Kurdish separatists in Turkey. 

Turkey avoided, for quite some time, any conflict with ISIS, perhaps in exchange for the release earlier this year of dozens of Turkish hostages seized in the Iraqi city of Mosul. No details of those negotiations have been released. 

However, Turkey recently changed its stance and allowed the U.S. to launch strikes on ISIS from the Incirlik Air Base in southern Turkey.

While CNN attempts to portray Turkey as holding a generally hostile stance toward the so-called “Islamic State” (ISIS), it finally admits toward the end of its report that:

New reports have said that many Turks have joined ISIS’ ranks and that Turks, many of whom have been recruiting in Ankara, may make up a third of ISIS’ ranks.  (Emphasis added)

Image: Via Germany’s DW – despite Ankara’s attempts to portray itself as an enemy of ISIS, it has intentionally left its borders open, across which flow literally 100’s of supply trucks a day destined for ISIS forces. This explains the otherwise inexplicably vast fighting capacity ISIS has displayed as it fights the combined forces of Syria, Iran, Iraq, and now Russia.

Indeed, with nearly a third of ISIS composed of Turkish terrorists, with Turkey being a regional, even global state-sponsor of terrorism targeting as far afield as China and Thailand, and with Turkey allowing its borders to remain open and feed what is clearly ISIS’ primary supply corridor just north of the Syrian city of Aleppo, it is clear that if “ISIS” was behind the blasts – it was Ankara itself who organized and executed them, and who will attempt to leverage them for maximum benefit.

Terrorism as a Tool: To What End?

The bombing comes just as the US attempts to answer Russia’s recent and expanding anti-terror operation being carried out within Syria with the cooperation of the Syrian government itself, Iran, and Iraq.

The US counterstroke was revealed in the Washington Post’s article, “US abandons Pentagon’s failed rebel-building effort in Syria,” which reported that:

The Obama administration is overhauling its approach to fighting the Islamic State in Syria, abandoning a failed Pentagon effort to build a new ground force of moderate rebels and instead partnering with established rebel groups, officials said Friday.

The Washington Post reveals transparently that American support of “rebels” in Syria is aimed not at ISIS, but admittedly at the Syrian government. The Washington Post also suggests the the US is considering options to provide military protection for these terrorists from Russian military operations. It reported (emphasis added):

The change also reflects growing concern in the Obama administration that Russia’s intervention has complicated the Syrian battlefield and given new life to President Bashar Assad. Russian airstrikes have raised questions about whether and how the U.S. would protect rebel groups it is working with if they are hit by Russian bombs. 

Meanwhile, the CIA has since 2013 trained some 10,000 rebels to fight Assad’s forces. Those groups have made significant progress against strongholds of the Alawites, Assad’s sect, but are now under Russian bombardment. The covert CIA program is the only way the U.S. is taking on Assad militarily.

Clearly instead of actually fighting ISIS which would most effectively be done by simply cutting their supply lines in Turkey running right out of NATO territory, the US plan involves directly confronting the Russian-backed offensive aimed north – which itself seeks to cut ISIS’ supply lines. In order to do so, the US will require a significant commitment from Turkey who itself has proposed and advocated the US policy of establishing “safe havens” also sometimes referred to as “buffer zones” or “free zones” within seized territory in northern Syria. However, Turkey has lacked the justification and internal political support to do so.

Image: The US and its ally Turkey would have the world believe “accidental” arm transfers have sustained ISIS’ otherwise inexplicably vast fighting capacity – “accidents” including the transfer of scores of brand new Toyota trucks by the US State Department now in the hands of ISIS fighters.

The bombing may have possibly been a means of justifying direct Turkish involvement in Syria under the guise of retaliating against ISIS, all while establishing the long-planned “safe haven” to preserve ISIS’ primary supply corridor, check Russian military operations, and from there, expand toward the division, destruction, and eventual overthrow of Syria as a nation-state.

It should be noted that those targeted by the explosion are in fact linked to Kurdish groups the Turkish government is currently also waging war on, in addition to its proxy war with Syria.

The true culprits behind the bombing in Ankara may never be revealed – because the use of violence is so widespread among many of Turkey’s prominent political factions. However, how the terrorist attack is leveraged, and for whom it ends up benefiting the most will surely reveal the primary suspects. If “ISIS” claims responsibility or is blamed, suspicion will be raised regarding the current government’s direct

It is reported today that: ‘Tensions have surged in 11 days of violence in which four Israelis and 17 Palestinians ­ including several Palestinians shot by police, have been killed in Jerusalem, the Israeli­-occupied West Bank, Gaza and in Israeli cities.’

This violent unrest has been provoked by the Israeli government’s apparent attempt to change the long-established and sensitive, religious control by Muslim elders of the al­-Aqsa mosque compound, Islam’s third holiest shrine. This action has clearly been pre­meditated by a Likud government with full knowledge of the inevitable consequences.

One point is certain: until there is a regime change in Israel to an administration that will genuinely sue for peace ­ then there is an inevitability that there will be a new regional conflict that will escalate beyond anyone’s control. The dangers ­ not only to the region but also to Europe, are too disastrous to contemplate.

Israel’s mentor, military supplier, funder and political principal, the United States, must intervene now to avoid what can be a cataclysmic catastrophe in the Holy City, and the Middle East, that will make ISIL almost an irrelevance.

Russian warplanes in Syria have bombed 29 terrorist field camps and other facilities of the militant group Islamic State in the past 24 hours, the Russian Defense Ministry reported.

En sus discursos públicos, la presidenta de la Reserva Federal, Janet Yellen, ha evitado tocar los graves problemas que padece la economía estadounidense. Cuando a mediados de septiembre el Comité Federal de Mercado Abierto (FOMC, por sus siglas en inglés) tomó la decisión de mantener la tasa de interés de los fondos federales (‘federal funds rate’) entre cero y 0,25 por ciento, el blanco de las preocupaciones de Yellen se dirigió hacia China y el endeudamiento de las economías emergentes.

De acuerdo con la presidenta de la Reserva Federal, el proceso de recuperación de la economía norteamericana se venía consolidando con fuerza desde mucho tiempo antes. Y, por lo tanto, si el FOMC no elevó el costo del crédito se debió sobre todo, a su elevado nivel de “compromiso” y “responsabilidad” con el resto del mundo.

Sin embargo, la verdad es que la economía de Estados Unidos no se caracteriza precisamente por gozar de plena salud. Sucede que los datos del mercado laboral publicados durante los 12 meses previos a marzo de 2015 no son tan robustos como presumió la Reserva Federal: el Departamento del Trabajo reconoció recientemente que sobrestimó en por lo menos 255.000 los empleos producidos por el sector privado.

Por otra parte, durante el mes de septiembre la nómina no agrícola sumó únicamente 143.000 empleos, muy por debajo de los 200.000 esperados. El mayor revés lo padecieron los sectores vinculados con el comercio exterior y la energía. El alza del dólar, la caída de los precios de las materias primas (‘commodities’) y la extrema debilidad de la demanda global precipitan el deterioro estructural de la economía estadounidense.

Las malas noticias no terminan ahí: las cifras de los puestos de trabajo generados en julio y agosto también se revisaron a la baja. Ahora se sabe que en agosto solamente se crearon 136.000 empleos, y no 176.000 como se apuntó originalmente; mientras que en el mes de julio se generaron 21.000 empleos menos de los que se contabilizaron en la revisión previa.

Por lo tanto, con los datos actualizados por el Departamento del Trabajo, en Estados Unidos se registraron un promedio de 167.000 nuevos empleos entre julio y septiembre, un monto que representa menos del 65 por ciento de los 260.000 que se crearon mensualmente durante el último año.

Las políticas de la Reserva Federal no son capaces de sacar adelante por sí solas a la economía. Yellen apostó todo a que si la población desocupada disminuía, entonces los grandes empresarios se verían presionados a incrementar los salarios, con lo cual, aumentarían también el poder adquisitivo de las familias y el nivel de precios (inflación).

Sin embargo, eso aún no ha ocurrido. Mientras que la tasa de desempleo cayó del 5,7 al 5,1% entre enero y septiembre del año en curso, las remuneraciones salariales por hora apenas se incrementaron un 2,2 por ciento en términos anuales el mes pasado, todavía muy lejos de los niveles alcanzados antes de la crisis, cuando se registraban aumentos por encima del 4 por ciento. La inflación, por su parte, no ha conseguido alcanzar el 2 por ciento en más de 3 años, el objetivo del banco central estadounidense.

Por lo tanto, hoy está claro que la caída de la tasa de desocupación de los meses recientes obedece más a la disminución de la tasa de participación laboral –como consecuencia de la desesperanza de miles de estadounidenses–, y menos a la creación de empleos de calidad y a largo plazo: el viernes 2 de octubre se anunció que en septiembre 350.000 personas abandonaron la búsqueda de trabajo. No hay vuelta atrás: en Estados Unidos el crecimiento del empleo se sumergió en el estancamiento.

Amplamente documentado mas raramente mencionado em reportagens e notícias é o fato do Estado Islâmico ser uma criação dos serviços de inteligência dos EUA com seus membros tendo sido recrutados, treinados e financiados pelos Estados Unidos e seus aliados o que aqui incluiria a Inglaterra, França, Arábia Saudita, Qatar, Turquia e Jordânia.

Até recentemente o Estado Islâmico tinha sido conhecido como Al-Qaeda no Iraque (AQI). Em 2014 essa veio a ser denominada como Estado Islâmico (Estado Islâmico do Iraque e Síria, Estado Islâmico do Iraque e do Levante).

A Rússia está agora envolvida na Guerra Contra o Terrorismo

Uma grande virada na dinâmica da guerra Síria-Iraque está se desenrolando agora porque a Rússia está ficando diretamente envolvida na campanha do contra-terrorismo em coordenação com os governos da Síria e do Iraque.

Mesmo que Washington tenha reconhecido essa resolução de Moscou ele se põe agora a reclamar que os russos estão perseguindo os “terroristas maneiros” e bem comportados, apoiados por Washington.

Saindo diretamente da “Boca do Cavalo”

De acordo com o Wall Street Journal:

Ataques Aéreos da Rússia na Síria miram CIA-Apoiados Rebeldes, dizem EUA-Oficiais

Uma das áreas atingidas teria sido uma localização ocupada principalmente por rebeldes recebendo fundos, armas e treinamento da CIA e seus aliados.

Um importante dado de informação não mencionado pela reportagem do WSJ é que a CIA está apoiando os terroristas como meio de engatilhar uma “mudança de regime” na Síria, o que implica a condução de operações secretas no território da Síria:

“A agência de espionagem dos EUA tem armado e treinado rebeldes em Síria desde 2013 para lutar contra o regime de Assad” (WSJ, 30 de setembro de 2015, ênfases acrescentadas, nota do autor: o apoio secreto vem sendo dado aos terroristas desde o começo da guerra, em março de 2011)

O acima apresentado é conhecido e bem documentado, mas também um assunto praticamente não tocado pelos principais meios de comunicação.

Al Nusra: Os “ Bons Terroristas ”

Conquanto o Pentágono francamente reconheça agora que a CIA está apoiando grupos afiliados a Al-Qaeda na Síria, incluindo Al Nusra, ele ainda deplora o fato de que a Rússia esteja supostamente perseguindo os “terroristas maneiros”, apoiados por Washington:

Um dos ataques [russos] atingiu uma área principalmente ocupada por rebeldes apoiados pela Agência Central de Inteligência e serviços secretos aliados, disseram oficiais dos EUA, . . .

Entre as sete áreas que a mídia estatal síria apresentou como alvos dos ataques russos, só uma–área, a do leste da cidade de Salamiyah, na província de Hama–tem uma conhecida presença de combatentes. As outras áreas apresentadas são em grande parte dominadas por frações moderadas ou grupos islâmicos como Ahrar al-Sham e a Fronte Nusra, afiliada da Al-Qaeda. (WSJ, 30 de setembro de 2015, ênfases acrescentadas)

Al Nusra é uma organização “jihadista”, afiliada a Al-Qaeda, financiada pelos Estados Unidos, e responsável por inúmeras atrocidades. Desde 2012, AQI e Al Nusra — ambas apoiadas pelos serviços de inteligência dos EUA– estiveram trabalhando, como mãos numa luva, em muitos empreendimentos terroristas na Síria.

O governo da Síria identificou em desenvolvimentos recentes suas próprias áreas de prioridade da campanha aérea do contra-terrorismo, prioridade síria essa que consiste essencialmente em focalizar na Al Nusra. Al Nusra é apresentada, e caracterizada, como a ala terrorista do Exército Livre da Síria (FSA).

Conquanto Washington tenha categorizado Al Nusra como uma organização terrorista (no começo de 2012), ele ainda assim apoia Al Nusra, e seus ditos “rebeldes moderados”, em forma de fornecimento de armas, treino, apoio logístico, recrutamento, etc. Esse ajuda substancial é canalizada não só pelos aliados dos Estados Unidos no Golfo Pérsico, o que incluiria Qatar e Arábia Saudita, mas também por Turquia e Israel.

É ironico que o Conselho de Segurança da ONU tenha decidido, em maio de 2012, “a pôr  Fronte al-Nusra na Lista Negra como um álias da al-Qaeda no Iraque”, nomeadamente então – ISIL [Estado Islâmico]:

essa decisão iria submeter o grupo a sanções incluindo embargo de armas, proibição de viagens, e congelamento de bens, foi dito então por diplomatas.

A missão dos Estados Unidos para a ONU tinha declarado que nenhum dos 15 membros do conselho tinha levantado qualquer objeção a acrescentar Al-Nusra como um álias da Al-Qaeda no Iraque, na de então quinta-feira.

Al-Nusra, uma das forças mais efetivas lutando contra o Presidente Bashar al-Assad, jurou no mês passado fidelidade ao líder da al-Qaeda Ayman al-Zawahri. (Al Jazeera, May 2012)

A Rússia está agora sendo acusada de atacar uma entidade terrorista que não só está na Lista Negra do Conselho de Segurança da ONU, como também tem vínculos declarados com o grupo Estado Islâmico (EI).

Qual seria o significado dessas acusações?

Conquanto a narrativa midiática reconheça que a Rússia tenha aprovado a campanha de contra-terrorismo, na prática a Rússia está (indiretamente) combatendo a coalisão EUA-OTAN de quando apoiando o governo sírio na luta contra os terroristas, que se apresentam na realidade como os soldados rasos da aliança militar ocidental. O que na prática a Rússia está combatendo são terroristas apoiados pelos Estados Unidos.

A proibida verdade é que através de dar ajuda militar tanto a Síria como ao Iraque a Rússia está (indiretamente) confrontando os Estados Unidos.

Moscou estará apoiando esses dois países em sua guerra por procuração contra ISIL, Estado Islâmico esse, que por sua vez é apoiado pelos Estados Unidos e seus aliados.

Michel Chossudovsky

Artigo em inglês : Obama Accuses Russia of Going After America’s “Good Guy Terrorists”, 1/10/15

Artigo em francês : Obama accuse la Russie de s’en prendre aux « bons terroristes », 7/10/15

Traduzido por Anna Malm – https://artigospoliticos.wordpress.com para Mondialisation.ca

America’s celebration of the death of Iranian General Hossein Hamedani is a call to arms for the entire civilized world. 

The death of a top Iranian military commander in Syria this week has dealt a “psychological blow” to elements backing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, according to a U.S. intelligence official.

Brig. Gen. Hossein Hamedani was killed outside Aleppo, Syria, where he was advising the Syrian army in its fight against extremists, Iranian state media reported Friday.

The United States and Iran both say they are fighting ISIS terrorists, but in practice they have different goals: The United States is supporting rebels trying to oust Assad, while Assad’s close ally Iran became involved to defend his regime.

“I’m not sure it’s the Iranian objective to beat ISIS,” said Gerecht. “I think the primary Iranian objective is to ensure that Assad does not fall.”

Image: Just another happy coincidence. While the US Treasury dishonestly inquiries into where ISIS has gotten fleets of brand new Toyota trucks, it is a matter of record that the US State Department and the UK have been sending them into Syria since at least as early as 2013, just ahead of  the “sudden” emergence of ISIS.

The loss of General Hamedani also reveals that indeed the Russian-led Syrian-Iranian-Iraqi anti-terror coalition is fighting ISIS in tandem with other terrorist groups – who despite claims by the United States – are ideologically, tactically, strategically, and politically indistinguishable from ISIS itself.

Monster Revealed – A Call to Arms of the Civilized World 

Again, the prophetic words written by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh in his 2007 New Yorker article titled, “The Redirection: Is the Administration’s new policy benefitting our enemies in the war on terrorism?” must be recalled (emphasis added):

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.

With a senior Iranian general dead, and ISIS and America’s “rebels” who are obviously also ISIS edging in on the Syrian government, the world should now finally see clearly what was planned as early as 2007 and what many have suspected since the beginning of Russia’s recent intervention in the conflict is now unfolding completely in the open. The United States and its regional allies have created this force of mass-murdering terror to intentionally direct against its enemies.

The death of General Hossein Hamedani and America’s celebratory mood in its wake is a call to arms ofthe entire civilized world. Stop the US and it’s now transparent, naked evil in Syria now – shoulder-to-shoulder with the Russian-Syrian-Iranian-Iraqi coalition – or fight them by yourself inevitably in the future.

America Finds its “Power Move” to Counter Russia 

Many articles in the US press have speculated at length in an attempt to define a new ideology called “Putinism.” The pieces serve as an attempt to fit Putin into an outdated Cold War narrative, as if some new ideology in the Russian Federation is playing the role that Marxism-Leninism once played in the Soviet Union, though the current Russian constitution forbids this.

The notable leaders of history are rarely ideologues. History judges people mainly by what they achieve, not what they write or say. As Chinese President Xi Jinping recently put it: “The worth of any plan is in its implementation.”

Putin has continued to play a specific role in the history of his country and the world. It is in his role as a leader of Russia that we can really define “Putinism.” However, when examining his achievements, Putin’s role and methods are not so different from those utilized by some well loved leaders in the history of the United States.

What has Putin achieved?

The dismantling of the Soviet Union, presided over by the pro-western Wall Street puppets in the Yeltsin regime, had catastrophic consequences. Ripping apart the state-run planned economy cast Russia and the surrounding countries into desperate ruin throughout the 1990s. There had been almost 100% employment during the Soviet period, but soon millions of Russians found themselves unemployed, with little social safety net. The medical system of the country, which had been one of the best in the world during the Soviet era, also descended into chaos.

Other problems that had been almost nonexistent during the Soviet period, such as narcotics, sex trafficking, and terrorism, also re-emerged with a vengeance. Organized crime, with roots in the underground economy of the Soviet period, suddenly became titanic and lethal. As the life expectancy and standard of living dropped, millions of Russians fled the country.

The only group that benefited during this post-Soviet chaos was a small group dubbed the “oligarchs.” The privatized industries and natural resources ended up in their hands, and they proceeded to loot the country with almost no governmental restraint. Many of the wealthiest Russian capitalists refused even to pay taxes, as the government seemed powerless to enforce even basic laws.

Meanwhile, takfiri Islamist forces in Chechnya, who had been funded by the United States and NATO to fight the Soviet Union, escalated their horrific killings, kidnappings, and mass murders.

It was in this context that Vladimir Putin, a former KGB officer, stepped up to lead the country. He began to battle the oligarchs and restore order. He directed the courts to prosecute some of the richest people and enforce the law. He oversaw the expansion of government-owned oil and natural gas corporations. In 2005, Putin launched the “National Priorities Project,” using government funds to build up the country’s education, healthcare, agriculture, and housing.

The results of Putin’s policies have been tremendous for the average Russian. During the first eight years of the Putin administration, the average wage in Russia has more than doubled. Unemployment has been drastically reduced. The rate of poverty has been reduced to 14%.

While the United States is suffering from the horrors of de-industrialization, Russia has been rapidly re-industrializing. During the first eight years of the Putin administration, industrial output increased by 125%, with overall industrial expansion higher than 70%. By 2007, Russia’s industrial output had reached the level of 1990, meaning after 17 years, Russia had finally been able to recover from the disastrous restoration of capitalism.

Between 2007 and 2014, the Russian Gross Domestic Product increased from $764 billion to $2096.8 billion. Putin has stabilized the country by standing up for everyday Russians against the rich and powerful. Polls in Russia show that upwards of 80% of Russians have a favorable view of Vladimir Putin.

It was recently announced that Russia’s crude oil production has now reached the highest level since the Cold War. An article from the October 6th edition of the Wall Street Journal quotes John Browne, the CEO of BP describing Russia’s economy saying “No country has come so far, in such a short space of time.

Internationally, Putin has united with China, ending the tragic divide that began with the 1961 “Sino-Soviet Split.” Putin has embraced the Bolivarian movement of Latin America and expanded trade with Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, and Ecuador. Russia has joined the BRICS initiative for a new currency, and has become a close ally of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Putin has attempted to remain on friendly terms with the United States, many times meeting with US presidents and often speaking highly of the United States in his speeches. However, as Russia becomes more stable, the United States has become more hostile to it. NATO is rapidly expanding, and a virulently anti-Russian regime has been installed in Ukraine.

Currently, Putin is in the process of attempting to destroy the Islamic State, or ISIS, in Iraq and Syria. The United States and its allies in the Gulf States have poured billions of dollars into an attempt to facilitate the violent overthrow of the Syrian Arab Republic. ISIS, which sprang up in 2014, has its roots in the Free Syrian Army, the Al-Nusra Front, and other US-supported extremist organizations.

Putin has made clear the Syrian Arab Republic is the country’s legitimate government, and that US-funded “regime change” is undesirable. Since the US toppled the governments of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, the countries have only become more impoverished and unstable. While the United States continues to fund the anti-government militants, Putin seeks to help the Baath Arab Socialist Party restore order to Syria so the refugee and humanitarian crisis can end, and the entire region can become safer.

Fighting Slavery and the British Empire

Putin is absolutely Russian, and his style of leadership draws from the vibrant and unique history of his country. However, some key aspects of his leadership style are not foreign to the United States. Two leaders, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, could certainly be described as “Putinists,” if such a thing as “Putinism” exists.

Lincoln led the Republican Party when it was considered to be a radical Third Party in the mid-1800s. The Republican Party had taken its name because of the French Revolution and the republican revolutions that swept Europe in 1848. The slogan of the Republicans was “Free Land, Free Labor, and Free Men.”  The Republican Party was the party of labor unions, abolitionists, small farmers, recent immigrants, and advocates of women’s rights. The New York City Republican Party newspaper, the New York Tribune, hired Karl Marx as its London correspondent.

Much like Vladimir Putin, Abraham Lincoln took office not as a firebrand but as a compromiser and moderate. Lincoln was reluctant to run for public office, only agreeing to enter politics when persuaded by friends and admirers. As a Christian, Lincoln was morally opposed to the practice of slavery, but he was not an “abolitionist” because he did not think that moving to directly outlaw the practice was practical in the existing political context. Like Putin, Lincoln did not rise to power looking for a fight. When a fight presented itself, however, he did not back down — and won the love of millions for his strength.

The response of the slave-owners to Lincoln’s election was immediate hostility. Both the Russian oligarchs who oppose Putin and the slaveholders who opposed Lincoln had a powerful ally: Wall Street. Unlike the rising industrial capitalists, the financial elites of the New York Stock Exchange had a real material interest in continuing slavery, as they made profits from cotton exports and insuring slave ships and plantations.

When the southern plantation owners announced that they were seceding from the United States, Lincoln mobilized the country to fight against the slave-owners and restore economic and political order. Lincoln was not afraid to stand up to the bankers, and with his eloquent speaking style and brilliance as an organizer, he led a broad anti-slavery coalition to victory.

Lincoln, like Putin, was called a “tyrant” and “human rights violator.” Lincoln suspended many civil liberties in the context of a violent insurrection directed by some of the wealthiest people. Lincoln’s famous “Emancipation Proclamation” abolishing slavery in the southern states was an Executive Order that did not follow constitutional procedure. In the 1864 presidential election, people living in states controlled by the slaveholders were not given an opportunity to vote against him.

When it appeared that the British Empire may enter the war in support of slavery, which saw as a source of cheap cotton for their emerging textile industry, the Russian Czar announced that he would defend the United States. The Russian navy sent two fleets to American waters in the Atlantic Ocean to defend the United States from a potential British attack. The Russian Empire had recently abolished a slave-like form of serfdom, and was eager to support the United States in a similar endeavor.

Like Putin, Abraham Lincoln was not a Marxist or a socialist, but was still highly critical of capitalism and happy to align with dedicated, trustworthy left-wingers and radicals. Lincoln honored labor unions as an essential element in a democratic society, saying “Thank God we live under a system where men have the right to strike!” at the famous Lincoln-Douglas debate. Lincoln utilized the labor unions and craft guilds as key in strengthening the Union Army and its war effort. Lincoln happily accepted the endorsement of the International Workingmen’s Association in the 1864 election, with his office sending a letter of gratitude directly to Karl Marx in London. Lincoln’s army, which defeated the slaveholders, had among its highest ranks many self-described communists such as General August Willich and Colonel Joseph Weydemeyer.

The language currently used by the Wall Street media of the United States to describe Vladimir Putin is very similar to that used by the pro-slavery press and historians of the United States and Britain to describe Lincoln. Long after the Civil War, Hollywood films like “Gone With The Wind” and “The Birth of a Nation” demonized Lincoln and glorified the southern slavocracy. Regardless of all who have worked to malign him, Lincoln is still widely remembered as one of the greatest presidents in US history. He may have initially been a reluctant abolitionist, even consciously racist — but history assigned him the position of the “Great Emancipator” and he fulfilled it tremendously.

Resisting “Government By Organized Money”

In 1933, Franklin Delano Roosevelt took office, much like Putin, with his country in a state of economic ruin, reeling from the after-effects of the 1929 stock-market crash. Roosevelt’s inaugural address made clear who was to blame, decrying the “unscrupulous practices” of high finance.

Like Putin, Roosevelt mobilized the government sector to rescue the economy. Roosevelt passed the Glass-Steagall Act, preventing bankers from gambling with other people’s money. Roosevelt began heavily taxing the wealthiest people in the United States, using the funds to hire the unemployed.

Similar to Xi Jinping’s vision of the “New Silk Road,” which Putin has fully cooperated with, Roosevelt’s vision for economic development in the United States involved massive government-funded construction. During the Roosevelt Administration, post offices were built across the country. Hydro-electrical power plants were also constructed. The government subsidized the “National Theater Project,” providing entertainment to schoolchildren and low-income people.

The unemployed youth hired into the Works Progress Administration wore bright green uniforms. They were not treated as “moochers” or “bums” for seeking government employment in a time of economic crisis, but rather as heroes, patriotically working for the good of the country. Towns often honored the “Boys in Green” with big parades as they arrived to pave the local roads, carve out parks, and otherwise beautify and develop the heartland of the United States.

Much like the opposition to Putin in Ukraine, the big bankers funded an openly pro-Hitler and fascist movement against Roosevelt. Much like the Right Sector and the Azov Battalion in the Ukraine, the American Liberty League, the Silver Legion of America, the German-American Bund, and the America First Committee were led by unapologetic Nazis. They saw repressive military dictatorship as favorable to Roosevelt’s plan of mobilizing the people and consciously organizing the economy. In 1933, US Marine Corp General Smedley Butler revealed the infamous “business plot.” Wall Street bankers had approached him about leading a military coup and forcibly deposing Roosevelt.

However, any attempted coup against Roosevelt would have failed, because like Putin, Roosevelt was loved by the everyday people of his country. Roosevelt’s allies were not in corporate boardrooms, but on picket lines, hunger marches, and sit-down strikes. Roosevelt aligned himself with the “People’s Front” coalition of socialists, communists, liberals, and progressives. When sit-down strikers occupied their Flint Michigan auto plant in 1937, Roosevelt sent in the army to protect the strikers from the local police and company thugs.

Like Lincoln and Putin, Roosevelt rejected Russophobia and did not want to pursue a deadly conflict with a huge Eurasian power. Roosevelt recognized and established diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union in 1935. His closest advisors like Joseph Davies went to the Soviet Union and studied the “Five-Year Plans” which were rapidly industrializing the country. Roosevelt and famed physicist Niels Bohr worked hard, but were unable to convince Winston Churchill to back down and allow the Soviet Union to join the Manhattan Project.

Roosevelt was not a communist, but he had a clear understanding of problems of capitalism and the need to restrain the wealthy elite. During his 1936 election campaign, he proclaimed: “Government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob.” When Roosevelt went to greet textile workers in South Carolina, one of them famously shook his hand and said the president was “the first man in the White House to know that my boss is a son of a bitch.” Prior to his death, Roosevelt proposed adding to the US Constitution a “New Bill of Rights” that would ensure everyone the right to jobs, housing, and healthcare.

Though Roosevelt had a big heart and deep love for working people, he was not afraid to lead them into battle. From 1941 to 1945, the United States stood shoulder to shoulder with the Soviet Union, the Chinese Communist Party’s “Red Army,” the peoples of Britain and France, and the armed partisan resistance groups in Japan, Germany, and Italy. Roosevelt and his political allies were always clear that fascism and its wealthy sponsors were far dangerous to the national security of the United States than were the peoples of Russia or China.

Roosevelt, like Lincoln and Putin, has been widely maligned. Half a century after his death, the likes of Glenn Beck still describe him as a “socialist” and a “traitor.” However, like Lincoln, Roosevelt is still widely popular among the people. During his lifetime, Roosevelt was more popular than any other US president had ever been. After Roosevelt’s 1945 death, term limits were added to the US constitution, preventing anyone else from being elected as US president four consecutive times.

Will American “Putinism” Re-Emerge?

It seems that just months ago, Barack Obama was lecturing the world about the evils of ISIS in order to justify his drone strike program and violations of Syria’s territorial integrity. However, now that Vladimir Putin has escalated his support for the legitimate Syrian government which is scoring real victories against the ISIS menace, Obama is filled with outrage.

The reality is that the wealthy ruling class of the United States has no interest in defeating ISIS. The real objective of US policy in Syria since long before 2011 has always been to overthrow the Syrian Arab Republic, a stable, anti-imperialist country with a heavily planned economy. ISIS originated as a faction among the anti-government terrorists who were funded by the United States and its Gulf State allies. While ISIS and the US may officially be enemies, Washington and its allies still fund the terrorists in Al-Nusra, and the Israeli government provides medical care to ISIS and other takfiris.

The supposed anti-ISIS airstrikes carried out by the US have been virtually meaningless, and were done without the permission of the Syrian government. Obama had attempted to justify airstrikes against the Syrian government a year earlier in response to allegations of chemical weapons, but failed to convince the international community. The US continues to openly call for the overthrow of the Syrian government, which controls the territory in which 80% of Syria’s population is currently living, and was recently re-elected in a nationwide vote.

Unlike US and Turkish airstrikes, Russia’s intervention in Syria is done with the full cooperation of the Syrian state. It cannot be described as “imperialism” or “foreign intervention.” The Russian military is assisting the Syrian Arab Army as it battles a barrage of foreign terrorists, imported to their country with the help of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey, Qatar, France, Britain, and the United States.

Russia is not alone in wanting to defend the Syrian Arab Republic and smash the scourge of takfiri terrorism, created by the United States and its Gulf State allies. China is sending its forces to Syria. Hezbollah fighters are standing with the Syrian government. Communist Party militias and armed Christian brigades have been formed in Syria. Germany has even announced that it is happy to work with the Syrian government as well as Russia, Iran, China, and other countries to remove the scourge of ISIS.

Just as 70 years ago, a real united front of anti-fascists was formed to defeat the Wall Street-spawned scourge of Nazism, Russia is at the center of a broad coalition to defeat the oil bankers’ latest monstrosity.

Christians, Islamists, communists, Baathists, and Russian nationalists are coming together and cooperating against a common foe. Putin is a leader who is rallying the world around the battle to improve peoples’ livelihoods, defeat terrorism, and stand up to the source of so much evil, the wealthy global banking elite.

Such qualities of leadership currently displayed by Putin are not foreign to US shores, and if things in the country are to improve, those qualities must emerge in some form once again. Another leader of the caliber of Roosevelt, Lincoln, and Putin is desperately needed in the United States. A mass movement against the crimes of the rich, one that can produce and support such a leader, as the country and world become even more dangerous, is the greatest necessity of the hour.

Not only is the phenomenon widely described as “Putinism” not foreign to the United States. It is likely to return.

Caleb Maupin is a political analyst and activist based in New York. He studied political science at Baldwin-Wallace College and was inspired and involved in the Occupy Wall Street movement, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

On October 7^th, Reuters headlined,«Iraq Leans Toward Russia in War on Islamic State», and reported, from Baghdad, that, «Iraq… wants Moscow to have a bigger role than the United States in the war against the militant group, the head of parliament’s defense and security committee said on Wednesday».

Earlier, in an interview in English, with Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, telecast on October 2nd, France24 TV asked him how he would view an extension of Russia’s anti-ISIS bombing campaign into Iraq, and he said (7:54), «I would welcome it».

This isn’t merely a culmination of U.S. President George W. Bush’s overthrow of Iraq’s leader Saddam Hussein in 2003 — an event twelve years back, and so this is a twelve-year culmination on that count alone — but it is also an unequivocal statement from the majority-Shiite nation of Iraq, that the U.S. is too heavily committed to the rabidly fundamentalist Sunni royal family of Saudi Arabia (whoprovide the overwheling bulk of the funding for Al Qaeda and other jihadist movements), to be willing to do what must be done in order to defeat in Iraq the Sunni extremists who have destroyed Iraq, and who are nowpossibly turning Iraq into a failed state, like Libya has become after NATO’s bombing campaign there in 2011.

The Reuters report went on: «‘In the upcoming few days or weeks, I think Iraq will be forced to ask Russia to launch air strikes [in Iraq], and that depends on their success in Syria,’ Hakim al-Zamili, a leading Shi’ite politician, told Reuters in an interview… ‘We are seeking to see Russia have a bigger role in Iraq… Yes, definitely a bigger role than the Americans,’ Zamili said».

On Tuesday 10 February 2015, Iraqi News, whose claim to fame is non-alliance with any political party, bannered, «Parliamentary Commission on Security and Defense reveals documents on coalition aircrafts aiding ISIS», and reported:

The Parliamentary Commission on Security and Defense revealed Tuesday, that there are many documents and photographs confirming that the international coalition aircrafts delivered aids, weapons and supplies to ISIS using parachutes…

Committee Chairman MP Hakim Zamili said in a press conference at the House of Representatives… «Our armed forces, volunteer fighters, Peshmerga and tribesmen have achieved victories against the ISIS organization in all operations», noting that, «Meanwhile, we keep finding documents, pictures, and information confirming that the coalition aircrafts violate the Iraqi sovereignty and the international norms in order to prolong the war with ISIS by providing it with aid by air or on land».

«We have been receiving this information continuously from many sources, documented in photos and reports to prove that the planes did land at some airports in Mosul, Tal Afar, Al Kiara, and Araf Lahib areas in Kara Tepeh in Diyala and Yathrib, in addition to Dhuluiya village, Fallujah Stadium in Anbar desert», Zamili stated.

«The monitoring reports and available photos show ammunition, weapons and supplies being delivered by parachutes», he added.

Already on 20 January 2015, the astute Michael Snyder had managed to lay out the case that, «We have the most sophisticated military on the entire planet and yet we drop weapons into the hands of the enemy by mistake? Come on».

The United States Government, which had invaded Iraq and killed its former leader, Saddam Hussein, blames the success of ISIS in Iraq, on the failures of Iraqis. Not at all on anything that’s wrong with U.S. operations — not even on the ‘errors’ in dropping weapons into ISIS territory.

But, America had created ISIS; Iraqis had not. Saddam Hussein had prevented ISIS; he blocked all jihadists from operating in Iraq — they all wanted to overthrow him. ISIS had not even existed prior to 2006 (three years after the U.S. invasion), when it was started by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Sbu Ayyub al-Masri. (Zarqawi was Jordanian; Masri was Egyptian. There was also a fictitious third founder, Abu Omar al Baghdadi, in order to provide a mythological Iraqi root to this ‘Iraqi’ — actually Saudi — political ‘movement’). According to the Washington Post, Zarqawi «served as Osama bin Laden’s proxy in Iraq, attracting hundreds if not thousands of foreign fighters under the al-Qaeda banner».

Of course, the Saudi royals had co-founded al-Qaeda (working through the CIA and Osama bin Laden) in order to defeat the pro-Russian Afghan government of Nur Muhammad Taraki back in 1979. (Russia is perhaps Saudi Arabia’s chief competitor in international oil-and-gas markets; the U.S.-Saudi alliance is an anti-Russian alliance.) And, so, the Saudi royals massively fund the jihadist movement (the same movement that finally expelled Russia from Afghanistan), which the U.S. secretly supplies.

This ‘Western’ support of Sunni extremists is antagonizing Shiites in the predominantly Shiite nation of Iraq. The Iraqi public are now the angriest and almost saddest of any nation on Earth.) Therefore, Zamili has publicly invited Russia into Iraq, and invited America out of Iraq. America in Iraq was even more disastrous than America in Iran had been.

(Both cases generated surging fundamentalism, which means catastrophe anywhere.)

Although Zamili is Shiite, and Saddam was a nominal Sunni but actually committed to keeping religion out  of politics altogether, Zamili is facing the same enemy that Saddam did, which is the U.S.-Saudi alliance.

Secularism is at the core of the Ba’ath Party, which ruled in both Syria and Iraq. Here is an example of that, from Karsh & Rautsi, 1991 Saddam Hussein: A Political Biography (Diane Books), p. 142:

A few months later [in 1978], Saddam delivered a speech in which he vehemently rejected calls for compromising the [Ba’th] Party’s staunch secularism as a means of accommodating the growing Islamic sentiments. «What we must do», he argued, «is to oppose the Revolution’s intrusion into religion. Let us return to the roots of our religion, glorifying them — but not introduce it into politics».

One of the reasons why Saddam loathed the Shiite fanatics who were rooted in Iran and who took over there in 1979 (after America’s dictatorship under the Shah ended) was that they were fundamentalists. He was at war against all fundamentalists, of all faiths. The only difference between Shiite fundamentalists and Sunni fundamentalists is that only the Sunni fundamentalists believe in ‘restoring’ ‘the Caliphate’ — a potentially global Islamic empire, so that everyone in the world will bow down in the direction of Mecca, Saudi Arabia. For a Shiite to suppport that worldwide Islamic government would be equivalent to that person’s converting to the Saudi version of Islam, especially its Wahhabist or Salafist form, which is the royal family’s form.

So: the United States is allied with the Saudi royal family’s political movement, against Russia, and against Iran — and, therefore, against Ba’athist Syria, which allies with both Shiite Iran and secular Russia. (NOTE: When nations are at war against one-another, it’s actually their respective aristocracies that are at war; their publics are just cannon-fodder to be fed propaganda and bullets for the enterprise, killing one-another. Only for an authentic democracy is war actually the last resort — after all, it’s no aristocracy  at all. But aristocratically controlled countries seek out war, in order to extend their empires — the only ‘first resort’ there will be insincere diplomacy, so as to achieve the conquest as cheaply as possible: without war if possible, but with war if conquest can be attained in only that way; i.e., if diplomatic deception can’t suffice alone.)

An Iraq that has moved more firmly into the Iranian camp is moving toward Russia and away from the United States; and that’s today’s Iraq.

On 24 May 2015, U.S. Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter, said, «Iraqi forces showed no will to fight», though they «vastly outnumbered the opposing force». Obama was now openly contemptuous of the Iraqi people. However, on both sides (U.S. and Iraq), the heads of state were not talking publicly about the crumbling relations.

So, now, Iraq is, in fact, turning to Russia, which U.S. President Barack Obama has in his second term been treating as America’s main enemy (despite having campaigned for President against  Mitt Romney’s calling Russia «our number one geopolitical foe»).

He calls Russia the main aggressor in the world for its having accepted the results of the Crimean referendum to switch from Ukraine to Russia.

On September 25th, Fox News issued an exclusive news report headlined, «Russians, Syrians and Iranians setting up military coordination cell in Baghdad»; and, instead of denying it, Russia’s Sputnik News simply bannered,«Russia, Iran, Syria Reportedly Set Up Joint Center in Baghdad to Fight ISIL», and cited this Fox News report as its source. The only difference between the two articles is that Fox’s was slanted against Russia, and it presented two retired sources within the U.S. government as making the assertions (including their framing it with anti-Russian propaganda), whereas Sputnik’s version stripped out Fox’s anti-Russian propaganda and focused only on the fact, which was stated in both headlines (theirs and Fox’s).

So, the only quotable sources on this allegation were the U.S. government retirees who spoke to Fox (based on their inside sources), but the Russian government transmitted the allegation — the fact itself — with no modifications, thus confirming the fact that was alleged. It’s more tactful to do it this way, instead of having heads-of-state, in Iraq, Iran, and Russia, step in and proclaim publicly that the American Century is over.

Ashton Carter was equally arrogant about Russia. On October 7th, the Wall Street Journal bannered, «U.S. Rules Out Strategic Collaboration With Moscow in Middle East», and quoted Carter as saying: «We are not prepared to cooperate in strategy which, as we explained, is flawed, tragically flawed, on the Russians’ part. The U.S. is not cooperating with Russia in that regard». Insulting Iraqis wasn’t enough. Russian officials weren’t speaking in similarly contemptuous language about the U.S., as U.S. officials were speaking about Russia — and also about Iraq. It seemed that U.S. bullies were peevishly responding to getting trounced by a party (Russia) they constantly assaulted but couldn’t even get a rise out of.

This doesn’t mean that the American public cannot recover; it means that the American aristocracy can’t — unless, perhaps, this sort of thing can turn matters around, not on the political battlefieds, but on the economic ones. (The only trouble there is that the more the U.S. aristocracy wins there, the more defeated the global publics will be, everywhere — and this would include Russia, China, and every nation, including the U.S. itself. This would be a terrifying global empire, achieved entirely by diplomacy. Tyranny can enter even on cats’ paws, not only with lions’ roars.)

Tyranny that enters via diplomatic means can be just as tyrannous, though perhaps less destructive, than one which enters via nuclear war (the end-point that Putin’s tactics thus far seem to be successful at averting — but, given his peevish opponents, might not be able to continue doing so).

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.

When the ethical arm of FIFA decides to lift its withered self from slumber, a sense of the unusual is in the air. In many ways, the committee members had little choice. The external forces – prosecuting teams in both the US and Switzerland – had become so intrusive and determined, that a response was needed on the corruption charges that have spread through the organisation like an algae bloom.

The FIFA ethics committee decided to get down and busy in issuing temporary bans – initially 90 days – on Sepp Blatter, Michel Platini and Jérôme Valcke. Ex-FIFA Vice-President, Chung Moong-joon, was another casualty, receiving a ban for six years. The hue surrounding Blatter and Platini had darkened after allegations of a £1.3m criminal payment made by the FIFA President to UEFA’s number one.

It was then further revealed to the Telegraph Sport that Blatter and Platini may actually face life bans as full misconduct proceedings against the two take place (The Telegraph, Oct 9). This changes the nature of the FIFA President contest considerably, knocking out an overwhelmingly potential favourite ahead of the October 26deadline for potential candidates.

Platini may well have been a stellar footballer in his prime, deft and graceful on the field, but he has fallen down to earth in the all consuming muck of football administration. The only resort he has now, along with his co-charged, is the Court of Arbitration for Sport, or the appeals committee of FIFA itself.

With all the optimism on the part of the anti-corruption brigade, a note of caution, if not outright scepticism, needs to be sounded. Institutional diseases are hard to remove, and antidotes have to be dramatic. When they are issued from within the organisation, a degree of ineffectualness should be expected.

And things start looking absurd when large pots such as the International Olympic Committee start calling the FIFA kettle black. “Enough is enough,” moralised the IOC President, Thomas Bach. “FIFA must realise that this is now about more than just a list of candidates. This is also a structural problem and will not be solved simply by the election of a new president” (BBC News, Oct 8).

Within the bureaucratic halls of football governance, institutional fall in and resistance is bound to happen. Take, for instance, the response from UEFA regarding its stance on Platini. Europe’s governing body had “full confidence” in their current president and “saw no need” for a replacement (BBC News, Oct 8). Those officials see few problems in the wings.

Then comes the issue of whether the ethics investigation will throw up anything worth writing home about. Consider, for instance, that FIFA’s fudging head judge, Hans-Joachim Eckert, will be the one having Blatter and Platini before him. He is hardly a sterling figure of transparency himself, having been, less a judge than a sterling defender of FIFA’s tainted honour.

It was FIFA’s governing ethics committee that decided, after an 18-month investigation by former New York district attorney Michael Garcia into suggestions of corruption behind the award to host the 2022 World Cup to Qatar, or the 2018 tournament to Russia, that any breaches of the rules had been of “very limited scope”.

Eckert did a spectacular abridgment of Garcia’s 430-page report, reducing it to a mere 42-page summary of whitewash. Needless to say, it smacked of considerable dilution. “In particular, the effects of these [minor] occurrences on the bidding process as a whole were far from reaching any threshold that would require returning to the bidding process, let alone reopening it” (The Guardian, Nov 13, 2014).

The ethics committee refused to release the entire report, citing, naturally, that it would be unethical for the general public to know exactly what was unearthed by Garcia’s plough. Even the vast complex of corruption can have defenders on ethics committees.

Despite the burying of the report, the bidding scandal, one that involved former Asian Football Confederation president Mohamed bin Hammam, seemed to be the writing on the wall for FIFA’s very well padded fat cats. Despite the determination on the part of the entire FIFA hierarchy, from Blatter to the body’s own ethics apparatchiks, Garcia’s report found that Hammam did make “several improper payments” to various African football officials, and funnelled $1.2 m to Jack Warner, former FIFA executive committee member.

The latest moves have been deemed of such an order that a decision may be made to scrap the February 26extraordinary elective congress. This has the backing of such individuals as Britain’s FIFA vice-president David Gill, and the Football Association itself.

That would essentially place the acting FIFA president Issa Hayatou in charge for a longer period of time, which would still prolong the ancien regime. A new election will enable someone from outside the fold to move in, a person, argues former FA Chairman David Bernstein, who should be of the stature of former athlete Seb Coe, “a man of great reputation”. Letting outsiders in, notably of the scrupulous variety, has never been FIFA’s strong suit but time may be running out.

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

Russian prosecutors have charged a prominent Ukrainian politician with inciting terrorism, after he called for Islamic State to attack Russian pilots involved in the campaign against ISIS in Syria.

Anton Gerashchenko, an adviser to Ukrainian Interior Minister Arsen Avakov, shared a message from a Facebook “friend”who wants to help ISIS militants take revenge against Russian forces in Syria “in accordance with Sharia law.”

Gerashchenko said he received a message on Facebook which said that “Russian propaganda channels” and Russian army in almost every report “show off” their military personnel in Syria.

The post, as well as Gerashchenko’s Facebook page, were unavailable for several hours. But later the post, as well as Gerashchenko’s page, reappeared. An image of the post can be viewed, however, thanks to a screenshot.

© Anton Gerashchenko / Facebook

 

“I think that their faces [on TV] will be enough, so that Islamic State militants and their supporters in Russia, the majority of whom are in the Caucasus region, could then find them and take revenge [on them] under Sharia law,” the Facebook user wrote to Gerashchenko.

Gerashchenko, who also attached an RT video showing Russian military jets in Syria in his post, seemed to be inspired by the idea. He urged everyone who has any information about Russian servicemen fighting ISIS in Syria to report the data on the volunteer-made Mirotvorec (Peacekeeper) website. For such information, there would be a special section, entitled “Putin’s crimes in Syria and Middle East.”

The majority of Gerashchenko’s Facebook friends supported the idea, calling it “brilliant” and “effective.” However, not everyone got motivated by such a call.

“Anton [Gerashchenko] is already supporting Islamic State?” “Has Ukraine already solved its own problems” “Anton Gerashchenko, are you nuts?” asked users in the comments under the post.

The Mirotvorec (Peacekeeper) website, which is supported by Gerashchenko, posts very thorough data on anyone who oppose the current Kiev authorities – journalists, activists, MPs and, of course, self-defense forces fighting against the government in eastern Ukraine. They are all labeled “terrorists” or “supporters of federalization.”

The personal information include their addresses, social media account links, a substantial biography and any mentions in the Ukrainian press. It has its own social media account, which frequently tweets cryptic messages of “successful missions.”

Several of those mentioned on the website, with the most high-profile ones like opposition politician Oleg Kalashnikov and opposition journalist Oles Buzina, were killed shortly after their personal details turned up on the website.

LISTEN MORE:

 

Ex Labour and British Prime Minister Tony Blair stands accused of War Crimes pertaining to Britain’s role in the Iraq war were it is estimated by some observers, that more than 1,000,000 people died and a further 4.000,000 were displaced or injured and their homes destroyed, the majority of them being civilians. Tony Blair sickeningly calls the atrocities committed in the Iraq war against mostly women and children “collateral damage”, a popular term now used by his replacement, Tory PM David Cameron, to describe his own war crimes in Libya. The Chilcot inquiry’s publication is continually kicked into the long grass in the hopes that the public s wrath will dissipate over time and the crimes forgotten about.

In November 2011 the  Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal purportedly exercised universal jurisdiction to try in absentia former US President George W. Bush and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, convicting both for crimes against peace because of what the tribunal concluded was the unlawful invasion of Iraq.

So what do you think, should Tony Blair face trial in the Hague for war crimes?

Dear President Putin,

As members of the global reality-based community, we’d like to extend our appreciation and support for the Russian Federation’s decision to provide humanitarian and military assistance to Syria, its armed forces and its democratically elected leader, President Bashar al-Assad, in their fight against international US-backed terrorists.

The launch of airstrikes directed against ISIL terrorists in Syria comes at a critical time,¹ just as did Russia’s pivotal role in preventing a Western military intervention in 2013. As a voice of reason and a force for justice, you have the thanks and support of Syrians, Russians and all people of conscience around the world.

Since 2011, Western leaders have been determined to turn Syria into a failed state. They have gone to the extent of providing funding, training and weaponry to foreign mercenaries who have waged a brutal campaign of terror on the Syrian people and their legitimate government.² These terrorist forces and religious fanatics do not represent the will of the Syrian people, the majority of whom support President Assad. As you said in your speech at the United Nations General Assembly, it is for the Syrian people and only the Syrian people to decide who should lead them.

In 2013, when the West was primed to launch a military campaign on Syria, Russia stepped in to broker a peaceful, diplomatic solution. In a sane world, this would be the natural response to international problems, and Russia would not stand alone. Unfortunately, the West continues its dead-end policy of supporting violence, coercion and illegal intervention in the affairs of sovereign nations.

While the West pushes for destabilization, war and chaos, Russia stands firm in its commitment to dialogue, cooperation, international law and order. Your reaction to the crisis in Syria demonstrates exactly that.

Like you, President Assad has proven himself to be a man of intelligence, courage and good will. And like most public figures who possess such qualities, he has been relentlessly defamed and slandered by Western governments and media. One example is the Houla massacre in May 2012, in which 108 Syrians were killed, including 49 children. The Syrian military was blamed for this atrocity but it was later revealed that the massacre was perpetrated by forces aligned with the US-backed ‘Free Syrian Army’ (FSA), and that the victims were supporters of the Syrian government.³ Later in 2012, the FSA was observed killing kidnapped civilians and off-duty soldiers.⁴

This is the ‘moderate opposition’ group that Western government officials support in their illegal aggression against Mr. Assad, and whom they now accuse Russia of targeting with airstrikes. These facts and others show clearly that the US government and its allies merely profess to fight terror when in fact they directly create and support it in a futile attempt to secure US global hegemony. They do this without the support of the United Nations and without the support of the legitimate governments of the countries they attack.

The second Secretary-General of the United Nations, Dag Hammarskjold, whom John F. Kennedy considered the greatest statesman of his time, clearly saw the problems facing not only the UN, but the world at large. In 1958 he wrote:

“The conflict to different approaches to the liberty of man and mind or between different views of human dignity and the right of the individual is continuous. The dividing line goes within ourselves, within our own peoples, and also within other nations. It does not coincide with any political or geographical boundaries. The ultimate fight is one between the human and the subhuman. We are on dangerous ground if we believe that any individual, any nation, or any ideology has a monopoly on rightness, liberty, and human dignity.”⁵

We are on dangerous ground. The United States’ self-professed monopoly on rightness, liberty, and human dignity has led to wrongness, oppression and suffering on a massive scale. The Western mentality on display in Libya and Syria is truly subhuman⁶ — psychopathic⁷ — embracing the basest aspects of human nature.⁸

Naturally, the subhuman is reflected in the results of U.S. policy in Ukraine and Syria. In Ukraine, neo-Nazis are members of Parliament and form battalions which have tortured and murdered men, women and children in the Donbass, with the sanction of the government in Kiev. In Syria, the West’s policy of destruction and the support of terrorism have resulted in ISIL and other terror groups whose methods are publicly condemned but privately supported by Western leaders.⁹ This is not the vision humanity is desperate to embrace. This is not the vision we seek.

As long as world leaders continue to submit to the will of political psychopaths, humanity will never build a world of peace.¹⁰ We pray that more people will follow your example, by speaking truth to power, by acting firmly on their convictions and by refusing to be controlled by fear and ignorance. We hope that by doing so, we may all do our part to create a truly multipolar world free from the destructive influence of psychopaths and fanatics, and the toxic political structures they create that make peace impossible.

Sincerely,

So far 73,756 people have signed the letter.

YOU CAN SIGN THE LETTER!

Sources:

1. Russia establishes ‘no fly’ zone for NATO planes over Syria, moves to destroy “ISIS” – Pentagon freaks out
2. The Syrian Diary documentary: Who is responsible for turning a paradise into hell?
3. Houla massacre carried out by Free Syrian Army, according to Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung
4. The Houla Massacre Revisited: “Official Truth” in the Dirty War on Syria
5. “The Walls of Distrust”, Address at Cambridge University, June 5, 1958
6. NATO Slaughter: James and Joanne Moriarty expose the truth about what happened in Libya
7. Political Ponerology website
8. Global Pathocracy, Authoritarian Followers and the Hope of the World
9. Pentagon report predicted West’s support for Islamist rebels would create ISIS
10. The Authoritarians Website

Dear President Putin and Russian People,

Please accept our apologies for the behavior of our Governments and Media. Western Nations, led by the United States, seem determined to start a war with Russia. A sane person would recognize the terrible consequences of such a war and would do everything in their power to avoid it. In fact it appears that this is exactly what you are doing. In the face of an endless stream of lies and provocations you have managed to keep Russia from being drawn into a nuclear war.^1, 2

Events surrounding the war in Ukraine are twisted to represent you as an aggressor when the facts clearly show otherwise. Neo-Nazi gangs commit atrocities against the citizens of Novorussia on a daily basis and they receive political and financial support from Western governments. The Ukrainian army has attacked Russian checkpoints and towns and regularly bombs refugees attempting to flee the country. Russia was blamed for the destruction of Malaysian Airlines flight MH17, even though the evidence suggests that the flight was shot down by the Ukrainian army. You offer humanitarian aid to the people of Luhansk and you are accused of smuggling weapons into Ukraine.³

Why are you the target of these lies and provocations? The pathological criminals of the West are pushing for war with Russia because they need an external enemy. As long as the people are focused on “Russian aggression” they remain unaware of those truly responsible for the decline of the American economy and social system. In Europe, with its history of brutal wars sparked by arrogance and greed, European leaders have undergone a complete moral collapse and have naively fallen into line behind the USA’s policy of imperial aggression. The last great president of the United States, John F Kennedy, described our common enemy in 1961:

We are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence–on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day.

It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations… Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed.⁴

Since that time the government of the United States and other Western nations have been infiltrated by this “ruthless conspiracy”. While it is not necessarily unified we believe that its leaders think and act without the burden of a normal human conscience. This is why they are willing to sacrifice the lives of millions or billions of people.They supply Israel with weapons that are used for the wholesale slaughter of thousands of Palestinians. They militarize police in places like Ferguson, MO to protect and strengthen their power over the people. They lie to start wars that take the lives of millions of people to increase their political power. They are despicable.^5, 6

Like JFK, you have a military background, so you are bound by a sense of duty to protect and serve the people of Russia. It appears that like him you recognized the madness of nuclear war and have turned towards peace.⁷ You refuse to endorse the American empire and you are working to undermine its power without engaging in direct military conflict. Instead Russia has developed closer relationships with many countries through organizations like BRICS, has forgiven old debts and worked with its partners to meet goals that serve the interests of the people. The idea of international partnerships has been called a multipolar approach and it contrasts sharply with the unipolar, imperialist policies of the US where all countries’ resources are controlled to benefit a powerful few–and at the expense of We the People.

We reject the greed, hatred and lust for power displayed by our “leaders”. We are outraged and horrified by the killing of millions of innocent people in the name of freedom and self defense. We want peace and justice for all people. We want a real and lasting peace, the kind of peace that JFK once spoke of:

What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children–not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women–not merely peace in our time but peace for all time.⁸

True peace and justice are impossible as long as the “ruthless conspiracy” rules the United States and other nations from the shadows. We pray that through our mutual efforts we may defeat the power-hungry and ruthless criminals who seek to enslave us all. We pray that we may instead foster a genuine peace that makes life on Earth worth living.

Sincerely,

So far 73,756 people have signed the letter.

YOU CAN SIGN THE LETTER!

Sources:

1. Is Putin incorruptible? U.S. insider’s view of the Russian president’s character and his country’s transformation
2. Putin is trying to save the world from war by Paul Craig Roberts
3. Putin Blamed for #MH17 to Launch Attack on BRICS World Bank
4. Commencement Address at American University, June 10, 1963
5. Political Ponerology (A Science on the Nature of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes) by Andrew M. Lobaczewski
6. The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism by Naomi Klein
7. JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters by James W. Douglass
8. The President and the Press, April 27, 1961
9. An open letter from the Netherlands to President Putin
10. The NATO Syndrome, the EU’s Eastern Partnership Program, and the EAU
11. No-Bluff Putin – Anyone who says Russia is losing in Ukraine doesn’t understand how this game is played.
12. Putin: Ukraine is a Battlefield for the New World Order
13. Global Pathocracy, Authoritarian Followers and the Hope of the World

Download PDF (English)

Thirteen years ago, the intelligence community concluded in a 93-page classified document used to justify the invasion of Iraq that it lacked “specific information” on “many key aspects” of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs.

But that’s not what top Bush administration officials said during their campaign to sell the war to the American public. Those officials, citing the same classified document, asserted with no uncertainty that Iraq was actively pursuing nuclear weapons, concealing a vast chemical and biological weapons arsenal, and posing an immediate and grave threat to US national security.

Congress eventually concluded that the Bush administration had “overstated” its dire warnings about the Iraqi threat, and that the administration’s claims about Iraq’s WMD program were “not supported by the underlying intelligence reporting.” But that underlying intelligence reporting — contained in the so-called National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that was used to justify the invasion — has remained shrouded in mystery until now.

The CIA released a copy of the NIE in 2004 in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, but redacted virtually all of it, citing a threat to national security. Then last year, John Greenewald, who operates The Black Vault, a clearinghouse for declassified government documents, asked the CIA to take another look at the October 2002 NIE to determine whether any additional portions of it could be declassified.

The agency responded to Greenewald this past January and provided him with a new version of the NIE, which he shared exclusively with VICE News, that restores the majority of the prewar Iraq intelligence that has eluded historians, journalists, and war critics for more than a decade. (Some previously redacted portions of the NIE had previously been disclosed in congressional reports.)

The fact that the NIE concluded that there was no operational tie between Saddam and al Qaeda did not offset this alarming assessment.

For the first time, the public can now read the hastily drafted CIA document [pdf below] that led Congress to pass a joint resolution authorizing the use of military force in Iraq, a costly war launched March 20, 2003 that was predicated on “disarming” Iraq of its (non-existent) WMD, overthrowing Saddam Hussein, and “freeing” the Iraqi people.

A report issued by the government funded think-tank RAND Corporation last December titled “Blinders, Blunders and Wars” said the NIE “contained several qualifiers that were dropped…. As the draft NIE went up the intelligence chain of command, the conclusions were treated increasingly definitively.”

An example of that: According to the newly declassified NIE, the intelligence community concluded that Iraq “probably has renovated a [vaccine] production plant” to manufacture biological weapons “but we are unable to determine whether [biological weapons] agent research has resumed.” The NIE also said Hussein did not have “sufficient material” to manufacture any nuclear weapons and “the information we have on Iraqi nuclear personnel does not appear consistent with a coherent effort to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program.”

But in an October 7, 2002 speech in Cincinnati, Ohio, then-President George W. Bush simply said Iraq, “possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons” and “the evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.”

One of the most significant parts of the NIE revealed for the first time is the section pertaining to Iraq’s alleged links to al Qaeda. In September 2002, then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld claimed the US had “bulletproof” evidence linking Hussein’s regime to the terrorist group.

“We do have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad,” Rumsfeld said. “We have what we consider to be very reliable reporting of senior-level contacts going back a decade, and of possible chemical- and biological-agent training.”

But the NIE said its information about a working relationship between al Qaeda and Iraq was based on “sources of varying reliability” — like Iraqi defectors — and it was not at all clear that Hussein had even been aware of a relationship, if in fact there were one.

“As with much of the information on the overall relationship, details on training and support are second-hand,” the NIE said. “The presence of al-Qa’ida militants in Iraq poses many questions. We do not know to what extent Baghdad may be actively complicit in this use of its territory for safehaven and transit.”

The declassified NIE provides details about the sources of some of the suspect intelligence concerning allegations Iraq trained al Qaeda operatives on chemical and biological weapons deployment — sources like War on Terror detainees who were rendered to secret CIA black site prisons, and others who were turned over to foreign intelligence services and tortured. Congress’s later investigation into prewar Iraq intelligence concluded that the intelligence community based its claims about Iraq’s chemical and biological training provided to al Qaeda on a single source.

“Detainee Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi — who had significant responsibility for training — has told us that Iraq provided unspecified chemical or biological weapons training for two al-Qai’ida members beginning in December 2000,” the NIE says. “He has claimed, however, that Iraq never sent any chemical, biological, or nuclear substances — or any trainers — to al-Qa’ida in Afghanistan.”

Al-Libi was the emir of the Khaldan training camp in Afghanistan, which the Taliban closed prior to 9/11 because al-Libi refused to turn over control to Osama bin Laden.

Last December, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a declassified summary of its so-called Torture Report on the CIA’s “enhanced interrogation” program. A footnote stated that al-Libi, a Libyan national, “reported while in [redacted] custody that Iraq was supporting al-Qa’ida and providing assistance with chemical and biological weapons.”

“Some of this information was cited by Secretary [of State Colin] Powell in his speech to the United Nations, and was used as a justification for the 2003 invasion of Iraq,” the Senate torture report said. “Ibn Shaykh al-Libi recanted the claim after he was rendered to CIA custody on February [redacted] 2003, claiming that he had been tortured by the [redacted], and only told them what he assessed they wanted to hear.”

Al-Libi reportedly committed suicide in a Libyan prison in 2009, about a month after human rights investigators met with him.

The NIE goes on to say that “none of the [redacted] al-Qa’ida members captured during [the Afghanistan war] report having been trained in Iraq or by Iraqi trainers elsewhere, but given al-Qa’ida’s interest over the years in training and expertise from outside sources, we cannot discount reports of such training entirely.”

All told, this is the most damning language in the NIE about Hussein’s links to al Qaeda: While the Iraqi president “has not endorsed al-Qa’ida’s overall agenda and has been suspicious of Islamist movements in general, apparently he has not been averse to some contacts with the organization.”

The NIE suggests that the CIA had sources within the media to substantiate details about meetings between al Qaeda and top Iraqi government officials held during the 1990s and 2002 — but some were not very reliable. “Several dozen additional direct or indirect meetings are attested to by less reliable clandestine and press sources over the same period,” the NIE says.

The RAND report noted, “The fact that the NIE concluded that there was no operational tie between Saddam and al Qaeda did not offset this alarming assessment.”

The NIE also restores another previously unknown piece of “intelligence”: a suggestion that Iraq was possibly behind the letters laced with anthrax sent to news organizations and senators Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy a week after the 9/11 attacks. The attacks killed five people and sickened 17 others.

“We have no intelligence information linking Iraq to the fall 2001 attacks in the United States, but Iraq has the capability to produce spores of Bacillus anthracis — the causative agent of anthrax — similar to the dry spores used in the letters,” the NIE said. “The spores found in the Daschle and Leahy letters are highly purified, probably requiring a high level of skill and expertise in working with bacterial spores. Iraqi scientists could have such expertise,” although samples of a biological agent Iraq was known to have used as an anthrax simulant “were not as pure as the anthrax spores in the letters.”

Paul Pillar, a former veteran CIA analyst for the Middle East who was in charge of coordinating the intelligence community’s assessments on Iraq, told VICE news that “the NIE’s bio weapons claims” was based on unreliable sources such as Ahmad Chalabi, the former head of the Iraqi National Congress, an opposition group supported by the US.

“There was an insufficient critical skepticism about some of the source material,” he now says about the unredacted NIE. “I think there should have been agnosticism expressed in the main judgments. It would have been a better paper if it were more carefully drafted in that sort of direction.”

But Pillar, now a visiting professor at Georgetown University, added that the Bush administration had already made the decision to go to war in Iraq, so the NIE “didn’t influence [their] decision.” Pillar added that he was told by congressional aides that only a half-dozen senators and a few House members read past the NIE’s five-page summary.

David Kay, a former Iraq weapons inspector who also headed the Iraq Survey Group, told Frontline that the intelligence community did a “poor job” on the NIE, “probably the worst of the modern NIE’s, partly explained by the pressure, but more importantly explained by the lack of information they had. And it was trying to drive towards a policy conclusion where the information just simply didn’t support it.”

The most controversial part of the NIE, which has been picked apart hundreds of times over the past decade and has been thoroughly debunked, pertained to a section about Iraq’s attempts to acquire aluminum tubes. The Bush administration claimed that this was evidence that Iraq was pursuing a nuclear weapon.

National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice stated at the time on CNN that the tubes “are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs,” and that “we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.”

The version of the NIE released in 2004 redacted the aluminum tubes section in its entirety. But the newly declassified assessment unredacts a majority of it and shows that the intelligence community was unsure why “Saddam is personally interested in the procurement of aluminum tubes.” The US Department of Energy concluded that the dimensions of the aluminum tubes were “consistent with applications to rocket motors” and “this is the more likely end use.” The State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research also disagreed with the intelligence community’s assertions that Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear weapons program.

The CIA’s 25-page unclassified summary of the NIE released in 2002 did not contain the State or Energy Departments’ dissent.

“Apart from being influenced by policymakers’ desires, there were several other reasons that the NIE was flawed,” the RAND study concluded. “Evidence on mobile biological labs, uranium ore purchases from Niger, and unmanned-aerial-vehicle delivery systems for WMDs all proved to be false. It was produced in a hurry. Human intelligence was scarce and unreliable. While many pieces of evidence were questionable, the magnitude of the questionable evidence had the effect of making the NIE more convincing and ominous. The basic case that Saddam had WMDs seemed more plausible to analysts than the alternative case that he had destroyed them. And analysts knew that Saddam had a history of deception, so evidence against Saddam’s possession of WMDs was often seen as deception.”

According to the latest figures compiled by Iraq Body Count, to date more than 200,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed, although other sources say the casualties are twice as high. More than 4,000 US soldiers have been killed in Iraq, and tens of thousands more have been injured and maimed. The war has cost US taxpayers more than $800 billion.

In an interview with VICE founder Shane Smith, Obama said the rise of the Islamic State was a direct result of the disastrous invasion.

“ISIL is a direct outgrowth of al Qaeda in Iraq that grew out of our invasion,” Obama said. “Which is an example of unintended consequences. Which is why we should generally aim before we shoot.”

Iraq October 2002 NIE on WMDs (unedacted version)

Next week, October 19, Canadians go the polls. It is important for Canadian voters be fully aware of what is known and documented, namely that Conservative Party and the outgoing Prime minister of Canada Stephen Harper were involved in a carefully engineered rigging of the 2011 parliamentary elections.

In the first essay in this series, I implied that the failure of Maclean’s political editor Paul Wells to mention the 2011 electoral fraud in his book on Stephen Harper qualified him for inclusion among “Harper’s Helpers.” Wells has himself confirmed the point.

When he suggested on Twitter (the same day) that journalists “might just want to ask other questions” rather than digging into government scandals, singer-songwriter Raffi Cavoukian replied: “It’s the Harper #elxn42 [2015 election] run that ought to be in question — a lawless, rogue [prime minister] running again — that’s the issue.” Raffi added that the Harper Conservatives were “convicted of wrongdoing in each of last [three] elections. That’s a huge issue.” Wells responded, Tweeting, “The Governor General, Elections Canada and the Constitution disagree with you, you flatulent crank.”

But the person, the agency and the abstraction cited by Wells are as irrelevant to the underlying facts as his schoolyard name-calling. It’s no stretch to call a PM who has twice been found in contempt of Parliament a lawless rogue and the electoral wrongdoing is proven and acknowledged — witness the “In and Out” scandal, the edifying spectacle of Harper’s ethics spokesman, Dean Del Mastro, being led off to prison in chains and the resignation of Peter Penashue [who is once again standing as the Conservative candidate for Labrador –Ed.].

Wells is not alone in wanting to ignore Harperite electoral fraud scandals. When for several weeks in early 2012 the 2011 “robocalls” vote suppression scandal was front page news, Michael Coren of Sun Media scoffed at people getting excited over “a few silly phone calls,” while The Globe and Mail’s Margaret Wente found it “ridiculous to think there was some massive cheating scheme engineered by higher-ups” in our “boring little democracy.”

But Canada is less boring and less of a democracy than Wente thought — silly or not, there were more than a few fraudulent calls. Two polls conducted in the spring of 2012 give an indication of the scale of telephone fraud in the 2011 election. Ipsos Reid, sampling over 3,000 voters primarily in Ontario, found that four per cent of respondents (which would mean about a million voters nationwide) reported having received calls giving false information about the location of their polling station.

Ekos Research, with a larger sample of nearly 4,800 voters drawn from 113 ridings across Canada, found that in six intensely robocalled ridings, an average of 3.8 per cent of voters had received misinformation calls, while across the country an average of 2.3 per cent — or in round terms, 550,000 people — had received calls of this type. (This seems a more reliable conclusion, though the Ipsos Reid survey would suggest that the fraud was more intense in Ontario.)

However, two distinct kinds of telephone fraud were practised nationwide during our 2011 election. On April 19, 2011, The Toronto Star, CBC News, and Maclean’s reported that over the preceding week late-night calls supposedly from Liberal Party campaigns had been infuriating voters in at least ten Ontario ridings, as well as elsewhere. Questions in Parliament ensued — in response to which Harper indignantly denied his party’s involvement, while Del Mastro suggested the calls were simply evidence of Liberal incompetence.

The harassment calls were seriously underreported. But when Elections Canada’s final tally of substantiated complaints was made public in Yves Côté’s Summary Investigation Report on Robocalls in April 2014, the figures were surprising. Of a total of 2,448 complaints, 1,241 (51 per cent) were about harassment calls, and 1,207 (49 per cent) about misinformation or misdirection calls. If we can take this as an indication that there were nearly equal numbers of the two kinds of calls, it would follow, given Ekos’s findings about misinformation calls, that the total number of fraudulent calls must have exceeded 1.1 million — and that harassment calls must have been made in most of the 261 ridings in which telephone fraud occurred.

It’s hard to judge the impact of these harassment calls. But it would appear that for every person who recognized them as fraudulent, many others were deceived. Anthony Rota, a network specialist and university administrator as well as former Liberal MP whose hair’s-breadth defeat in Nipissing-Temiskaming can be ascribed to telephone fraud, has told me he initially thought the late-night calls were by some appalling mistake being sent into his riding by Liberal headquarters in Ottawa. Rota was quickly undeceived — but most voters who were awakened at 2 a.m. by calls claiming to be from the local Liberal campaign and arrogantly suggesting, as one recipient has said, “that my support for them was a given,”  were simply angry.

It may not be coincidental that after a week of the telephone harassment campaign, Liberal support in Ontario dipped for the first time in the campaign to below 30 per cent, and on the national level began a steady decline in the polls from the upper to the lower 20s, ending finally at 18.9 per cent of the vote on election day.

Other factors were also in play: Michael Ignatieff’s workmanlike but not stellar performance in the TV debates on April 12 and 13, Liberal passivity in the face of unrelenting Conservative attacks and smears and the inspiring campaigning of Jack Layton. Nonetheless, it seems clear that the more than half a million harassment calls contributed to the Liberals’ decline.

Whatever the precise interplay of causes may have been, the Liberal ship took on water during the last two weeks of the campaign, and on election day, May 2, came close to going down with all hands. But would the appropriate comparison be to the Lusitania rather than the Titanic? To what extent was the disaster due to the captain’s poor judgment, and to what extent to the impact of torpedoes hitting below the water-line?

 Nobel Committee members long ago lost credibility. War criminals or other undeserving honorees win peace prizes. Past recipients included a rogue’s gallery of miscreants – Obama, Henry Kissinger and three former Israeli prime ministers most notably, all unindicted war criminals. Maybe Netanyahu is next.

Selection is entirely politicized. Legitimate peace advocates are shunned. Mahatma Gandhi was nominated five times, never awarded the coveted prize.

Deserving candidates like peace champion Kathy Kelly, whistleblowers Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning are consistently ignored. So are Vladimir Putin and Sergey Lavrov’s all-out efforts for peace in Ukraine and Syria – drawing condemnation, not the high praise they deserve.

This year’s most notable nominees included Angela Merkel, Pope Francis and John Kerry – two unindicted war criminals and a pontiff representing wealth and power. Don’t let his rhetoric fool you.

Nobel Committee members announced the Tunisian National Dialogue Quartet as recipient of this year’s prize “for its decisive contribution to the building of a (nonexistent) pluralistic democracy in Tunisia in the wake of the (so-called) Jasmine Revolution of 2011,” – part of Washington’s orchestrated and manipulated phony Arab Spring, assuring business as usual remained unchallenged, including in Tunisia.

It’s a democracy in name only. President Beji Caid Essebsi is a longtime Tunisian politician, a former Minister of Foreign Affairs and Prime Minister for the repressive Bourguiba and Ben Ali regimes respectively.

Now 88 years old, his mandate is business as usual. In May 2015, he met with Obama at the White House, invitations reserved solely for pro-Western officials shunning democracy, notably Middle East ones, mostly governed by ruthless despots, all close US allies.

Essebsi’s runoff December presidential win was hailed as the culmination of Tunisia’s transition to democracy. Not by some observers, accusing him of continuing repressive Ben Ali policies.

His Nidaa Tounes party is infested with Ben Ali cronies. Tunisian engineer Neid Ben Hamza called last December’s electoral result “really disappointing.” Tunisians have “short memories,” he said.

A repressive old guard member now leads the country. Educator Ali Toudi said he “fear(s) for our liberties, especially as the same political party will have such overarching powers.”

“Essebsi talks about counter-terrorism and the prestige of the state. I’m afraid of a return to repressive practices in their name.” Musician Ben Amor said “the fight goes on and we will never give up.”

Last April, Essebsi met with French President Francois Hollande in Paris. Tunisia is a former French colony. He declared “France is our top partner. We are open to every kind of collaboration – economic, political, social and even on security.”

His regime continues repressive old guard policies with a smiling face – supporting wealth and power exclusively at the expense of social justice. Hollande praised his nonexistent “exemplary track record regarding democracy.”

Conditions for ordinary Tunisians are deplorable. Poverty increased 30% since 2011. High unemployment affects youths and women hardest. Workers lucky to have jobs earn poverty or sub-poverty wages.

Tunisia closed its main border crossing with Libya because of violence and instability. It’s the only land escape route for tens of thousands trying to flee – victims of US imperial lawlessness.

Following the 2015 Sousse attacks, killing 38 mostly British tourists, Essebsi promised harsh counterterrorism steps in response. He imposed draconian state of emergency diktats, saying an “exceptional situation required exceptional measures.”

Police state antiterrorism legislation followed, trashing human rights while falsely claiming to respect them. Terrorism now includes damaging property during legitimate protests.

Police can hold suspects up to 15 days, isolated with no legal representation or outside contacts. Capital punishment is an option for disseminating information alleged responsible for loss of life in terrorist attacks.

Essebsi heads a police state. It bears repeating. Nobel Committee members honored the Tunisian National Dialogue Quartet “for its decisive contribution to the building of a (nonexistent) pluralistic democracy…”

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 1PMCentral time plus two prerecorded archived programs.

On Friday, Defense Department publication Stars and Stripes (S&P) headlined “Pentagon plans new approach to train Syrian rebels.” More on this below.

Fact: None exist. Anti-Assad forces are virtually all imported death squads from scores of other countries – US armed, funded, trained and directed, including ISIS, Al Qaeda, and Jabhat Al Nursa elements among others, used as proxy foot soldiers to terrorize Syrians, part of Washington’s scheme to replace Assad with a pro-Western puppet.

S&P lied claiming the Pentagon plans “a new approach to equip Syrian rebels…relying more on…Kurdish forces in” northern Syria.

“The work we’ve done with the Kurds in northern Syria is an example of an effective approach. We have a group that is capable and motivated on the ground,” Defense Secretary Carter claimed.

So that is exactly the kind of example we’d like to pursue with other groups in other parts of Syria going forward.

Carter and Pentagon commanders have no effective strategy to counter Russia’s intervention against ISIS and other terrorist groups. Effective blitzkrieg continues destroying their weapons, munitions, and facilities, as well as decimating their ranks.

Thousands fled cross-border for safety or took refuge in residential communities. They’re no match against powerful Russian weapons, sophisticated technology and Putin’s determination to crush them, a righteous undertaking the entire free world applauds.

BBC News reported Saudi Arabia intends sending more weapons to beleaguered “rebel” groups – aka ISIS and other terrorist ones despite Riyadh claiming otherwise.

After one week of operations, Russia’s Defense Ministry said it launched 120 combat sorties, hitting 110 targets, destroying:

• 71 armored vehicles

• 30 other vehicles

• 19 command facilities

• 2 communications centers

• 23 fuel and ammunition depots

• 6 facilities for making IEDs, including car bombs

• several artillery pieces, and

• several training camps

Escalated activities in the last 24 hours included 67 sorties, targeting 60 terrorist facilities with devastating force – killing two senior ISIS commanders and hundreds of fighters, Russia’s Defense Ministry reported.

Riyadh can supply weapons but not the will to fight. Most terrorists will stay the course to win, not die from Russia’s devastating onslaught, including powerful bunker-buster bombs able to destroy underground facilities, no longer safe havens.

On Friday, Russian General Staff Deputy Chief Lt. Gen. Igor Makushev said “(m)ilitants are sustaining substantial losses under the strikes of Russian aircraft and have to change their tactics, to scatter their forces, to carefully disguise and hide in settlements.”

In these circumstances the Russian Aerospace Forces continue systematic air strikes and increase their intensity to effectively destroy the targets.

Claims of civilian casualties are fabricated, part of Washington-led anti-Russian propaganda. Moscow has photographic evidence of each target struck, no civilian ones or near them.

Washington’s so-called rebel-training program was a complete hoax, $500 million wasted, maybe $1 billion or more. Pentagon officials notoriously conceal waste, fraud and abuse – trillions of dollars unaccounted for post-9/11 alone.

Expect continued US support for ISIS and other terrorist groups to continue. Recruiting may not be as easy with Russia involved.

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 1PMCentral time plus two prerecorded archived programs.

 The October 8, 2015 US Senate Committee on Armed Services hearing titled, “Russian Strategy and Military Operations,” gave viewers an instructive snapshot at the current state of America’s dwindling power.

Enter the American Empire

The hearing is one of many interfaces between corporate-financier funded policy think tanks and the politicians who will ultimately rubber stamp their schemes and designs into law. It consists of a panel of bought-off, self-serving senators, listening to think-tank academics with no practical experience along with retired generals drawing paychecks by keeping big-defense, big-oil, big-ag, big-finance, and others well fed.

Image: Western governments have their populations cowering in fear over “refugees” invading and destroying their “Western culture,” successfully distracting them from true cross-border invaders – multinational corporations whose unwarranted power and influence has done more to destabilize, destroy, steal, plunder, and ruin global populations than any boatload of refugees could hope to accomplish.

This particular hearing included Heather Conley of the Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS) (donors here),  Stephen Sestanovich of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) (donors here), General James Jones (USMC ret.) now of the Brent Scowcroft Center On International Security of the Atlantic Council (donors here), and Generael John Keane (US Army, ret.) of the Institute For The Study Of War (ISW) (donors here).

Image: This Tomahawk cruise missile was brought to Libya by, Raytheon – a corporate sponsor of the Atlantic Council, CSIS, and CFR – all of whom helped engineer, sell, and execute the war in the first place.

Each witness providing testimony is a member of a corporate-financier funded and directed policy think tank. Looking through their donors and boards of directors, one sees several common denominators – big-oil, big-defense, big-agriculture, big-pharma, big-finance, and other big-businesses forming the foundation of Wall Street and Washington’s current power structure.

Considering that the issues being discussed before the US Senate Committee on Armed Services revolve around the application of military force throughout the world toward achieving not the territorial defense of the United States, but defending what are called US “interests” abroad – including the encirclement, containment, and eventual overthrow of geopolitical and socioeconomic competitors – immense conflicts of interest are obvious. In fact, it is clear that these corporate-financier interests are the primary force driving US foreign policy and military planning.

Corporations like Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics, and Northrop Grumman are all well represented. With war and confrontation constantly peddled before the committee, including the senseless expansion of NATO along Russia’s borders, it is clear who stands to benefit whether or not a sound long-term strategy can be achieved, or even for that matter, developed and articulated properly in the first place.

Image: F-35 – the most expensive weapons program in human history.

Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Lightning Joint Strike Fighter program alone will cost nations around the world well over a trillion dollars – making it the most expensive weapons program in human history – all justified by the conflicts and confrontations dreamed up in the halls of various corporate-financier funded think-tanks and sold to the US Senate by witnesses like General Jones, General Keanes, Sestanovich, and Conley.

Likewise, the sponsorship and direction of Exxon, BP, Chevron, Shell, and others involved in discussions about how to disrupt European-Russian relations to cut off and isolate Russia’s gas export industry has less to do with defending peace and stability globally, and more to do with defending and expanding the monopolies of Western energy-giants – even at the cost of global peace and stability.

A Snapshot of American Megalomania 

During the hearing the four witnesses established the threat they claimed Russia posed to US interests abroad and more specifically the need to expand NATO to confront this threat. Rather than welcomingRussia’s involvement in Syria aimed at destroying terrorist forces operating there, the witnesses portrayed the deterioration of US primacy in the region and in the world while pleading with an agreeing Senate committee that America must reassert itself.

To illustrate just how irrational and absurd US foreign policy has become, at several points General Keane suggested that the US create “free zones” inside Syria for US-backed militants to seek shelter from Russian airstrikes. To ensure Russia will not strike them anyway, General Keane suggested that refugees also be placed in these zones. In other words – use the refugees as human shields against Russian attacks.

That he shared this plan in front of a committee full of nodding US Senators reveals US foreign policy to be reduced to almost a tropism – no longer rationally examining itself and the world it fits into – but rather simply attempting to grow as large as possible like a blind force of nature.

A grand strategy for how the US imagines the world  in the future and how it fits into that world was noticeably absent as the witnesses traversed the global map from the Arctic to the Mediterranean scheming on how best to defeat Russian President Vladimir Putin. It constitutes a strategy not toward any pragmatic or sustainable goal or world outlook, but rather the naked pursuit of power – of hegemony.

Hegemony is a self-serving pursuit. It requires that the US establish proxies, not partners – and that those proxies remain weak and dependent on their patron – two characteristics few national leaders would aspire toward or be satisfied with for long.

It also requires justification at home, since few taxpayers would willingly support a ruling elite who sought hegemony and all the benefits it entailed for themselves while passing on costly wars, social neglect, and all related expenditures to the average citizen. Therefore, the pursuit of hegemony also requires massive amounts of unsustainable deception, both at home and abroad – and explains why the media also plays a prominent role within the think-tank-government equation.

Despite the committee hearing the witnesses and senators were all in agreement that Russia was the problem and that wider war and confrontation was needed to meet it, they acknowledged the ineffectiveness of all available mechanisms to actually achieve that.

They acknowledged Russia’s domination of the information war, America’s shrinking military, and a rudderless domestic energy policy. Not once did the witnesses or senators discuss the idea of looking inward for strength, with all solutions seemingly revolving around disrupting, undermining, targeting, or confronting others.

And while these senators were all technically elected by the American people to represent their best interests, it was clear they were far more interested in what the corporate-financier funded think-tanks had to say about America’s future.

Mulipolarism – Searching for an Exit 

Russia has confounded American aspirations toward primacy not because it possesses a larger military or a stronger economy. It certainly does not have more resources to fund its media operations. Instead, it has studied, understood, and applied the basic fundamentals of war.

Russia possesses at the moment the moral imperative – it is widely seen around the world as confronting American hegemony, meddling, warmongering, and domineering. It has successfully exposed the methods with which the US has waged proxy war on Syria and Libya, and highlighted the betrayal of America’s alleged allies in Iraq. In essence, while Russia has been the principle agent leveraging these developments, it was the US itself who provided the fulcrum.

Russia’s concept of a multipolar world gives those who have been offered a place among America’s unipolar world as a proxy, the alternative of a partnership underpinned by national sovereignty, self-determination, and a prevailing balance of power between nations rather than entangling interdependence over which the US and its international institutions arbitrate.

Russia, Iran, Syria, and others who have found themselves on the wrong end of American-driven globalization have learned the merits of national self-sufficiency and self-reliance. It would be hoped that these good habits carry themselves over should this multipolar world emerge.

Localize – Your Exit from the American Empire 

While Russia and its allies attempt to create a wider balance of power across the world on the global stage, it is important for people to understand that unless fundamental changes are made regarding what a nation is and how it fits into the wider geopolitical world, the world runs the risk of trading one hegemony in for another inevitably in the future.

A balance of power between nations is not enough. A balance must then be struck within each nation, on a provincial or state level. Further still, that balance must be established locally.

Technology has made it possible for a wider range of modern social, political, and economic processes to be carried out by fewer and fewer people. The ability for nations to nationalize economic activity that they once depended on immense multinational monopolies to do for them is an example of this trend on the larger end of the spectrum. Russia, China, and Iran have in many areas reached parity with the US military industrial complex regarding key technologies – as admitted by the witnesses before the US Senate Armed Services Committee.

Nations developing their own domestic car manufacturing companies, pharmaceutical production, and telecom and IT solutions are also examples of this.

On a more local level, technology has made it possible for communities and even individuals to engage in social, economic and political activity that once required immense amounts of capital and manpower. The Internet alone allows writers to access millions of readers with free, open source tools. A half-century ago, a printing press, TV studio, or radio station requiring huge amounts of money and manpower would have been required to do the same. The same could be said of the widening proliferation of personal manufacturing technology like computer-controlled mills, lasers, water jets, and 3D printers.

Looking again at the US Senate Committee on Armed Forces and the immense corporate-financier interests selfishly, almost blindly pushing US foreign policy along from one war to the other like a swarm of locust, Americans must realize that no matter who they vote in, until that nexus of unwarranted power and influence is removed from the equation, nothing else can or will change.

Many communities today – regardless of what country they are in – depend on many of the corporate-financier interests driving US foreign policy. By moving away from these corporate-financier monopolies, and replacing them permanently with local alternatives, we begin to drain the swamp where special interests and the many disease they carry breed. In addition to putting in check runaway foreign policy,building stronger communities upon a foundation of local industry and entrepreneurship is an effective way to take the wealth horded by Wall Street and put it back into the hands of the people more evenly.

Images: Local car manufacturing, urban organic food production, leveraging technology like drones and personal manufacturing tools like 3D printing, and local farmers’ markets all form the growing foundation of modern, local industry, economy, and even local institutions. This phenomenon will help balance power within any given state, just as the emerging multipolar world represents a balance of power between states.

Stronger communities then have a greater say in the destiny of their provinces or states, and more say in the destiny of their country. They have a greater say because they have greater socioeconomic leverage to put pressure on political parties and representatives who have thus far been content listening only to policymakers furnished by the Fortune 500.

And while this seems like a distant dream, the world should understand that this change is already underway. The number of national businesses around the world able to compete and dilute the monopolies of Wall Street and London have already contributed to the deterioration of American primacy on the global stage.

General James Jones while answering questions during the recent hearing noted that America’s position in the world was not based solely on military power, but also included political and economic components. The key to repositioning  America in the world – preferably back behind its own borders and regional spheres of influence – also must include political and economic components in addition to the very obvious military component now being exercised by Russia and its allies in Syria.

While the military and political components include a relatively limited number of direct participants, the economic component includes literally every worker on the planet. Where and how they choose to spend their money effects directly the Fortune 500, their wealth and influence, and those competitors that threaten to upset and dilute their still overwhelming monopolies.

Some may believe their individual contribution is too insignificant to matter, but it is a fact that millions of these “insignificant” individual contributions have already made a difference and each contribution is no less significant than the actions of any single soldier fighting on a battlefield.  Individually they may seem insignificant. Collectively, they add up to victory.

The bottom line is that you are not a spectator. A single act has an effect on the vector sum of global events – however insignificant. By building up stronger communities, through local organic agriculture, through the proliferation and use of personal manufacturing and IT technology, and by the creation of local businesses and institutions that permanently replace domineering national and multinational corporations, we can begin adding up our individual acts into a final exit from the American Empire.

(Please read Part I before this article)

The first part of the article touched upon the defining elements that constitute the paradigm shift created by the Coalition of the Righteous (COR), so it’s time to examine the geopolitical consequences of this game-changing development. Each observation deals either with an analyzed observation or a forecasted scenario, and everyone is integral in understanding the “New Middle East” that’s taking shape under Russian stewardship. The first section addresses the COR crescent between Lebanon and Iran, while the second one looks at the US’ crumbling geopolitical pillars of Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

The Resistance-Republican Arc Is Reborn

The author wrote about this scenario twice, once back in January and the other earlier last month (butpublished this week), and it deals with the geopolitical resurrection of the Resistance Arc between Iran, Iraq, and Syria. The earliest forecast suggested that Iran could play a stabilizing role in convincing the Kurds to abandon their secessionist desires, while the latest one built upon that idea by highlighting the crucial role that a pro-Resistance Kurdish entity (whether independent or still part of Iraq) would play in fulfilling this scenario. Also, the most recent analysis postulates that with all three entities having the common denomination of Republicanism (be it Secular or Islamic), there’s a certain ideological synergy between them that makes their cooperation all the more natural, and can also lead to the inclusion of Lebanon if it ever truly stabilizes. The COR can thus be seen as the second iteration of the Resistance-Republic Arc, but this time much more strengthened in its geopolitical standing as a result of the Russian Federation’s formal incorporation. In the context of the New Cold War, this makes the coalition the number one military enemy of the US, since it’s the only force that is literally fighting back against its proxies and dedicated to sweeping them and their puppet masters completely out of the geo-pivotal Mideast region.

Kurdistan Makes Its Choice

Continuing with the theme of the Kurds’ criticality to any Resistance Arc recreation in the Mideast, it needs to be directly stated that their leaders have made a clear choice in favor of the COR. By going from unipolar clients to multipolar allies, the Kurds have played a major role in ensuring the viability of the coalition and securing its internal unity in the face of terrorist aggression against it. Russia was the kingmaker in having this happen, as its focused diplomatic efforts over the past two months are largely responsible for the Kurdish Pivot. Without this having occurred, then the geopolitical danger of a pro-American Kurdish client state rising out of the coalition’s anti-terrorist campaign would have hung over the multipolar world like the ultimate Damocles’ Sword. Therefore, the Kurds certainly deserve their fair share of credit and should be saluted for bravely rejecting the US’ vision for them and transferring their trust to the COR instead. Washington can’t in the least bit be happy about this, but it’s mostly unable to do anything about it because its Turkish attack dog is mired in an escalating civil war at home and not at all in a position to project large amounts of punitive force across the border (with its latest small-scale ground and air raids being the most it can realistically do for now).

Iran’s Internal Debate Is Over

The signing of the Iranian nuclear agreement temporarily revealed the internal divisions among the country’s elite, with Western-slurred “hard-liners” decrying it as being full of too many concessions while the so-called “moderates” praised it for its pragmatism. Going further, Iran entered into a brief period of political schizophrenia, courting Western investment at the same time that Ayatollah Khamenei reaffirmed that his country’s stance towards the US remains unchanged. This confusing dichotomy led the author and others to wonder whether or not Western-friendly “moderate” forces had succeeded in secretly assuming power behind the scenes and hijacking Iran’s geopolitical orientation. While some level of political differences still most surely exist in Iran’s upper echelons, the country’s participation in the COR firmly indicates that the “hard-liners” (in reality, the forces that are the most geopolitically pragmatic in Iran) are still calling the shots, which is a huge relief for the multipolar world. Venturing to explain how they pulled out on top, it’s very likely that F. William Engdahl’sexplanation of Russia’s embedded military and technical influence strategically overriding any of the West’s economic temptations is the most accurate reason, and while questions still remain about the impact that Iran’s forthcoming return to the global energy market will have for Russia, that too is likely to have already been addressed by both parties.

The Friendship Pipeline Returns

One of the geopolitical dividends that the War on Syria was supposed to reap for the West and its regional allies was the unviability of the Iran-Iraq-Syria Friendship Pipeline, but with order soon to return to the latter two states, it’s very probable that the project will actually be revived. This is even more so as Western Europe continues to look for a non-Russian energy alternative, especially now that the Turkish-Kurdish War has raised serious questions about the security of the TANAP and TAPlines. Thus, a geo-energy reversal appears to be taking place, one in which TANAP and TAP look unviable while the Friendship Pipeline seems realistic. The windfall of transit revenue that Iraq and Syria would receive for hosting the pipeline could greatly assist with their post-war reconstruction efforts, thus making it a natural economic choice for their leaderships (aside from the loyal commitment that each of them already have in resurrecting the fraternal project). Assuming that the opportunity arises for its physical creation (which is very possible considering that the COR will succeed), this begs the question about how such a large influx of gas on the global market would impact on Russia’s grand energy strategy.

The issue of massive Iranian gas exports threatens to potentially split Russia and Iran in the future more than any other, but in all likelihood, it seems as though Moscow has already thought this through in advance and reached some sort of understanding with Tehran. After all, it’s logical to conclude that once Iraq and Syria return to full stability, Iran would naturally take the lead in suggesting the recreation of the Friendship Pipeline, even more so in the context of the post-sanctions environment it will be in by that time. The pipeline won’t be built right away, of course, and this gives Russia time to flex out its response, which is predicted to be the continued trend of lessening its budgetary dependency on energy exports and diversifying more towards the Asian marketplace. Pair this with the fact that the Friendship Pipeline will export LNG, which thus gives it a very narrow consumer base concentrated mostly in Western Europe, and one can realize how it won’t directly threaten the demand for Russia’s geo-critical Balkan Stream pipeline, thereby avoiding the potential for an unfriendly energy competition between the two Allies. On a final note about this topic, Russia is also primed for expanding its real-sector economic relations via a broad South Eurasian Pivot (which touches into East Africa, too), meaning that its prior relative dependence on energy exports (typically misrepresented, at that) will take on even less of an importance than before as the country engages in new, innovative, and geographically wider methods of spreading its influence.

The Lebanese Lifeline

The Russian military intervention in Syria has relieved the pro-government ground forces of enormous pressure, and it’s thus made it much easier for them to operate. This opens up the possibility that Hezbollah’s fighters there are no longer needed in the same capacity as before, and could thus return to Lebanon to potentially deal with the domestic crisis there without having much of a negative on-the-ground consequence for the Syrian Arab Army right now. One shouldn’t misunderstand the author at this juncture – Hezbollah played an enormously important role in supporting Damascus in its anti-terrorist missions – but it’s just that Lebanon, the epicenter of the movement, is now facing its own existential crisis that might necessitate the organization playing a key role there in some way or another. Had Russia not directly intervened in Syria, then it would have been much more difficult for the Syrian Arab Army to manage the frontlines had Hezbollah needed to abruptly pull most of its forces out of the country for whatever unexpected reason. Now, however, no such military vulnerability exists in the same sense as it previously did, thus giving Hezbollah more freedom of military maneuverability to save Lebanon without having to make the painful decision of choosing between helping its homeland or Syria.

Hezbollah’s flexibility in now being able to more conveniently transfer units from Syria back to Lebanon will likely help it in better managing the country’s crisis if it escalates and such a need arises. Complementarily to this, Russia has also just announced that it will provide an unspecified amount of military equipment to Lebanon’s armed forces and law enforcement agencies to assist with their anti-ISIL efforts. This stroke of strategic genius will help the country counter any terrorist threat that spills over its borders during the forthcoming Russian-Syrian Liberation Offensive, and it will also serve to bolster the state in repelling any destructive Color Revolution-like Islamist takeover. The lifeline that Russia has thus extended to the Lebanese state might be sufficient enough not only to finally bring some semblance of stability to it, but also to make it a member of the COR. If the latter comes to be, then the Resistance Arc would continue to consolidate itself as the Republican Arc, further highlighting the ideological differences between it and the unipolar-affiliated monarchies to the south. Additionally, Lebanon’s incorporation into the Alliance would help it shake off the influence of pro-Saudi infiltrators that have snuck the Kingdom’s influence into the country and its institutions over the past decade.

To be continued…

Andrew Korybko is the American political commentaror currently working for the Sputnik agency.

In the age of phone cameras, we have become increasingly used to photos and videos of Palestinians in the West Bank being shot by soldiers in unjustifiable circumstances.

Think of 18-year-old Hadeel Hashlamon, who was killed late last month at a checkpoint in Hebron. A series of photos of her suggest, in the words of Amnesty International, that she was “executed” by the soldiers there. She was shot multiple times and left to bleed to death.

The army claimed she had a knife, which they photographed on the ground nearby. But whether she was carrying the knife or it was planted there, still an issue that has not been resolved, the more important point is this: she posed no threat, let alone a lethal one, to anyone when she was killed.

Now we have a disturbing video of a similar shooting but this time not in the occupied territories. This occurs inside Israel and the victim is an Israeli citizen – a member of the country’s Palestinian minority, which comprises a fifth of Israel’s population.

Israa Abed, a 30-year-old mother of three from Nazareth, was shot today at the central bus station in Afula, close to Nazareth. She was surrounded by many soldiers, police and what appear to be armed Israeli civilians. The soldiers there are probably passengers on the many buses that pass through Afula.

The Israeli media initially reported that she was shot while trying to stab a security guard. The video (below) shows that to be definitively not the case. She is shot after long moments of standing apparently terrified in the bus station, in what looks like a state of all-consuming panic, as more and more people point their guns at her.

From the quality of this video it is near-impossible to know whether she is holding a knife. But it is possible to see that, like Hashlamon, she poses no threat to any of the soldiers when she is shot. That point is underlined by the fact that several soldiers and policemen move closer to her, not away from her, in the final moments before she is shot. She does little more than sway throughout the video, appearing to turn when a policeman runs directly towards her as several gun shots ring out on the sound track.

Fortunately, she appears to have survived the shooting and is reported to be in a stable condition in hospital.

But this video is troubling for several reasons.

First, and most obviously, this woman was shot when she posed no immediate threat. The person or people who opened fire did so with no possible justification, apart from their own fears. One cannot help wondering whether the ease with which Israeli Jews shoot Palestinians, whether fellow citizens of Israel or victims of the occupation, reflects long-dominant discourses in the Israeli education system, media and politics that dehumanise “Arabs”.

Second, the shooting seems to occur not because the armed people around her fear they are in danger, but because the group push themselves into a collective frenzy about the alleged knife. In this kind of atmosphere, someone is going to pull the trigger sooner or later.

This is very similar to another recent video, in which a group of religious (and unarmed) Jews chase after Fadi Alloun in a large open area in Jerusalem calling for him to be shot. When security forces turn up, the video shows police opening fire, apparently on the orders of the crowd, killing him. Again, Alloun does not appear to be posing a threat to anyone at the time he is shot.

Third, Israeli politicians, including the mayor of Jerusalem, Nir Barkat, have called on Israeli Jewish civilians to carry their weapons at all times and be ready to use them. This video shows where this policy is likely to lead: summary justice carried out by the most unhinged link in the security chain.

Fourth, it is a deeply worrying new trend inside Israel that Jewish civilians are starting to mimick the settlers in the occupied territories in believing they should be carrying out revenge attacks themselves. Today, a Jewish man in Dimona stabbed four Palestinians, two of them Israeli citizens. This video offers a vivid illustration of the mood of victimhood that is sweeping Israel, one that makes Israelis fast on the trigger and ready to play the role of avenging angel.

It is bad enough that Palestinians in Israel have to face security forces that treat them like an enemy. But things will get much, much worse when even the highly prejudicial rule of law in Israel is replaced by the lynch mob.

American Widow’s Story of Her Mayan Activist Husband’s Death — and US Complicity

Earlier this week, we ran a two-parter on the US, Guatemala, corruption, the CIA, genocide, torture, and more. Reader interest was considerable.

We now invite you to watch this video of a presentation made by Jennifer Harbury, an American whose late Guatemalan husband, a Mayan indigenous activist, was “disappeared” by the military. After hunger strikes and investigations, she learned that Efraín Bámaca Velásquez had been tortured and then killed — and that the CIA knew all about it. Her story is a powerful one.

Tens of millions of European and North American immigrants, legal and illegal, have been flooding both the cities and countryside in Asia, Latin America, and even Africa.

Western migrants are charging like bulls and the ground is shaking under their feet; they are fleeing Europe and North America in hordes. Deep down they cannot stand their own lifestyle, their own societies, but you would hardly hear them pronounce it. They are too proud and too arrogant! But, after recognizing innumerable areas of the world as suitable for their personal needs – as safe, attractive and cheap – they simply pack and go!

We are told that some few hundred thousand African and Asian exiles are now causing a great “refugee crises” all over Europe! Governments and media are spreading panic, borders are being re-erected and armed forces are interrupting the free movement of people. But the number of foreigners illegally entering Europe is incomparably smaller than the number of Western migrants that are inundating, often illegally, virtually all corners of the world.

No “secret paradise” can be hidden any longer and no country can maintain its reasonable price structure. Potential European, North American and Australian immigrants are determined to enrich themselves by any means, at the expense of local populations. They are constantly searching for bargains: monitoring prices everywhere, ready to move at the spur of the moment, as long as the place offers some great bargains, has lax immigration laws, and a weak legal framework.

Everything pure and untapped gets corrupted. With lightning speed, Western immigrants are snatching reasonably priced real estate and land. Then, they impose their lifestyle on all those “newly conquered territories”. As a result, entire cultures are collapsing or changing beyond recognition.

Overall, Western immigrants are arrogant and stubborn; they feel no pity for the countries they are inundating. What surrounds them is only some colorful background to their precious lives. They are unable and unwilling to “adopt” local customs, because they are used to the fact that theirs is the “leading culture” – the culture that controls the world.

They come, they demand, and they take whatever they can – often by force. If unchecked, they take everything. After, when there is almost nothing left to loot, they simply move on. After them, “no grass can grow”; everything is burned, ruined and corrupted. Like Bali, Phuket, Southern Sri Lanka, great parts of the Caribbean, Mexico and East African coast, just to name a few places.

*

Who represents the greater “menace”: some 300,000 “illegal” refugees escaping from the countries destabilized or outright destroyed by the West, or those millions of Westerners who are annually fleeing their depressing lifestyles and selfishly over-imposing themselves on so many economically weaker and therefore more vulnerable parts of the world?

I believe the answer is obvious.

People from devastated countries are often left with no choice: many are coming to their tormentors, forced by circumstances to accept totally unreasonable conditions, humiliation and marginalization. They have to work extremely hard. They have to accept jobs Westerners think themselves “too good for”, and they are expected, even ordered, to “adapt” culturally. They go through horrific screenings and interviews, and almost all of them have to degrade themselves just in order to survive and feed their children. Only a minority is allowed to stay. Those who do stay greatly contribute to local economies.

Of course, this is a part of the dirty trick: the West needs foreigners; it cannot survive without immigrants, without their cheap labor. But it would never admit it openly. Before “accepting them”, it has to first humiliate and break even those whom it desperately needs. It has to further demean those whose nations were already robbed of everything, and even thrown into war by the West’s imperialist foreign policy and by corporate terrorism.

*

The West’s migrants are encountering totally different treatment in most of the countries they are inundating.

To begin with, Western immigrants do not even need visas to enter most countries. Decades ago, the Empire opened by force almost all “developing states”. Westerners are treated preferentially, and generally promoted as a “source of income” by local regimes.

It is mainly the Western multi-nationals that are dividing the loot from Asian, African and the Middle Eastern countries, but some part of booty always ends up in the pockets of those ordinary European and North American citizens, mainly in the form of retirement plans or other social benefits. Then, annually, tens of millions of Westerners, armed with funds that have been stolen from the “developing world” are hitting the road, trying to make their money go further in those places where their funds actually originated!

It is no secret that Western migrants are taking advantage of poverty, low prices, and corrupts legal systems. Their arrival raises prices for housing and land. It leaves millions of local people literally homeless, and it raises the prices of food and basic services for the local population.

In a way, people in many poor countries get robbed twice: by Western corporations, and then again, by Western migrants.

But damaged countries are not sending coast guard ships to intercept Western migrants. And there are hardly any deportations. Only those who dare to criticize the system get expelled.

*

I saw entire islands being eaten alive by Western immigrants. Almost no coastal areas are left for local people on the Indonesian islands of Lombok and Bali. The Scandinavian mafias, the Central European mafias, Australian mafias… The theft had reached unimaginable proportions. Even when it is illegal to purchase land, the Europeans and the North Americans are teaming up with local gangs, or forging schemes that include marriages to local women. Western migrants are tremendously canny! There is always some way how to get around the laws and screw poor people in the most miserable countries on earth.

The Italian “takeover” of the Kenyan coast… the child prostitution there.

Thailand’s islands are all gone. No culture remains, almost no houses belonging to the local people… almost no coastal stretch is left untouched. There is just some banal, horrid tourist infrastructure, and millions of Western migrants baking on the sun, all year round, with their pot bellies exposed, wearing flip-flops, downing beer, hand in hand with their culturally uprooted Thai companions. What did these people bring to Thailand? Freedom? Prosperity? High culture? Seriously! Or honestly, isn’t it just a moral corruption and total cultural ruin?

There are literally millions – maybe even tens of millions – of Western (mainly European) migrants living all over Southeast Asia. Exact numbers are unknown; there are no reliable studies and statistics. Many Western immigrants in Southeast Asia are actually “illegal”. Some are “semi-legal”, with their constant “visa runs”, false marriages and shady investments.

Cambodia is one of the places that has been attracting the most depraved migrants from the West. Their sex sprees and “2 dollars per ‘shag’ bargains” have been described in detail in several colorful books.

I encountered many “expats” and “migrants” when I was first investigating and then helping to close down one of the most notorious child-prostitution centers on earth, so-called “Kilometer 11”, located just outside the capital city of Phnom Penh. There, thousands of kidnapped girls, many of them minors, were forced to serve predominantly European clientele. Some of them were kidnapped and gang-raped on the way by traffickers; dragged here from all over Cambodia and neighboring Vietnam. The girls lived in captivity, guarded by vicious gangsters. And all over the place, flashing their proverbial beer bellies, were cheerful middle-aged European migrants, who just moved here, as I was told, “shagging a minor is much cheaper than downing a pint of shitty beer”.

A local Reuters correspondent and I managed to interview several 14-years old girls, some of them clearly dying from AIDS. Later on, when we began photographing the scene from the car, the entire crowd of men began charging, beer bottles in their hands, shorts falling off from their backsides, ready to kill. A great gain for the country of Cambodia, those European migrants!

I fought with all my might those venomous German immigrants at Colonia Dignidad in Southern Chile. There, many European Christian religious fanatics set up their entire state inside the Chilean state, closely collaborating with the US-backed Pinochet’ dictatorship. At one point, Bormann was there, as well as other prominent Nazis. After settling in their “new fatherland”, the German immigrants went busily to “work”, raping children, performing medical experiments on local orphans, and mercilessly torturing opponents of the fascist dictatorship. Of course, they did not immigrate only to Chile; there were millions of European fascist émigrés pouring into all corners of South America. The most prominent of them were shipped there with care by US and British intelligence services.

While Western propaganda keeps talking about illegal immigrants crossing into the US from Mexico, there is very little talk about those tens of millions of people who are continuously immigrating to Latin America from all over Europe, settling in Paraguay, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Venezuela and elsewhere. Before the latest wave of Latin American revolutions finally guaranteed equality and respect for the indigenous people of the continent, most European immigrants managed to implant deep racial and social segregation. In some places like Peru and Bolivia, the situation closely resembled that of South African apartheid. Until recently, European immigrants had been pushing the native population to extreme margins, stealing their land and making their cultures irrelevant. It was done all over Latin America and is still done in many other parts of the world.

So, “what are we going to do with those millions of Western immigrants?”

Can we really afford having them in our countries? Can we accommodate them? Can we pay for their needs, for their aggressiveness and their wild and violent cultural and behavioral patterns? Can we allow them to take everything from those who have very little left?

*

Look left and right: the entire planet is full of Western immigrants. They are controlling diamond mines in South Africa as well as “conservancy areas” in Kenya. They are holding huge land expanses in Asia, and virtually all profitable commercial land and industry in Latin America.

And they are coming and coming! They are unstoppable. Most of them are sick of their gray lives in Europe and North America. They are full of superiority complexes, but in reality, they would do anything to escape their loneliness, depression and emptiness at home.

In order to be able to stay “legally” in Southeast Asia, millions of Western male immigrants are marrying maids, go-go dancers, or even sex workers. But then they treat them with spite (as many of them don’t really know how else to behave towards people from other cultures). There are tens of thousands of former US GI’s, living in the villages of Northern Thailand, Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam. After bombing Southeast Asia into the stone age, they “could not cope” with the treatment they received after coming back home. And so they immigrated; they returned to the land that they had already so thoroughly destroyed, poisoned and raped.

I met many of them, as I was writing about this part of the world for many years. Some former GI immigrants were now totally broke, trying to borrow money from me, and coming up with bizarre stories and schemes. Almost all of them felt spite for the local people, but were unable to return to their homeland, because they lost all contacts and skills that could allow them to live there. Some overstayed their visas, owing huge amounts of money in fines to the local authorities.

*

I heard countless desperate stories. But, unlike those profound and heartbreaking stories told by the migrants from the countries destroyed by the West, the stories of the Western immigrants were mainly selfish, centered on the desire to improve their lives, or yearning to escape unpleasant conditions in their countries of origin. Most of the time, their presence brought nothing positive to the countries where they managed to relocate.

In her iconic book “Karma Cola”, an Indian writer Gita Mehta described, already a quarter of century ago, those millions of Westerners who have been flooding Sub-Continent in search of “enlightenment”, alternative lifestyles and other mass-produced, Westernized cultural and religious trends. Many ended up as illegal migrants, rotting in ashrams and in bizarre communes, some even selling their passports in order to survive.

*

The world has been patient – I’d say too patient – with the Western immigrants!

This patience should end, because of the brutality, even savagery, that Europe has been recently demonstrating towards those desperate men, women and children who have been trying to escape from their countries resembling “sinking ships”; “ships” that were torpedoed by Western imperialism.

The world owes nothing to the West, to the contrary! Therefore, visa and immigration policies should be reciprocal, which is exactly the approach of several Latin American countries.

Practically speaking, there are many more legal and illegal Western immigrants living in Indonesia or Thailand, than the other way around. The same goes for countries like Chile.

After horrible centuries during which Western colonialism and imperialism managed to destroy billions of human lives in all corners of the world, Europe still dares to treat its desperate victims as worse than animals. I recently witnessed its spite towards refugees arriving in Greece, France, Germany and the Czech Republic.

And after what I saw, I feel indignant and appalled.

Enough is enough!

With its wars, destabilization campaigns, economic terror, and its plunder of the planet, the West continues to demonstrate how low and brutal its culture really is. The “refugee crises” is just the latest chapter of the never-ending neo-colonialist horror show.

While European ships keep intercepting pitiful boats crammed with wrecked people who are fighting for their lives, while European armies are re-erecting border controls, several Latin American countries which are now governed by progressive governments, including Argentina and Chile, have been demonstrating tremendous moral superiority, solidarity and internationalism, by inviting and taking care of thousands of Syrian and Palestinian refugees, and on top of that, treating them with great dignity and kindness!

*

In one of the hotels in Sao Paulo, Brazil, in a bar late at night, I overheard a conversation between a visiting Swiss businessman and his Chilean counterpart:

“You know, those immigrants that we call ‘paperless’”, lamented Swiss man. “It’s too many of them… too many! We should just throw them directly to the sea; we should drown them! We don’t need such scum in Europe.”

A few days earlier, my friend, an Ecuadorian government official based in Quito, told me a story:

“Lately, many Europeans keep coming to Ecuador and to other Latin American countries, searching for jobs, trying to migrate. Their economies are collapsing, but there is no humility when they come here, only arrogance. Another day, a Spaniard came to me, applying for a job. I asked him for his CV. He looked at me with total outrage: ‘But I am a Spaniard!’ he shouted. ‘So what?’ I replied. ‘These days are over, comrade; days when just being a white European man would be enough to land you a job anywhere in Latin America!’”

*

The non-Western world simply cannot afford to tolerate an annual influx of the millions of Western immigrants! First, it gets attacked by the West, and then robbed, and at the end, is expected to tolerate enormous hordes of ruthless, locust-like, self-centered migrants who are trying to swallow what little is left behind by the Western corporations and governments.

Reciprocal visa regimes should be introduced. Legal frameworks should be strengthened to prevent corruption and speculation with land and real estate. Potential Western immigrants should be forced to prove that their presence would benefit the country where they want to settle, that their skills are really needed, just as all African and Asian immigrants are obliged to prove when they want to settle in Europe, in North America or in Australia.

And once again: let us not forget that there are many more Western immigrants trying to settle abroad, than there are people from poor countries applying for residency in the West.

Immigration crises? Yes of course! But not really “crises” for the West!

Those who do not realize it should check the numbers!

Certainly, many of us understand how depressed many Westerners really are; how their lives in Europe and in North America are disagreeable, gray and confusing. We really understand how much they want to immigrate to a warmer (in terms of weather and in terms of human relationships) part of the world. And if they would humbly admit what they feel, instead of demonstrating arrogance and superiority… if we could have it all in open… if the same rules would apply for everyone… if they would be the same for those who want to immigrate to Europe, to the US, to Asia, Africa or Latin America… then I am sure that at least some people would be willing to show their sympathy and consider accepting at least some of the most desperate Western migrants.

But there can be no sympathy if there is no justice. While Westerners are freely immigrating wherever they desire, Europe is now deploying its military in order to intimidate, humiliate and to stop those mugged and tortured victims of Empire!

*

Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. His latest books are: “Exposing Lies Of The Empire” and “Fighting Against Western Imperialism”. Discussion with Noam Chomsky: On Western Terrorism. Point of No Return is his critically acclaimed political novel. Oceania – a book on Western imperialism in the South Pacific. His provocative book about Indonesia: “Indonesia – The Archipelago of Fear”. Andre is making films for teleSUR and Press TV. After living for many years in Latin America and Oceania, Vltchek presently resides and works in East Asia and the Middle East. He can be reached through his website or his Twitter.

“Seldom, very seldom, does complete truth belong to any human disclosure; seldom can it happen that something is not a little disguised or a little mistaken.”

-Jane Austen, 1775–1817, “Emma”

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Length (59:11)

Click to download the audio (MP3 format) 

On July 14, an agreement was struck in Vienna involving major powers which would see the implementation of provisions to restrict the Islamic Republic of Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions against that Persian Gulf nation.

This agreement has proved controversial. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu blasted the deal, saying Iran would still be capable of developing a nuclear weapon while the lifted sanctions would empower Iran to continue to spread unrest in the region. [1] Meanwhile, Republicans in the US House of Representatives have expressed opposition to the deal and have been trying to sabotage it. [2]

Of particular note, is Canada’s Conservative government, which has chosen to balk at the agreement arrived at by its traditional allies of Britain, France and the US.  Indeed Harper’s Conservatives have been remarkably hawkish in their foreign policy orientation. They continue to maintain hostility toward Iran and a militaristic approach toward ISIS/ISIL while campaigning for a fourth straight mandate in this year’s national elections.

More recently, Russia has joined the attacks against not just ISIS/ISIL, but other terrorist groups threatening the sovereignty of Syria. Yet the West’s response seems out of alignment with its usual line about ‘fighting the terrorist threat.’   Is the rhetoric of these Western leaders reflective of their actual motivations? Or does it mask another agenda?

In this week’s Global Research News Hour, we attempt to ascertain the true purpose of these nations’ policy gestures with two distinguished analysts.

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College in Cambridge and is currently a Senior Scholar at RMIT University in Melbourne, Australia. In our first half hour, Mr. Kampmark tries to make sense of the Harper government’s foreign policy, Russia’s incentive to launch airstrikes within Syria, and the mirage that is ‘humanitarian intervention.’ (See transcript below.)

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is a sociologist, and award-winning author and geopolitical analyst. In the second half hour, Nazemroaya puts the Iranian nuclear accord in the context of the failing regime of economic sanctions, and articulates how it is being used as a weapon against Russia.

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Length (59:11)

Click to download the audio (MP3 format) 

The Global Research News Hour airs every Friday at 1pm CT on CKUW 95.9FM in Winnipeg. The programme is also podcast at globalresearch.ca .

The  show can be heard on the Progressive Radio Network at prn.fm. Listen in every Monday at 3pm ET.

Community Radio Stations carrying the Global Research News Hour:

CFUV 101. 9 FM in Victoria. Airing Sundays from 7-8am PT.

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

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

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

Burnaby Radio Station CJSF out of Simon Fraser University. 90.1FM to most of Greater Vancouver, from Langley to Point Grey and from the  North Shore to the US Border. It is also available on 93.9 FM cable in the communities of SFU, Burnaby, New Westminister, Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, Port Moody, Surrey and Delta, in British Columbia Canada. – Tune in every Saturday at 6am.

Notes:

1) http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/benjamin-netanyahu-blasts-iran-nuclear-deal-at-un-general-assembly-1.3252738

2) James Arkin (Sept 11, 2015), RealClearPolitics; http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/09/11/gop_continues_to_push_iran_deal_opposition_128057.html

Interview with Binoy Kampmark on Iran, ISIS, and Canadian Foreign Policy

Transcript

Global Research: Is there anything that you’ve noticed that concerns you specifically about the way Canada has been conducting itself on the world’s stage?

Binoy Kampmark: Yes, I think one of the things that’s very conspicuous is the remarkably hawkish warring agenda which Harper has embraced, and where that fits effectively, it works on a few levels. It’s a kind of a demonization that is functioning on the policy platform, and so, it’s the idea of seeing…it’s the Islamist debate of course, it’s the idea of how do you combat Islamic State and so forth, and what is happening in the conduct of that foreign policy is that it has had a dramatic impact on domestic policy and that is of course, C-24 I believe, the stripping of citizenship, you know, and that is dramatic. That is a remarkable instance.

It’s not as dramatic as the British approach to this, which allows for the process of stripping British citizenship and making a person stateless, which is actually contrary to international law. C-24 does allow at least for at least dual nationals to retain one nationality but the implication of that in having Canadian citizenship stripped is that that person may well be deported, that person may well be expelled and of course the recipient country will then receive a convict of terrorism, and so effectively that results in an export of terrorism.

In a peculiar kind of way, Harper has created a sort of industry, anticipating an industry of sorts. And this undermining of citizenship has translated itself, broadly speaking, because of this emphasis, this mania, about expanding the war on Islamic State. I am not suggesting for a minute that Islamic State doesn’t pose a threat in the region, but the Canadian indifference, this is Harper’s indifference to understanding the implications of an extended bombing campaign, ineffectual I might add, this is one of the most bizarre things, you know, ISIS/ISIL/the Islamic state they are all actually doing rather well. Their economy and their base is being sustained constantly, notwithstanding the fact that they are being bombed.

So, there is this display of power which is not actually very effectual at all, but it has very significant impacts on domestic legislation, on the Security State and the implications certainly under Harper’s time are significant for the emergence of a considerably heavily involved surveillance State that has…that views its citizens actually with suspicion at least except of course good Canadian stock and so forth.

GR: Now, there is also, in addition to, the war against ISIS you also have counties, Syria and Iran, which are seen as enemies. The governments therein, and of course, recently we have heard about how Russia has come to join the fight against ISIS and that seems to be…their approach seems to be turning the leaders of the US, NATO folks off…

BK: Yes, they have certainly introduced a sizable spanner in the works and what they have done of course, and let’s not fall for the general idea that the Russian approach is not to target Islamic State, necessarily, I know there are numerous media reports coming in suggesting that these particular positions are actually at FSA, Free Syria Army units, that supposedly the Russian Air Force is targeting. But, as Robert Fisk pointed out very recently, it’s a very peculiar thing to say that in Holms for example, the area of Holms, there were actually FSA units, because supposedly according to the US own debriefing from the State Dept those CIA -trained units were not there. They were disbanded at that particular area, so, obviously it is a bit peculiar to suggest that they are there now suddenly, renascent. So that’s one problem in this war of words and information, again we come back to the old story what is it that we need to look at? What is it we need to read and engage in?

But, the second thing too, of course is they have fundamentally different objectives on a certain level. Russia is interested in controlling the Islamic threat because it has the Chechnyan issue. Of course remember, if you look geographically at the Russian context Chechnya is South. It’s not the Middle East it’s the Southern East, it’s the South, if you were, so relative to that quaint- the Middle East to Western powers- the Russian context views it differently. Geographically speaking, Iran and the Arab states focus in a very different league, a very different aspect of their strategy. But Chechnya looms large and there have been Chechen recruits for ISIS. There have been Chechen participants and a very notable Chechen leader has certainly figured in Islamic State. So that’s that aspect to consider.

But the other, of course, problem here from the NATO and the US perspective is that the policy is of course also to shore up Assad. It’s to give him better leg room in terms of the conflict, whereas the US-led approach with France with Britain has always made it clear that they want Assad to be removed. And Russia has made it clear that, no, Assad is doing a lot of the fighting, his forces are doing a lot of the fighting and we need to bolster his efforts.

But – and this is where again you can see the world views collide, you can see that there are very fundamentally different views about this – the US using that fabulously concocted notion of liberalism and liberal markets to tell and suggest that the Syrian leader, Bashar al-Assad, brutal yes, admittedly, that he has to go, but they have come up with this nonsense term called ‘transitional government’.

We know what ‘transitional governments’ look like. They look like Libya, they look like Libya after Gaddafi, they look like Iraq after Saddam Hussein. So expect another instance of a repeat in Syria if that particular envisage plan takes place and it’s what the Russians want to avoid.

GR: Yeah, and you just brought up Libya, and I think it’s kind of important because I know that you wrote a paper about Libya, or contributed a paper on Libya about two years ago, and your appraisal of that whole -it was framed as a humanitarian intervention to protect the people from this brutal dictator -and I guess Syria would have been taking that same approach to protect the people of Syria and it doesn’t seem to be working too well, but if you could talk about how that intervention in Syria (Libya) has helped shape not only the dialogue but the reality that is on display given the current confrontation in Syria?

BK: Well yes, the whole concept of protecting the people is used all too conveniently, and it’s used to distinguish for example French/UK/US efforts and a part of that coalition, as opposed to Assad he is always mentioned as using barrel bombs and there’s been of course, the case of chemical weapons and a range of other weapons used.

But the reality is that there are so many sides in this conflict, so many sides have a stake in the Syrian conflict because it’s in a sense, at the front line of a series of global events writ large, where you’ve got the role of Iran and Hezbollah. You’ve got the role of Russia and its interest, and you’ve got the US side of the equation and how it sees stability or instability in this particular case, and trying to maintain leverage and influence over a country that is also deemed an enemy of Israel.

So you have got a range of strategic factors that play into that and the people are just the chess pieces of the script writer. And yes, all sides are using the rhetoric of civilian deaths, and using this in a degree of protection. It’s obvious that Assad is not particularly interested in protecting certain number of Syrians. The brutality of his armed forces is renowned, but by the same token, you can’t exactly find sainted angels in the FSA, the Free Syria Army. The notion of a moderate Syrian opposition is of course quite absurd. How can one be moderate when heavily armed to the teeth and happy to also conduct one own little cleansing campaigns?

And added to that of course are different groupings with different…

GR:LikeAl Nusra?

BK:…yes, exactly Al Nusra, and even Al Nusra has disagreements at times with Al Qaeda, so you’ve got an Al Qaeda grouping and an Al Nusra grouping. And you’ve got the associated peculiarities of ISIL and so forth.

So what we have essentially are a range of groups that are promoting their agendas on Syrian soil and the Syrian people are of course, theones to suffer from it and occasionally they are idealized in UN resolutions or they might be idealized in the context of humanitarian intervention but you can’t have as I have mentioned before, you can’t have humanitarian intervention at the end of a Tomahawk missile. It just does not work like that.

Humanitarian intervention is grotesquely euphemistic because it suggests a constructive notion when its actually at the end of the day a warring destructive notion which we pad around essentially and Responsibility to Protect I am very critical of the doctrine even though it is very much the flavour in the human securities movement and very much has been the flavour of international, at least attempts to discuss international law reforms but the reality of it is that it is so often a cloak, a garb, a veil to justify realpolitik and genuine power interventions.

GR: Doing an end run around the principle of sovereignty of nations?

BK: Yes, exactly. What it does essentially is it attacks sovereignty via the back door, just cloaks it under a different term.

GR: Yeah, I guess it’s telling that the countries that are pushing for that- I mean Russia has been against that, they are trying to support that principle of sovereignty of nations…

BK: Yes, no of course, and again I do understand that this is diplomacy is a feast of hypocries, and I do understand that it can be perceived that the Russian approach here is (inaudible) noble regarding Ukraine and notions of sovereignty there. The principle still remains that critics of humanitarian intervention have a point in calling it, for example Bricmont calls it a form of imperialism. Humanitarian imperialism. Because ultimately humanity is used as a trick, as a plague, and in that particular case it ends up with disastrous consequences because, the very people that are meant to be protected end up being injured, as we saw in cases like Libya, which is essentially being run now by a set of fiefdoms of various groupings and religious affiliations.

GR: I noticed that there was a nuclear deal that was struck and there has been some contention in the United States but, the president is essentially promoting this in principle, and interestingly enough, Canada has been particularly critical of Iran, they have been very guarded about the whole nuclear issue with Iran. What in your view guides Canada’s approach to Iran? I mean they talk about it being a supporter of terrorism, but is that it? Or is there something more?

BK: No, I think it has to do with the obviously, well I say it’s obvious because it seems to certainly conform to a pattern that I’ve seen in the context of a good number of members of Congress, certainly the GOP, and also in other countries where any country willing to listen to Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, who is the one spreading the line that such an agreement is dangerous, that you cannot have an agreement with Iran, because it follows from the premise that because it is it terrorist you cannot with them. And, this of course, is one of those self defeating, illusory measures that you don’t negotiate with anyone you can just label a terrorist.

Iran has of course been – preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon is the primary concern but, it has been a primary concern for the countries involved in the agreement to begin with. Even though, I have always felt that this is a very dangerous process. I always thought it was deeply hypocritical for powers to get together, especially those who have it, and that’s the problem with the Non Proliferation Treaty. The Non Proliferation Treaty, it has been argued, may have prevented more countries from going nuclear. That may be true.

But at its core, is a principle of bribery. Because at its core, the NPT is based on the principle that the countries that have nuclear weapons, well, we will eventually disband them, but not for now. And countries who don’t have nuclear weapons, well you shouldn’t have, and you don’t have nuclear weapons and you will be in violation if you have nuclear weapons but, we will give you a concession, you can have cheap nuclear energy. So, that was the tradeoff. Now, the tradeoff has been totally misplaced, at least historically with Iran and Iran was trying to play on that so, quite legitimately, in the context of that.

But, the reality of it is that it’s become so, almost like a hysterical idea, that if Iran gets the weapon it will destabilize the region. There is a certain amount of truth in that. It’s not even Israel itself. I mean Israel could be a significant problem having taken the stance that Iran is not going to be allowed to have a nuclear weapon, but the Saudis have also made it clear that in the event that Iran gets a nuclear weapon, and this is something the Israelis play on, and I want to add that the Israelis and the Saudis on this actually do see eye to eye, which is one of the curiosities that maybe your listeners may or may not be familiar with, the secret services of respective countries do have ties when dealing with Iran. Of course Saudi Arabia is the great enemy of Iran.

Historically, of course the Sunni/Shia divide is made very bleak there, where you’ve got the Shiites represented by Iran fundamentally so and of course, the Sunnis in the form of Saudi Arabia and there you see that replayed in Syria as well. So, the Saudis have also made it clear in fact, there were some rumors that went around last year that in the event that Iran was to obtain a nuclear weapon, they would try to seek Pakistani help in obtaining a Pakistani nuclear option. So, the nuclear weapons would be run by the Pakistanis but essentially they would be placed on Saudi soil. So, that was one of the rumors – well not entirely scotched to my satisfaction.

So, with all that said, and how does that come back and relate to the Canadian role? The Canadian role, I would say is linked to that by virtue of swallowing the Netanyahu line of security and certainly the US line, not necessarily from Obama, but certainly from the GOP line that particular line has been swallowed by Harper on this and he’s almost wanting to make us, and again its one of those things where smaller states want to sound louder and bigger than they are. So, he wants to make the impression that this is a fundamental point, take the lead against terrorism. But this is of course, a childish approach because you cannot have a security resolution in Syria without Iran. You cannot have a peaceful resolution in the Middle East if any of the crises happening there without Iran. And that is the fundamental point that somebody like Prime Minister Harper seems to be missing.

GR: Okay, well, I think another very important thing that needs to be raised, because you just brought up Saudi Arabia and their one of the biggest or Canada’s biggest customers for arms is Saudi Arabia. So, I wonder what you make of that, especially given that the Canadian Prime Minister has been so robust in their opposition to terrorism and Saudi Arabia is a major sponsor of terrorism. So?

BK: Well, yes, you just have to see also the treatment of, for example, the Shia minority in Yemen and the Saudi approach to – not just supply the government response, but also to be involved – Saudi jets. Well jets supplied by countries like Canada, have been involved with strafing positions connected with the Shia minority.

There’s been a blockade, it’s been a vicious battle in fact, that’s I think severely under reported. So, the broader sense of that is Saudi has a strange relationship with Western countries. And, that to large extent, it’s got to do also with, its significance again, there is a natural resource issue. It is a commodities issue, it is oil, and they’re still fundamentally very powerful. So there is that lingering issue.

But, the second thing too is that Saudi Arabia has been perceived as some kind of strategic balance in the area, so obviously there is the idea that it should keep tabs on things. Of course, it is a terrible human rights abuser, and it’s very peculiar on one hand to hold Iran to account on certain abuses but then not to hold Saudi Arabia.

I also found it a very rich remark made by Prime Minster Harper the other day on the issue of the latest deal with Saudi Arabia, in terms of selling more arms, and he would regard that as perfectly consistent to sell arms to Saudi Arabia, but no no, we are not going to do that with the Russians on that because they annexed Crimea, and they are sort of backing militants in the Donbass or in Ukraine.

So we have this typical Janus- faced approach of course, to foreign policy which is fundamental and seems to be the modus operandi of the Harper government and, I dare say he’s not the only one, I do wonder whether his replacement, should he lose office, I just wonder if that’s going to particularly change because that will be a strong statement to say, well, let us stop arms sales to Saudi Arabia because as you rightly pointed out, Saudi Arabia is a sponsor of various groups undermining and destabilizing regimes. Saudi Arabia is to be found everywhere in Syria.

GR: They’re not exactly a Jeffersonian democracy.

BK: No, certainly not. They are not particularly interested in that, and in fact, and for your listens they might be interested in, from the security of their own computer if not their work space, look up the Saudi cables that were released recently by Wikileaks, andthey give also a dramatic picture about Saudi foreign policy and look at exactly those sorts of things about what an otherwise very opaque, archaic state in many ways, with certain degrees of sophistication in peddling information for western consumption.

(End of interview.)

The UN General Assembly: Latin Americans Don’t Call for Nuremberg Prosecution of Western Leaders, Gaddafi Did in 2009

Over 40 Rodent Feeding Studies Show Genetically Modified Food is Disastrous to Health

By Christina Sarich, October 09 2015

Editor’s note: This article was originally published in 2014.

“John Kerry, the US Secretary of State, allegedly struck a deal with King Abdullah in September under which the Saudis would sell crude at below the prevailing market price. That would help explain why the price has been falling at a time when, given the turmoil in Iraq and Syria caused by Islamic State, it would normally have been rising.” (Stakes are high as US plays the oil card against Iran and Russia, Larry Eliot, Guardian)

U.S. powerbrokers have put the country at risk of another financial crisis to intensify their economic war on Moscow and to move ahead with their plan to “pivot to Asia”.

Here’s what’s happening: Washington has persuaded the Saudis to flood the market with oil to push down prices, decimate Russia’s economy, and reduce Moscow’s resistance to further NATO encirclement and the spreading of US military bases across Central Asia. The US-Saudi scheme has slashed oil prices by nearly a half since they hit their peak in June. The sharp decline in prices has burst the bubble in high-yield debt which has increased the turbulence in the credit markets while pushing global equities into a tailspin. Even so, the roiled markets and spreading contagion have not deterred Washington from pursuing its reckless plan, a plan which uses Riyadh’s stooge-regime to prosecute Washington’s global resource war. Here’s a brief summary from an article by F. William Engdahl titled “The Secret Stupid Saudi-US Deal on Syria”:

“The details are emerging of a new secret and quite stupid Saudi-US deal on Syria and the so-called IS. It involves oil and gas control of the entire region and the weakening of Russia and Iran by Saudi Arabian flooding the world market with cheap oil. Details were concluded in the September meeting by US Secretary of State John Kerry and the Saudi King…

..the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, has been flooding the market with deep discounted oil, triggering a price war within OPEC… The Saudis are targeting sales to Asia for the discounts and in particular, its major Asian customer, China where it is reportedly offering its crude for a mere $50 to $60 a barrel rather than the earlier price of around $100. That Saudi financial discounting operation in turn is by all appearance being coordinated with a US Treasury financial warfare operation, via its Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, in cooperation with a handful of inside players on Wall Street who control oil derivatives trading. The result is a market panic that is gaining momentum daily. China is quite happy to buy the cheap oil, but her close allies, Russia and Iran, are being hit severely…

According to Rashid Abanmy, President of the Riyadh-based Saudi Arabia Oil Policies and Strategic Expectations Center, the dramatic price collapse is being deliberately caused by the Saudis, OPEC’s largest producer. The public reason claimed is to gain new markets in a global market of weakening oil demand. The real reason, according to Abanmy, is to put pressure on Iran on her nuclear program, and on Russia to end her support for Bashar al-Assad in Syria….More than 50% of Russian state revenue comes from its export sales of oil and gas. The US-Saudi oil price manipulation is aimed at destabilizing several strong opponents of US globalist policies. Targets include Iran and Syria, both allies of Russia in opposing a US sole Superpower. The principal target, however, is Putin’s Russia, the single greatest threat today to that Superpower hegemony. (The Secret Stupid Saudi-US Deal on Syria, F. William Engdahl, BFP)

The US must achieve its objectives in Central Asia or forfeit its top-spot as the world’s only superpower. This is why US policymakers have embarked on such a risky venture. There’s simply no other way to sustain the status quo which allows the US to impose its own coercive dollar system on the world, a system in which the US exchanges paper currency produced-at-will by the Central Bank for valuable raw materials, manufactured products and hard labor. Washington is prepared to defend this extortionist petrodollar recycling system to the end, even if it means nuclear war.

How Flooding the Market Adds to Instability

The destructive and destabilizing knock-on effects of this lunatic plan are visible everywhere. Plummeting oil prices are making it harder for energy companies to get the funding they need to roll over their debt or maintain current operations. Companies borrow based on the size of their reserves, but when prices tumble by nearly 50 percent–as they have in the last six months– the value of those reserves falls sharply which cuts off access to the market leaving CEO’s with the dismal prospect of either selling assets at firesale prices or facing default. If the problem could be contained within the sector, there’d be no reason for concern. But what worries Wall Street is that a surge in energy company failures could ripple through the financial system and wallop the banks. Despite six years of zero rates and monetary easing, the nation’s biggest banks are still perilously undercapitalized, which means that a wave of unexpected bankruptcies could be all it takes to collapse the weaker institutions and tip the system back into crisis. Here’s an excerpt from a post at Automatic Earth titled “Will Oil Kill the Zombies?”:

“If prices fall any further, it would seem that most of the entire shale edifice must of necessity crumble to the ground. And that will cause an absolute earthquake in the financial world, because someone supplied the loans the whole thing leans on. An enormous amount of investors have been chasing high yield, including many institutional investors, and they’re about to get burned something bad….. if oil keeps going the way it has lately, the Fed may instead have to think about bailing out the big Wall Street banks once again.” (Will Oil Kill the Zombies?, Raúl Ilargi Meijer, Automatic Earth)

The problem with falling oil prices is not just mounting deflation or droopy profits; it’s the fact that every part of the industry–exploration, development and production — is propped atop a mountain of red ink (junk bonds). When that debt can no longer be serviced or increased, then the primary lenders (counterparties and financial institutions) sustain heavy losses which domino through the entire system. Take a look at this from Marketwatch:

“There’s ‘no question’ that for energy companies with a riskier debt profile the high-yield debt market “is essentially shut down at this stage,” and there are signs that further pain could hit the sector, ” senior fixed-income strategist at U.S. Bank Wealth Management, Dan Heckman told Marketwatch. “We are getting to the point that it is becoming very concerning.” (Marketwatch)

When energy companies lose access to the market and are unable to borrow at low rates, it’s only a matter of time before they trundle off to extinction.

On Friday, the International Energy Agency (IEA) renewed pressure on prices by lowering its estimate for global demand for oil in 2015. The announcement immediately sent stocks into a nosedive. The Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) lost 315 points by the end of the day, while, according to Bloomberg, more than “$1 trillion was erased from the value of global equities in the week”.

The world is awash in cheap petroleum which is wreaking havoc on domestic shale producers that need prices of roughly $70 per barrel to break-even. With West Texas Intermediate (WTI) presently headed south of 60 bucks–and no bottom in sight–these smaller producers are sure to get clobbered. Pension funds, private equity, banks, and other investors who gambled on these dodgy energy-related junk bonds are going to get their heads handed to them in the months ahead.

The troubles in the oil patch are mainly attributable to the Fed’s easy money policies. By dropping rates to zero and flooding the markets with liquidity, the Fed made it possible for every Tom, Dick and Harry to borrow in the bond market regardless of the quality of the debt. No one figured that the bottom would drop out leaving an entire sector high and dry. Everyone thought the all-powerful Fed could print its way out of any mess. After last week’s bloodbath, however, they’re not nearly as confident. Here’s how Bloomberg sums it up:

“The danger of stimulus-induced bubbles is starting to play out in the market for energy-company debt….Since early 2010, energy producers have raised $550 billion of new bonds and loans as the Federal Reserve held borrowing costs near zero, according to Deutsche Bank AG. With oil prices plunging, investors are questioning the ability of some issuers to meet their debt obligations…

The Fed’s decision to keep benchmark interest rates at record lows for six years has encouraged investors to funnel cash into speculative-grade securities to generate returns, raising concern that risks were being overlooked. A report from Moody’s Investors Service this week found that investor protections in corporate debt are at an all-time low, while average yields on junk bonds were recently lower than what investment-grade companies were paying before the credit crisis.” (Fed Bubble Bursts in $550 Billion of Energy Debt: Credit Markets, Bloomberg)

The Fed’s role in this debacle couldn’t be clearer. Investors piled into these dodgy debt-instruments because they thought Bernanke had their back and would intervene at the first sign of trouble. Now that the bubble has burst and the losses are piling up, the Fed is nowhere to be seen.

In the last week, falling oil prices have started to impact the credit markets where investors are ditching debt on anything that looks at all shaky. The signs of contagion are already apparent and likely to get worse. Investors fear that if they don’t hit the “sell” button now, they won’t be able to find a buyer later. In other words, liquidity is drying up fast which is accelerating the rate of decline. Naturally, this has affected US Treasuries which are still seen as “risk free”. As investors increasingly load up on USTs, long-term yields have been pounded into the ground like a tentpeg. As of Friday, the benchmark 10-year Treasury checked in at a miniscule 2.08 percent, the kind of reading one would expect in the middle of a Depression.

The Saudi-led insurgency has reversed the direction of the market, put global stocks into a nosedive and triggered a panic in the credit markets. And while the financial system edges closer to a full-blown crisis every day, policymakers in Washington have remained resolutely silent on the issue, never uttering as much as a peep of protest for a Saudi policy that can only be described as a deliberate act of financial terrorism.

Why is that? Why have Obama and Co. kept their mouths shut while oil prices have plunged, domestic industries have been demolished, and stocks have gone off a cliff? Could it be that they’re actually in cahoots with the Saudis and that it’s all a big game designed to annihilate enemies of the glorious New World Order?

It certainly looks that way.

Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition. He can be reached at [email protected].

 by M. Oliver Heydorn

There is a very interesting legal case that is playing out in Canada at the moment. William Krehm, Anne Emmett, and COMER (The Committee for Monetary and Economic Reform: http://www.comer.org/) filed a lawsuit on December 12th, 2011, in Federal Court to try to force a restoration of the Bank of Canada to its mandated purposes. In essence, they want the Bank of Canada to provide interest-free loans to the federal, provincial, and municipal governments, as provided for in the Bank of Canada Act.

This money would be used to finance public expenditures whenever there is a budgetary deficit. Apparently, the federal government used to borrow interest-free (to at least some extent) from the Bank of Canada up until 1974. At present, governments borrow all of the necessary money (apart from any bonds they may sell to the public) from private banks at the going rate of interest. Canadians are economically burdened with the resultant debt-servicing charges because the Bank of Canada does not make use of its prerogatives in the interests of the Canadian public. The case is being prosecuted by Rocco Galati, who is widely considered to be Canada’s top constitutional lawyer.

The nature of the lawsuit has been explained on www.pressfortruth.ca in the following terms:

“TWO CANADIANS AND A CANADIAN ECONOMIC THINK TANK CONFRONT THE GLOBAL FINANCIAL POWERS IN THE CANADIAN FEDERAL COURT. THE CANADIANS PLEAD FOR DECLARATIONS THAT WOULD RESTORE THE USE OF THE BANK OF CANADA FOR THE BENEFIT OF CANADIANS AND REMOVE IT FROM THE CONTROL OF INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE ENTITIES WHOSE INTERESTS AND DIRECTIVES ARE PLACED ABOVE THE INTEREST OF CANADIANS AND THE PRIMACY OF THE CONSTITUTION OF CANADA

Canadian constitutional lawyer, Rocco Galati, on behalf of Canadians William Krehm, and Ann Emmett, and COMER (Committee for Monetary and Economic Reform) on December 12th, 2011 filed an action in Federal Court, to restore the use of the Bank of Canada to its original purpose, by exercising its public statutory duty and responsibility. That purpose includes making interest free loans to municipal/provincial/federal governments for “human capital” expenditures (education, health, other social services) and /or infrastructure expenditures.The action also constitutionally challenges the government’s fallacious accounting methods in its tabling of the budget by not calculating nor revealing the true and total revenues of the nation before transferring back “tax credits” to corporations and other taxpayers. The Plaintiffs state that since 1974 there has been a gradual but sure slide into the reality that the Bank of Canada and Canada’s monetary and financial policy are dictated by private foreign banks and financial interests contrary to the Bank of Canada Act.

The Plaintiffs state that the Bank of International Settlements (BIS), the Financial Stability Forum (FSF) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) were all created with the cognizant intent of keeping poorer nations in their place which has now expanded to all nations in that these financial institutions largely succeed in over-riding governments and constitutional orders in countries such as Canada over which they exert financial control.The Plaintiffs state that the meetings of the BIS and Financial Stability Board (FSB) (successor of FSF), their minutes, their discussions and deliberations are secret and not available nor accountable to Parliament, the executive, nor the Canadian public notwithstanding that the Bank of Canada policies directly emanate from these meetings. These organizations are essentially private, foreign entities controlling Canada’s banking system and socio-economic policies.

The Plaintiffs state that the defendants (officials) are unwittingly and /or wittingly, in varying degrees, knowledge and intent engaged in a conspiracy, along with the BIS, FSB, IMF to render impotent the Bank of Canada Act as well as Canadian sovereignty over financial, monetary, and socio-economic policy, and bypass the sovereign rule of Canada through its Parliament by means of banking and financial systems.” http://pressfortruth.ca/top-stories/case-reinstate-bank-canada/

On the 26th of January, 2015, the latest appeal on behalf of the Crown to have the case dismissed was rejected by three judges in Federal Court in Toronto. The Federal government now has 60 days to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. Cf. http://pressfortruth.ca/top-stories/update-bank-canada-vs-comer/. Interestingly enough, both the case itself and the various developments that have occured are not being covered at all by the mainstream media. While Mr. Galati’s other cases have regularly received wall-to-wall coverage across the country, this particular case, which he believes is probably his most important case to date, has so far been ignored. When questioned about this, Mr. Galati said that he has a firm basis for believing that the Canadian government has requested or ordered that the mainstream media not cover the case (he could not divulge his sources), and that, in his opinion, the government does control the media to a certain extent and on certain limited issues. He also added that he does not believe that we in Canada are living in a democracy. In fact, as far back as 1999, he has been on record as claiming that we have entered a ‘quiet dictatorship.’

As far as its merits are concerned, Mr. Galati said that the case is on solid legal and constitutional grounds and his clients should win. Whether they will win or not is another question. As Mr. Galati has acknowledged: “Not all meritorious cases in our judicial system win”.

From a Social Credit perspective, saving the taxpayer large sums of money and/or preserving the country from an increase in public indebtedness via the issuance of interest-free money from the Bank of Canada is certainly a good thing.[1] However, such a reform of the system does not address the fundamental problem with the present financial and economic orders: the chronic lack of consumer buying power. The macroeconomic gap between prices and incomes, which is primarily caused by how real capital (machines and equipment) are financed and how their costs are then accounted for under existing conventions, is THE issue which needs to be addressed. In the main, the present system deals with the gap by filling it with additional debt-money from the private banking system in the form of public, corporate, and consumer debts. In lieu of these palliatives, a Social Credit system would fill the gap with ‘debt-free’ money and distribute it to consumers, directly through a National Dividend, and indirectly through a National Discount on retail prices. It is critical that the individual, the common consumer, be the prime beneficiary of any monetary reform and that he be accorded full control of credit-policy within the context of a properly functioning financial system.

In connection with this particular lawsuit and as a further clarification of the point just made, I should also mention that granting the government the right to fill the gap according to its policy-objectives (i.e., employing people to work on public production), or, more broadly, granting it or the state the sole right to control the whole money supply, is thoroughly incompatible with Social Credit’s underlying social and political philosophy. Institutions exist to serve the interests of individuals, not the other way around. That is, individual consumers must control financial policy, not the government, the state, or the private banks. There is no point in “restoring the right to create and issue money to the state” if the state is then going to control the purposes for which producer and consumer credit are to be issued. This is the great trap of which certain monetary reformers, who are rightly concerned about the hegemony of private banking, are blissfully unaware. If, God forbid, such reformers get their way, and the state were to obtain total monopoly control over the money supply, I think they will find to their horror that the same people who levy a great deal of control over the private and partially decentralized monetary system will be in complete control of the state system.

Monopoly is the name of the game; let us not be ‘useful idiots’.

Addendum: 

Those individuals who believe that the main problem with the current financial system and economic regime consists in the mere fact that the private banks create the bulk of the money supply ex nihilo and then charge interest on the loans that they issue would do well to carefully read the following blog posts which explain the differences between this view and the unique Social Credit approach to monetary reform: (emphasis added)

http://www.socred.org/blogs/view/social-credit-and-usury,

http://www.socred.org/blogs/view/usury-social-credit-and-catholicism,

http://www.socred.org/blogs/view/social-credit-a-simple-if-somewhat-lengthy-explanation,

http://www.socred.org/blogs/view/it-s-time-for-an-economic-copernican-turn.

Douglas often criticized the practice of relying on borrowings from private banks at the going market rate of interest in order to finance government operations. Cf., for example, C.H. Douglas, Social Credit, rev.ed. (Gordon Press, New York: 1973), 136-139: 

“The National Debt rose between August 1914 and December 1919 from about six hundred and sixty millions sterling, to about seven thousand seven hundred millions sterling. And this rise represents, on the whole, the expenditure over that period which it was deemed impracticable to recover in current taxation. That is to say, if we take the average taxation for supply purposes over that period 1914-1918, as being about three hundred millions per annum, the amount paid by the public as consumer for the goods and services supplied to it for war purposes, was about thirteen hundred and fifty millions, and the financial cost of those goods and services was about eight thousand three hundred and fifty millions, a ratio of cost to price of about roughly 1 : 6.2. In other words, goods were sold to the public at one-sixth of their apparent financial cost, and no one lost any money over it at the time. How was this done?

A considerable amount of this money (some of which may be in excess of the figures just mentioned) was created through what are known as the Ways and Means Accounts, and the working of this is described in the first report of the Committee on Currency and Foreign Exchanges, 1918, page two. Paraphrased, the process may be shortly explained as follows.

If ten million pounds credit is advanced at the Bank of England to the credit of Public (i.e. State) Deposits (which simply involves the writing up of the Public Deposits account by this amount), this amount is paid out by the Spending Departments to contractors in payment for their services, and when the cheques are cleared, passes to the credit of the contractors’ bankers (joint Stock Banks) account with the Bank of England. The joint Stock Banks are accustomed to regard their credits with the Bank of England as cash at call and, therefore, ten million pounds is credited to the depositors of the Joint Stock Banks, and ten million pounds to the Joint Stock Banks’ cash account.

As a result of this, the joint Stock Banks, working on a ratio of one to four between so-called cash and short-date liabilities, are able to allow their customers (working on Government contracts) overdrafts to the extent of forty millions, a portion of which their customers may devote to taking up Treasury Bills or War Loans. The banks themselves may take up about eight millions of Treasury Bills or War Loan, out of their additional ‘deposit’ balances, or they may lend about eight millions to the Bank of England to lend to the Government. Eventually, the result is the same, namely that the Government owes forty millions to the banks, through the Bank of England.

Now the first point to notice is that the result of this complicated process is exactly the same as if the Government itself had provided forty millions, in Currency Notes, with the important exception that the public pays 4 or 5 per cent per annum on the forty millions, instead of merely paying the cost of printing the Currency Notes. The effect on prices, while the forty millions is outstanding, is the same, and the contractors pay 6 or 7 per cent for their overdrafts instead of getting the use of the money, free. But if the forty millions is redeemed through taxation, or a Capital Levy, the public pays not only the 5 per cent per annum, together with the contractor’s 6 or 7 per cent, plus a profit on both of them, but it pays the whole of the forty millions out of money which has been received in respect of wages, salaries, and dividends. So far as I am aware, no one has ever suggested that Currency Notes should be retired by taxation. It is true that when this forty millions has been repaid, both the original debt and the repayment cancel each other, and only the interest charges go to the Profit and Loss Account of the Bank. But since, as we have seen, the repayment of bank loans means the immobilisation of an equivalent amount of price-values, this only means that a fresh loan with fresh interest charges has to be created. A consideration of these facts will make it easy to understand the implacable opposition of bankers and financiers to Government paper money and their insistence on the importance of what they term redemption. The payment in current taxation of only one-sixth of the price of war stores, etc., meant, therefore, that a credit grant of the other five-sixths of the price was made to the Public. The repayment of this credit is only justifiable on the assumption that banks own Public Credit.”

GMO Free USA has published a listing of more than 40 rodent studies showing that animals fed GM corn and soy suffer dire results. For those who say there is no ‘science’ to prove that GMOs are unsafe, I enjoin them to peruse the following list. [1]

Among the ailments suffered by the rats fed Roundup Ready or Bt-toxin GM-feed were:

• Increased intestinal infections
• High cholesterol
• Birth defects
• Weight-increase and higher incidence of mortality
• Organ pathologies in the liver, kidneys, pancreas, ovaries, testes, and adrenals
• Major issues with both the intestinal tracts and immunity of the animals tested

And why again are we still eating GM food? These studies suggest they should all be banned as Russia is doing – if not at least labeled.

• “1. E. Abdo, et al. “Feeding Study with Bt Corn (MON810: Ajeeb YG) on Rats: Biochemical Analysis and Liver Histopathology,” Food and Nutrition Sciences, Vol. 5 No. 2, 2014, pp. 185-195.

• 2. Battistelli S., Baldelli B., Malatesta M. (2008), Influence of a GMO-containing diet on pancreatic acinar cells of adult mice: effects of a short-term diet reversion, “Microscopie”, 10, pp. 36-43

• 3. S. Battistelli, B.Citterio, B. Baldelli, C. Parlani, and M. Malatesta (2010) Histochemical and morpho-metrical study of mouse intestine epithelium after a long term diet containing genetically modified soybean Eur J Histochem. September 26;54(3): e36

• 4. Brasil FB, Soares LL, Faria TS, Boaventura GT, Sampaio FJ, Ramos CF.(2009) The impact of dietary organic and transgenic soy on the reproductive system of female adult rat. Anat Rec(Hoboken).292(4):587594.

• 5. B Cisterna, F Flach, L Vecchio, SML Barabino, S Battistelli, TE Martin, M Malatesta, M Biggiogera (2008) Can a genetically modified organism-containing diet influence embryonic development? A preliminary study on pre- implantation mouse embryos. Cisterna.Vol.52(4)

• 6. Joël Spiroux de Vendômois, François Roullier, Dominique Cellier, Gilles-Eric Séralini (2009) A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health Int J Biol Sci; 5(7):706-726.

• 7. O. P. Dolaychuk, R. S. Fedoruk (2013) Biological Effects of Different Levels of Soybeans Conventional and Transgenic Varieties in the Second-Generation Female Rats Ration. The Animal Biology, 2013, vol. 15, no. 2

• 8. Thanaa A. El-Kholy, Mohammad Abu Hilal, Hatim Ali Al-Abbadi, Abdulhalim Salim Serafi, Ahmad K. Al-Ghamdi, Hanan M. Sobhy and John R. C. Richardson (2014) The Effect of Extra Virgin Olive Oil and Soybean on DNA, Cytogenicity and Some Antioxidant Enzymes in Rats. Nutrients, 6(6), 2376-2386

• 9. El-Shamei ZS et al. Histopathological changes in some organs of male rats fed on genetically modified corn (Ajeeb YG). J Am Sci. 2012;8(10):684–696.

• 10. Ermakova IV (2006) Genetically modified soy leads to weight loss and increased mortality of pups of the first generation. Preliminary studies. EkosInform. Federal Environmental Law Gazette. a | -1,, p. 4-10.

• 11. Ermakova IV (2007) New data on the impact of GMOs on physiological state and the higher nervous activities mammals. All-Russia Symposium TRANSGENIC PLANTS AND BIOSAFETY Moscow, October 22 – 25, pages 38-39

• 12. Irina Ermakova (2007) GM soybeans—revisiting a controversial format NATURE BIOTECHNOLOGY VOLUME 25 NUMBER 12 DECEMBER 1351-1354

• 13. Ermakova IV, IV Barskov (2008) Study of the physiological and morphological parameters in rats and their offspring using a diet containing soybean transgenic EPSPS CP4 Biological sciences. 6. p.19-20.

• 14. Ermakova IV (2009) Influence of soybean gene EPSPS CP4 on the physiological state and reproductive functions of rats in the first two generations Contemporary Problems in Science and Education Number 5, p.15-20.

• 15. Finamore A, Roselli M, Britti S, Monastra G, Ambra R, Turrini A, Mengheri E. (2008) Intestinal and peripheral immune response to MON810 maize ingestion in weaning and old mice. J Agric Food Chem. Dec 10;56(23):11533-9.

• 16. Gab-Alla AA et al. Morphological and biochemical changes in male rats fed on genetically modified corn (Ajeeb YG). J Am Sci. 2012;8(9):1117–1123.

• 17. Т. V. Gorbach, I. U. Kuzminа, G. I. Gubina-Vakulik, N. G. Kolousova (2012) HORMONAL REGULATION OF SEXUAL FUNCTION AND OVARIAN HISTOLOGICAL FEATURES IN THE EXPERIMENT WITH GMO-SOYA USE IN FOOD. TAVRICHESKY LIFE SCIENCES BULLETIN 2012, Volume 15, № 2, Part 2 (58) pages 235-238

• 18. G.I. Gubin-Vakulik, S.A. Denisenko, T.V. Horbach, N.G. Kolousova, T.M. Popova (2012) MORPHOFUNCTIONAL STATE OF ADRENAL GLAND IN FEMALE RATS WISTAR WITH GENETICALLY MODIFIED SOY INCLUSION IN THE DIET. TAVRICHESKY LIFE SCIENCES BULLETIN 2012, Volume 15, № 3, Part 1 (59) pages 85-88

• 19. GI-Gubin VAKULIK TV, GORBACH BB, NG KOLOUSOVA HS, GOPKALOV (2013) THE METABOLIC AND HISTOLOGICAL CHANGES OF KIDNEYS IN FEMALE RATS AND THE FIRST GENERATION AFTER CONSUMPTION OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED SOYBEANS. SCIENTIFIC STATEMENTS Series Medicine. Pharmacy. 2013. № 11 (154). Issue 22 pages 150-155

• 20. G.I. Gubina-Vakulik, S.A. Denisenko, T.V. Gorbach, N.G. Kolousova, A.V. Andreev (2014) Morphofunctional Adrenal State in Adults Descendants With the Diet by Genetically Modified Soy. ЕКСПЕРИМЕНТАЛЬНА І КЛІНІЧНА МЕДИЦИНА. 2014. № 2 (63)

• 21. SERDAR KARAKUŞLU (2014) THE INVESTIGATION OF THE POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED (GMO) MAIZE (Zea mays L.) ON SWISS ALBINO MICE. JUNE 2014, 25 Pages

• 22. Kiliç A, Akay MT. (2008) A three generation study with genetically modified Bt corn in rats: Biochemical and histopathological investigation. Food Chem Toxicol. 2008 Mar;46(3):1164-70.

• 23. Hasan Kiliçgün, Cebrail Gürsul, Mukadder Sunar, Gülden Gökşen (2013) The Comparative Effects of Genetically Modified Maize and Conventional Maize on Rats J Clin Anal Med ;4(2): 136-9

• 24. MA Konovalova, VA Blinov (2006) Influence of genetically modified soybean in mice and their offspring. Commercial Biotechnology 2006

• 25. Konovalova, MA, VA Blinov (2007) Morphometric parameters and features of the spectrum Blood enzymes mice receiving GENETICALLY MODIFIED SOY. All-Russia Symposium TRANSGENIC PLANTS AND BIOSAFETY Moscow, October 22 – 25, page 48

• 26. Konovalova MA, Potemkin EG (2007) Influence of genetically modified soybean on transport of carbohydrates in tissue.

• 27. Kuzmin, J. Yu, A. Kuzmin, and N. Pasieshvili (2012) Histological and Hormonal Features of Ovaries in an Experiment at Application of GMO-Soya in Nutrition. Journal of Research. 2012. № 4

• 28. Magaña-Gómez JA, Cervantes GL, Yepiz-Plascencia G, de la Barca AM. (2008) Pancreatic response of rats fed genetically modified soybean J Appl Toxicol. Mar;28(2):217-26.

• 29. Malatesta M, Caporaloni C, Gavaudan S, Rocchi MB, Serafini S, Tiberi C, Gazzanelli G. (2002) Ultrastructural morphometrical and immunocytochemical analyses of hepatocyte nuclei from mice fed on genetically modified soybean. Cell Struct Funct. Aug;27(4):173-80.

• 30. Manuela Malatesta, Chiara Caporaloni, Luigia Rossi, Serafina Battistelli, Marco BL Rocchi, Francesco Tonucci, and Giancarlo Gazzanelli (2002) Ultrastructural analysis of pancreatic acinar cells from mice fed on genetically modified soybean J Anat. November; 201(5): 409–415

• 31. Malatesta M., Biggiogera M., Manuali E., Rocchi M.B., Baldelli B., Gazzanelli G.(2003) Fine structural analysis of pancreatic acinar cell nuclei from mice fed on GM soybean. Eur J Histochem. 47,3858.

• 32. Malatesta M, Tiberi C, Baldelli B, Battistelli S, Manuali E, Biggiogera M. (2005) Reversibility of hepatocyte nuclear modifications in mice fed on genetically modified soybean. Eur J Histochem. Jul-Sep;49(3):237-42.

• 33. Malatesta M, Boraldi F, Annovi G, Baldelli B, Battistelli S, Biggiogera M, Quaglino D. (2008) A long-term study on female mice fed on a genetically modified soybean: effects on liver ageing. Histochem Cell Biol. Nov;130(5):967-77.

• 34. Maligin AG, Ermakova IV (2008) Soy diet suppresses reproductive function rodents. Modern problems of science and education № 6. (Annex “Biological sciences”). – C. 26

• 35. Nazarova AF, Ermakova IV (2010) Effect of soy diet on reproductive function and testosterone levels in rats and hamsters. Academy Trinitarism, № 77-6567, publ.15788, 12.02.

• 36. SG Nimbueva, R. Shirokov, SA Polyakov, SD Evgaldaev (2012) Influence of long term use of genetically modified soybeans on some morphofunctional indicators in pancreas of rats in the experiment. Articles XVII International Ecological Student Conference “Ecology Russia and adjacent territories “: in 2 volumes. Volume 2 / Novosibirsk State. Univ. Novosibirsk, 2012. Pages 119-120.

• 37. Oliveri et al (2006) Temporary depression of transcription in mouse preimplantation embryos from mice fed on genetically modified soybean. 48th Symposium of the Society for Histochemistry. Lake Maggiore(Italy), Sept.7- 10.

• 38. Hanaa ORABY, Mahrousa KANDIL, Nermeen SHAFFIE, Inas GHALY (2014) Biological impact of feeding rats with a genetically modified-based diet. Turk J Biol (2014) 38:

• 39. Séralini GE, Cellier D, de Vendomois JS.(2007) New analysis of a rat feeding study with a genetically modified maize reveals signs of hepatorenal toxicity. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol. May;52(4):596-602.

• 40. Gilles-Eric Séralini, Emilie Clair, Robin Mesnage, Steeve Gress, Nicolas Defarge, Manuela Malatesta, Didier Hennequin and Joël Spiroux de Vendômois (2014) Republished study: long-term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. Environmental Sciences Europe , 26:14

• 41. AV Surov, NY Feoktistov, MV Ushakov, AV Gureeva (2010) Changing the physiological parameters of mammals feeding genetically modified ingredients of vegetable origin. Institution of the Russian Academy of Sciences Institute of Ecology and Evolution behalf ANSevertsov RAS (IEE RAS)

• 42. Vecchio L, Cisterna B, Malatesta M, Martin TE, Biggiogera M. (2004) Ultrastructural analysis of testes from mice fed on genetically modified soybean. Eur J Histochem. Oct-Dec;48(4):448-54.

• 43. Irena M Zdziarski, John W Edwards, Judy Carman, Adrian Jones, Marni Spillanie, Ysabella Van Sebille, Julie I Haynes (2012) GM feed and its effect on the stomach mucosa of rat. 6th Australian Health and Medical Research Congress 2012

• 44. ZHOU Ze-wei et al. (2012) Comprehensive Evaluation on Functions & Safety of Imported GM Soybean Using BDI-GS System Soybean Science Oct. Vol. 31 No 5″

Notes:

[1] Study list found here: https://www.facebook.com/GMOFreeCanadaGroup

GMO Free USA

False history continues to kill Americans, as we saw once again last week at Umpqua Community College in Oregon where a disturbed young man whose mother had loaded the house with loaded handguns and rifles executed nine people and then committed suicide – one more mind-numbing slaughter made possible, in part, by an erroneous understanding of the Second Amendment.

A key reason why the United States is frozen in political paralysis, unable to protect its citizens from the next deranged gunman and the next massacre, is that many on the American Right (and some on the Left) have sold much of the country on a false history regarding the Second Amendment. Gun-rights advocates insist that the carnage can’t be stopped because it was part of what the Constitution’s Framers designed.

Republican presidential candidates have been among the leaders in promoting this fake narrative, with surgeon Ben Carson saying the latest slaughter and all the other thousands of shootings are just part of the price of freedom. “I never saw a body with bullet holes that was more devastating than taking the right to arm ourselves away,” Carson said, noting that he had removed bullets from a number of gunshot victims.

But the Constitution’s Framers in 1787 and the authors of the Bill of Rights in the First Congress in 1789 never intended the Second Amendment to be construed as the right for individuals to take up arms against the Republic. In fact, their intent was the opposite.

A painting of President George Washington leading a force of federalized state militias against the Whiskey rebels in western Pennsylvania in 1794.

The actual goal of the Second Amendment was to promote state militias for the maintenance of order in a time of political uprisings, potential slave revolts and simmering hostilities with both European powers and Native Americans on the frontiers. Indeed, its defined purpose was to achieve “security” against disruptions to the country’s republican form of government. The Second Amendment read:

“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” In other words, if read in context, it’s clear that the Second Amendment was enacted so each state would have the specific right to form “a well-regulated militia” to maintain “security,” i.e., to put down armed disorder and protect its citizens.

In the late Eighteenth Century, the meaning of “bearing” arms also referred to a citizen being part of a militia or army. It didn’t mean that an individual had the right to possess whatever number of high-capacity killing machines that he or she might want. Indeed, the most lethal weapon that early Americans owned was a slow-loading, single-fired musket or rifle.

No Anarchists

Yet, one of the false themes peddled by some on the Right and the Left is that the Framers, having won a revolution against the British Crown, wanted to arm the population so the people could rebel against the Republic created by the U.S. Constitution. This vision of the Framers of the Constitution and members of the First Congress as some anarchists wanting an armed population to overthrow the government if the people weren’t happy with something is completely opposite of what was intended.

Whatever one thinks about the Federalists, who were the principal constitutional Framers and the leaders of the First Congress, they constituted the early national establishment – people like George Washington, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and Gouverneur Morris. They feared that their new creation, a constitutional republic in an age of monarchies, was threatened by the potential for violent chaos, which is what European aristocrats predicted.

According to the idea of a representative democracy, the Framers sought a system that reflected the will of the citizens but within a framework that constrained the passions of democracy. In other words, the Constitution sought to channel political disputes into non-violent competition among various interests. The Framers also recognized how fragile the nation’s independence was and how domestic rebellions could be exploited by European powers.

Indeed, one of the crises that led to the Constitutional Convention in the summer of 1787 was the inability of the old system under the Articles of Confederation to put down Shays’s Rebellion in western Massachusetts in 1786-87. So, the Federalists were seeking a system that would ensure “domestic Tranquility,” as they explained in the Constitution’s Preamble. They did not want endless civil strife.

The whole idea of the Constitution – with its mix of voting, elected and appointed representatives, and checks and balances – was to create a political structure that made violence unnecessary. In other words, the Framers weren’t encouraging violent uprisings against the Republic that they were founding. To the contrary, they characterized violence against the constitutional system as “treason” in Article III, Section 3. They also committed the federal government to protect each state from “domestic Violence,” in Article IV, Section 4.

One of the first uses of the new state militias formed under the Second Amendment and the Militia Acts, which required able-bodied men to report for duty with their own muskets, was for President Washington to lead a federalized force of militiamen against the Whiskey Rebellion, a tax revolt in western Pennsylvania in 1794.

In the South, one of the principal reasons for a militia was to rally armed whites to put down slave uprisings. Again, the Second Amendment was meant to maintain public order – even an unjust order – rather than to empower the oppressed to take up arms against the government. That latter idea was a modern reinterpretation – or distortion – of the history.

The Constitution’s Framers were not some early version of Leon Trotsky favoring permanent revolution. The most radical-talking leader at the time, Thomas Jefferson, had little to do with either the Constitution or the Bill of Rights since he was serving as a diplomat in France at the time.

Yet, the revisionists who have transformed the meaning of the Second Amendment love to cite provocative comments by Jefferson, such as a quote from a 1787 letter criticizing the Constitution for its commander-in-chief provisions. Jefferson argued that violence, like Shays’s Rebellion, was to be welcomed. He declared that “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s [sic] natural manure.”

It is ironic, however, that Jefferson was never willing to risk his own blood as that “natural manure.” During the Revolutionary War when traitor Benedict Arnold led a force of Loyalists against Richmond, Jefferson, who was then Virginia’s governor, declined to rally the state militia in defense of the capital but rather fled for his life. Later, when British cavalry approached Charlottesville and his home of Monticello, Gov. Jefferson again took flight.

However, Jefferson was eager for Virginia to have a state militia of armed whites to crush possible black slave rebellions, another prospect that terrified him. As a slaveholder and a pseudo-scientific racist, Jefferson surely did not envision blacks as having any individual right to own guns themselves or to fight for their own liberty. Reflecting on blacks who fought bravely in the Revolution, Jefferson concluded that their courage was an illusion resulting from their intellectual inability to recognize danger.

Yet, whatever one thinks of Jefferson’s racism and cowardice, it’s a historical error to cite Jefferson in any way as speaking definitively about what the Framers intended with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. He was not directly involved in either.

A Collective Right

The real history of the Second Amendment was well understood both by citizens and courts in the generations after the Constitution and Bill of Rights were enacted. For most of the years of the Republic, the U.S. Supreme Court interpreted the Second Amendment as a collective right, allowing Americans to participate in a “well-regulated Militia,” not an individual right to buy the latest weaponry at a gun show or stockpile a military-style arsenal in the basement.

It’s true that many Americans owned a musket or rifle in those early years especially on the frontier, but regulations on munitions were still common in cities where storing of gunpowder, for instance, represented a threat to the public safety. As the nation spread westward, so did common-sense restrictions on gun violence. Sheriffs in some of the wildest of Wild West towns enforced gun bans that today would prompt a recall election financed by the National Rifle Association.

However, in recent decades – understanding the power of narrative on the human imagination – a resurgent American Right (and some on the Left) rewrote the history of the Founding era, dispatching “researchers” to cherry-pick or fabricate quotes from Revolutionary War leaders to create politically convenient illusions. [See, for instance, Steven Krulik’s compilation of apocryphal or out-of-context gun quotes.]

That bogus history gave rise to the image of the Framers being wild-eyed radicals encouraging armed rebellion against the Republic. Rather than people who believed in the rule of law and social order, the Framers were contorted into crazies who wanted citizens to be empowered to shoot police, soldiers, elected representatives and government officials.

This false history was advanced particularly by the American Right in the last half of the Twentieth Century as a kind of neo-Confederate call to arms, with the goal of rallying whites into a near-insurrectionary fury particularly in the South but also in rural areas of the North and West. Many fancied themselves an armed resistance against the tyrannical federal government.

Southern whites brandished guns and engaged in violence to resist the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, when the federal government finally stepped in to end Jim Crow laws and racial segregation. In the 1990s, “citizens militias” began to pop up in reaction to the election of Democrat Bill Clinton, culminating in the Oklahoma City bombing of 1994.

While designed primarily for the weak-minded, the Right’s faux Founding history also had an impact on right-wing “intellectuals” including Republican lawyers who worked their way up through the federal judiciary under Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush.

By 2008, these right-wing jurists held a majority on the U.S. Supreme Court and could thus overturn generations of legal precedents and declare that the Second Amendment established an individual right for Americans to own guns. Though even these five right-wing justices accepted society’s right to protect the general welfare of the population through some gun control, the Supreme Court’s ruling effectively “validated” the Right’s made-up history.

The ruling created a political dynamic in which even liberals in national politics, the likes of Barack Obama and Joe Biden, had to genuflect to the supposed Second Amendment right of Americans to parade around in public with guns on their hips and high-powered semi-automatic rifles slung over their shoulders.

What the Framers Wanted?

As guns-right activists struck down gun regulations in Congress and in statehouses across the nation, their dominant argument was that the Second Amendment offered no leeway for restrictions on gun ownership; it’s what the Framers wanted.

So, pretty much any unstable person could load up with a vast killing capacity and slouch off to a bar, a work place, a church or a school – even an elementary school – and treat fellow Americans as targets in a violent video game. Somehow, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness was overtaken by the “right” to own an AR-15 with a 30-or-100-bullet magazine.

When right-wing politicians talk about the Second Amendment now, they don’t even bother to include the preamble that explains the point of the amendment. The entire amendment is only 26 words. But the likes of Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, another Republican presidential candidate, find the preamble inconvenient because it would undercut the false storyline. So they just lop off the first 12 words.

Nor do they explain what the Framers meant by “bear arms.” The phrase reflected the reasoning in the Second Amendment’s preamble that the whole point was to create “well-regulated” state militias to maintain “security,” not to free up anybody with a beef to kill government officials or citizens of a disapproved race or creed. (The Oregon gunman targeted practicing Christians; a previous gunman in South Carolina went after African-Americans in a church.)

Yet, after the massacre of 20 first-graders and six educators in Newtown, Connecticut, in December 2012, Fox News personality Andrew Napolitano declared:

“The historical reality of the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms is not that it protects the right to shoot deer. It protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot at them effectively, with the same instruments they would use upon us.”

Noah Pozner, 6, one of 20 children murdered on Dec. 14, 2012, at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.

At the time, the clear message from the Right was that armed Americans must confront the “tyrannical” Barack Obama – the twice-elected President of the United States (and the first African-American to hold that office) – especially if he pressed ahead seeking commonsense gun restrictions.

But Napolitano is simply wrong on the history. The Second Amendment was designed for states to maintain “security,” whether that meant putting down a tax rebellion in Pennsylvania, a slave revolt in the South or a Native American uprising on the frontier. One can disagree about the rightness of those actions by state or federal authorities, but the history is clear.

The Second Amendment was not designed to encourage violence against the government or – for that matter – to enable troubled individuals to murder large numbers of their fellow citizens.

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.

NATO defense ministers meeting in Brussels Thursday gave their final approval to the expansion of the Enhanced NATO Response Force to 40,000 troops as part of a major escalation of the US-led alliance’s military buildup against Russia.

The NATO ministers, including US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, seized upon Moscow’s airstrikes in Syria against Islamist militias seeking the overthrow of the government of President Bashar al-Assad as the pretext for more aggressive deployments of military forces on Russia’s border.

In particular, Washington and its NATO allies have sought to turn a pair of alleged brief incursions by Russian warplanes across Syria’s northern border into Turkish airspace last weekend as an effective act of war.

“NATO is ready and able to defend all allies, including Turkey against any threats,” NATO’s Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg told reporters as he entered the meeting. He added that NATO was prepared to deploy troops to Turkey and had already taken steps to increase the alliance’s “capacity” and “preparedness” to do so.

The magnification of the alleged violations of Turkish airspace into a confrontation between Moscow and the Western alliance has been driven mainly by Washington with the aim of ratcheting up the campaign against Russia.

The government of President Vladimir Putin has insisted that the violations of Turkish airspace were accidental, a claim that has been rejected by Washington and NATO.

The reality is that the Islamist militias, including both ISIS and the Al-Qaeda-affiliated Al-Nusra Front, operate in close proximity to the border with Turkey, which serves as their pipeline for funds, arms and foreign fighters.

Moreover, Turkey has itself treated its border with Syria as something quite malleable. Since 2012, when a Turkish warplane was downed by a Syrian missile after it flew into Syrian airspace, Turkey has unilaterally declared a five-mile buffer zone, reserving the right to shoot down any target within that distance of the Turkish border that it regards as hostile.

Turkey itself, meanwhile, routinely violates its neighbor’s borders, carrying out bombing raids against Kurdish camps inside Iraq and launching air strikes against Syria, without the permission of either country’s government.

Boasting of NATO’s military buildup, Secretary General Stoltenberg told the assembled ministers, “We are implementing the biggest reinforcement of our collective defense since the end of the Cold War.”

The buildup was initiated in the wake of the crisis that erupted in Ukraine in February 2014, when the US-backed coup in Kiev ousted President Viktor Yanukovych and brought to power a far-right, ultranationalist regime subservient to Washington and the European Union.

This provocation along with the dramatic expansion of US and NATO to Russia’s western borders has dramatically elevated the threat of a military confrontation between the two main nuclear-armed powers, the United States and Russia, with catastrophic implications for the entire planet.

This danger has only been exacerbated by the civil war in Syria, which was instigated by Washington and its allies in an attempt to effect regime change and install a US-puppet government in Damascus. With Russia’s intervention, the possibility of an incident bringing US and Russian warplanes into a deliberate or unintended confrontation has only heightened the threat of war.

US Defense Secretary Carter complained bitterly at the NATO ministers’ meeting about Moscow not having given Washington any advance notice before it launched 26 cruise missiles against targets in Syria from Russian warships deployed in the Caspian Sea, more than 900 miles away.

In what sounded distinctly like a threat, Carter warned, “This will have consequences for Russia itself…” He added, “I also expect that in coming days, the Russians will begin to suffer casualties in Syria.”

Much of the denunciations of Moscow’s military actions in Syria center on their being aimed at, in the words of Carter, “targets that are not IS [Islamic State of Iraq and Syria].” This description of what the targets are not, rather than what they are, is typical of US and NATO officials. It is meant to obscure the fact that Washington and its allies are objecting to Russia conducting airstrikes against Al-Nusra and other Al-Qaeda-connected Islamist militias, with which the West is operating in a de facto alliance.

In addition to the move to field the 40,000-troop NATO Response Force, the meeting in Brussels took a number of other actions meant to step up pressure and provocations against Russia.

The NATO ministers moved to add two new military headquarters in Hungary and Slovakia, in addition to six others already planned in the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania as well as in Bulgaria, Poland and Romania. Each of these headquarters, known as NATO Force Integration Units, is to have about 80 military personnel and is being put in place to plan and prepare for the rapid deployment of large numbers of NATO troops.

Meanwhile, Britain announced that it would begin regular deployment of units of up to 150 troops to the Baltic states, Poland and Ukraine for training. British Defense Minister Michael Fallon said that the action was being taken in response to “Russian aggression and provocation.”

The British announcement was condemned by the Russian government. “An invented excuse about the suggested threat coming from Russia is possibly just camouflage used to disguise the plans to further expand NATO toward our borders,” said Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov. “Of course, any plans to bring NATO’s military infrastructure closer to the Russian Federation lead to reciprocal steps needed to restore the necessary parity.”

In addition to Syria and NATO escalation in Eastern Europe, the ministers’ meeting discussed the situation in Afghanistan, where the recent fall of the northern city of Kunduz to the Taliban has exposed the fragility of Washington’s Afghan puppet regime and its security forces, which the Pentagon has spent some $65 billion training. Defense Secretary Carter asked for “flexibility” in terms of the withdrawal of some 6,000 non-US NATO troops presently deployed in the country.

The US commander in Afghanistan, General John Campbell, testified for a second time on Capitol Hill Wednesday, arguing against the previously stated timetable for withdrawing all but 1,000 US troops by the end of 2016. There are presently 9,800 US troops in the country.

The Russians are having remarkable success with their attacks on ISIS, and the US has revealed itself to be disinterested in helping them extend that success further.

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov has blasted the refusal of the US to share intel on ISIS positions in Syria. He says that it “just confirms once more what we knew from the very start, that the US goals in Syria have little to do with creating the conditions for a political process and national reconciliation.“

Ryabkov added:

“I would risk saying that by doing this the US and the countries that joined the US-led coalition are putting themselves in a politically dubious position. The question is: which side are you fighting for in this war?“

John Kirby, a spokesman for the US State Department, even admitted that “there’s no shared, common objective here about going after ISIL“. He suggested that “I don’t know how you can share intelligence when you don’t share a basic, common objective inside Syria.“

Igor Konashenkov, of the Russian Defence Ministry, had this to say on US defiance:

“Our partners from other countries, which view Islamic State as a real enemy, which must be destroyed unconditionally, actively help us with data on bases, depots, command posts and training camps of terrorists. And those, who, apparently, have a different opinion about this terrorist organization, are constantly looking for reasons to refuse to cooperate in the fight against international terrorism.“

The US, therefore, finds itself in a strange position. While claiming for so long to be the world’s leader in the infamous ‘war on terror’, certain figures within the US government are now openly hindering the fight on the world’s frontline against terror.

US objectives in Syria do not then consider eradicating ISIS as the highest priority, despite spending $10 million per day supposedly doing so, which explains the huge upstaging suffered by Russia; who is on the verge of eradicating ISIS after just one week.

Moreover, those who have argued that the US was only ever interested in regime change in Syria now appear to be vindicated, as these world leaders openly expose and rebuke US actions.

Watch a video of this report here:

Our thanks to Truthstream.

Truthstream Can Be Found Here:

Website: http://TruthstreamMedia.com
FB: http://Facebook.com/TruthstreamMedia
Twitter: @TruthstreamNews
Newsletter: http://eepurl.com/bbxcWX

Last night in Jerusalem, new clashes saw more wounded Israelis and a Palestinian shot dead, as tensions continue to rise in Israel and its Occupied Territories.

Not surprisingly, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is blaming this fall’s wave of violence on the native Arabs and foreign countries who support them. He blamed recent violence on the Palestinian Authority that (sort of) controls the West Bank, and of course he blames Hamas in Gaza, claiming that their “incitement and libels and lies” have set off unrest.

Israel continue to suppress any effort for an independent Palestine.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has stated he does not want the current situation to escalate. Many feel that Abbas is holding back a new intifada, but wonder for how long.

Fearing the symbolic power of the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, Netanyahu has declared a ban on any Arab-Israel MPs from going to the mosque, as well restricting Palestinians’ access to the holy site.

In a bid to calm tensions, Netanyahu has barred members of parliament and ministers from visiting the Old City’s Al-Aqsa mosques compound, which has seen repeated clashes between Israeli police and Palestinian youths in recent weeks.

Israel are also still reeling from last week’s UN flag ceremony which recognized Palestine in the ‘community of nations’ – moving it one step closer to statehood – something Netanyahu and others Israeli Zionist fundamentalists have vowed never to allow. UN head Ban Ki-Moon said at the time, “This is a day of pride for Palestinians around the world. It is a day of hope. It’s a reminder that symbols are important,” he said. “May the raising of this flag give rise to the hope among the Palestinians and the international community that Palestinian statehood is achievable.”

Meanwhile, Netanyahu (pictured left) continues to crow, “The radicals, the terrorists will not achieve anything… we will prosecute them, and we will be victorious!“, which sounds very much like another flamboyant despot in history, who also said, “We will be victorious, because we have to be victorious!”

What Netanyahu will not admit publicly, is that Israeli is running a full-blown, militarized colonial police state, and its heavy-handed treatment and over-the-top force is routinely used against all Palestinians, and also against any non-Jewish protesters, media or bystanders.

Last week two AFP journalists, covering clashes between Palestinians and IDF were assaulted by thuggish Israeli soldiers. RT explains:

“Israeli soldiers reportedly pointed their weapons at the Italian video journalist Andrea Bernardi and his colleague, Palestinian photographer Abbas Momani. Both journalists were wearing body armor clearly marked “Press.” According to AFP, Bernardi was thrown to the ground, jabbed in the side with a weapon, and held by a soldier until he showed his press card. The journalist suffered bruised ribs and an eye injury.”

“The soldiers reportedly smashed a video camera and a stills camera and took away another camera, and a mobile phone.”

In addition, Israel has also been using sniper rifles against stone-throwing Palestinians. Watch:

Killing Fields

Many now believe that the IDF are preparing to mount one of their biggest killing sprees since last year’s genocidal cull in Gaza. The moralists and human rights community in Washington DC seem all too willing to see history repeat itself, again.

Despite the scale of the violence against civilians last year, the West effectively turned a blind eye to Israel’s role during its decidedly vicious incursion, where the IDF slaughtered nearly 2,200 Palestinians and injured many thousands of others, as well as destroying 10,000 homes and severely damaging another 30,000. As the conflict seemed to wind down over last summer – the IDF bombed several large civilian buildings without any justifiable reason according to Amnesty International.
Over the last two weeks, the situation been on a knife edge. Tensions exploded over this past weekend in East Jerusalem following a number of clashes between Palestinians and Israeli paramilitary police, including one which took place near the town center Beit Furik two weeks ago following the funeral of Ahmed Khatatbeh, 26, who died after being shot by Israeli soldiers at a checkpoint near Nablus in the West Bank. As a result of the killing by the IDF, thousands of Palestinians marched in his funeral – which predictably stoked even more tension.

After this, tensions began to escalate again, before protests erupted following the IDF demolishing two homes in East Jerusalem homes which the Israeli government claim belonged to the families of two alleged ‘militants’ accused of murder by Israeli officials. Both men were said to have been shot and killed during the attacks.

Finally, this week, clashes came between the IDF and Palestinians, mostly youths in Bethlehem, after a funeral for Abed al-Rahman Obdeillah, a 13-year-old Palestinian killed on Monday by Israeli soldiers. In addition, three other Palestinians were murdered by IDF forces during protests.

Many pundits are now predicting a new intifada will almost certainly will emerge out of the current maelstrom in Jerusalem and the West Bank.

Judging by past Israeli killing sprees by Israel in its occupied territories, if the violence does not de-escalate quickly, then it’s likely the bloodshed will increase exponentially by next week.

CBS‘s claim of a “plot to sell nuke materials to ISIS” is misleading; the assertion that “ISIS looks to buy nuclear weapons” is just wrong.

The Associated Press (AP) published this week (10/5/15) a thrilling account of how the FBI, in concert with Moldovan authorities, “disrupted” a smuggling ring that was supposedly trying to sell “nuclear material” to ISIS and other terror organizations over a five-year span. The primary developments in the story are almost a year old, but the resurfaced tale made news across the English-speaking world:

‘Annihilate America’: Inside a Secret, Frightening Scheme to Sell Nuclear Material to ISIS

—Salon (10/7/15)

AP: Smugglers Busted Trying to Sell Nuclear Material to ISIS

—CBS News (10/7/15)

FBI Foils Smugglers’ Plot to Sell Nuclear Material to ISIS

—The Independent (10/7/15)

There was only one problem: At no point do the multiple iterations of the AP‘s reporting show that anyone involved in the FBI sting were members of or have any connection to the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (aka ISIL or Daesh). While one of several smuggling attempts discussed in AP‘s reporting involved an actual potential buyer–an otherwise unknown Sudanese doctor who four years ago “suggested that he was interested” in obtaining uranium–the “terrorists” otherwise involved in the cases were FBI and other law enforcement agents posing as such. According to the AP and NBC’s Pete Williams:

However, the official emphasized that there was no known ISIS connection. An undercover informant, working with Moldovan police, claimed that he was an ISIS representative.

“But that was totally made up,” the official said.

This would not perturb the American press, who once again eager to hype an ISIS threat, either A) heavily implied this “plot” was evidence of ISIS seeking a nuclear weapon or B) actually went step further and said as much despite it being wholly untrue.

First the outlets who heavily implied ISIS was involved but used the qualifiers “attempted,” “tried” or the abstract “plots” so as to not expressly lie:

Smugglers Tried to Sell Nuclear Material to ISIS

—NBC News (10/7/15)

Smugglers Try to Sell Nukes to ISIS

—Fox News (10/7/15)

FBI Has Foiled 4 Attempts by Gangs to Sell Nuclear Material to ISIS Through Russian Connections

—Daily Mail (10/7/15)

(Note that the Daily Mail managed to also work the threat du jour into the headline by means of the reference to “Russian connections”–a phrase so vague as to be virtually meaningless.)

Then there were the publications who said ISIS was involved (a falsehood):

AP Investigation Finds That Nuclear Smugglers Shopped Radioactive Material to ISIS and Other Terrorists
—Business Insider (10/6/15)

Nuclear Smugglers Shopped Radioactive Material to Islamic State, Other Terrorists: AP report
—Chicago Tribune (10/6/15)

Again, there was nothing “shopped” to ISIS, because ISIS was never involved. While it’s accurate–if misleading–to say they “attempted” or had a “plot” to sell radioactive material to ISIS, it is factually incorrect to say anyone “shopped” something to people who weren’t in any way involved in the transaction. While it can be said that smugglers “seeking” ISIS is disturbing in and of itself, it’s untrue that this solicitation is evidence of an actual ISIS threat.

Fox News and CBS would take it one step further, by expressly saying the plot was evidence that “ISIS was trying to buy a nuke.”

Fox’s Gretchen Carlson started off an interview with Rep. Mike Turner by asking, “Congressman, what are we supposed to make of this news that ISIS and other terrorist groups are trying to get their hands on dirty bombs?” CBS, meanwhile, led their broadcast by breathlessly revealing “new fears tonight that ISIS is ready to go nuclear.”

But neither of these statements are true. This sting does not support the claim that ISIS is “trying to buy a nuke,” because “there was no known ISIS connection.”

International Business Times’ Christopher Harress would take misinformation to whole new heights, inventing a Jason Bourne narrative out of whole cloth and, evidently, not bothering to read the AP story:

Members of the Islamic State group with links to Russian gangs were trying to get hold of nuclear material to build a radioactive dirty bomb before Moldovan police and FBI operatives stopped them, according to an investigation reported Wednesday by the Associated Press. The terror group, which is also known as ISIS, had been approached by gangs in Moldova that were specifically seeking a buyer from ISIS.

This is 100 percent false. There is no evidence the Islamic State group (with links to “Russian gangs” or otherwise) were trying to get a hold of radioactive material to build a dirty bomb. What there is evidence of is that FBI and local authorities posed as “ISIS” and conned some Moldovan gangsters into selling them some materials that may or may not have actually been “nuclear,” much less capable of creating a “dirty bomb”–a weapon, it should be noted, that is thus far entirely hypothetical.

So here we are: Fake FBI ISIS setting up ostensibly real post-Soviet mobsters to purchase material for a potentially deadly device that exists only in the minds of counterterrorism threat risk managers. The media, either agnostic to or incapable of understanding what really happened, paints the picture of the FBI swooping in to stop a Russian/ISIS nuclear conspiracy at the 11th hour.

What takes place, before our very eyes, is a kind of War on Terror transubstantiation. Representational terror plots become real ones, fake enemies become Russo-Jihadi crime syndicates, and an American public, once again, is presented with a cartoonish, wildly inflated threat profile that’s increasingly divorced from reality.

Adam Johnson is an associate editor at AlterNet and writes frequently for FAIR.org. You can follow him on Twitter at @adamjohnsonnyc.

In September 2000, Netanyahu’s late mentor, Ariel Sharon, incited the 2nd intifada by his intentionally provocative visit to the sacred Al­-Asqa Mosque (also known to Jews as the Temple Mount). The word ‘intifada’ being Arabic, meaning to revolt against the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian Territories.

The Al-­Aqsa Mosque itself is part of a compound that is widely considered the third holiest site in Islam. Israel asserted its control over it by incorporating East Jerusalem into occupied Jerusalem in 1980. Now Likud Premier, Binyamin Netanyahu, has provoked further violence by emulating the discredited actions of his predecessor. As a result, there have been more than 20 flash points in the West Bank and East Jerusalem in recent weeks, leading to violence and killings on both sides.

‘In the past 11 days of violence, alone, five Palestinians have been killed, including a 13 year old boy from a refugee camp in Bethlehem who locals said was shot in the chest by Israeli soldiers as he was walking home from school.’

The actions of this Netanyahu government give rise to the suspicion that it is planning the initial steps to illegally annex both East Jerusalem and the West Bank. If so, it would lead to an Intifada that could spread to encompass the entire region, with frightening consequences.

Though Argentina Bolivia Cuba Ecuador Venezuela and Nicaragua condemned US wars and murderous exploitation during this year’s UN Gen. Debate, they as other delegates, lamented the current deplorable condition of today’s world of death and destruction, of poverty and starvation calling for everyone to work to rectify the situation. No delegate even once called for justice through prosecution. Gaddafi UN speech quoted.

All the delegates to the 2015 General Assembly began their statements hailing the 70th Anniversary of the founding of the United Nations in the same year 1945 that saw the end of WW II, but every single delegate ignored the third major event of 1945, which was the first ever trial of a nation for crimes against humanity, crimes against peace and genocide. The Nuremberg Principles were created by the International Law Commission of the United Nations codifying the legal principles underlying the Nuremberg Trials of Nazi party members, and were signed on to by all members of the UN.

How strange, mysterious, unexplainable, illogical, baffling, painful for millions facing death or worse today that no delegate called for justice under the law, neither for them or for the tens of millions of survivors of past mega profitable crimes against peace, crimes against humanity and forms of genocide since the founding of the UN.

Not so, during the UN General Debate in 2009, when Muammar Gaddafi, Leader of the Revolution of the Socialist Peoples Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, spoke in the name of the African Union:

“We are about to put the United Nations on trial; the old organization will be finished and a new one will emerge.” 

Gaddafi called for investigations into ten past wars of permanent members of the Security Council, the US, UK and France, to be followed by trials of those guilty of causing these wars, suffering and millions of deaths and suffering “that has surpassed that brought by the Nazis.”

By contrast, during this year’s General Debate, in which delegates lamented the current deplorable condition of today’s world of death and destruction, of poverty, extreme poverty and starvation, and in a serious tone of voice gave lip service to the usually heard plea that everyone try harder to rectify the murderous exploitation of most of humanity, no delegate even once called for bringing anyone or any nation before the law.

To this puzzled elderly archival research peoples historian working for former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark, it seemed as if magically, the delegates had had the Nuremberg Principles of international law extirpated from their minds and from the UN Charter they often referred to. As if German government officials and officials of other fascist nations, who had ordered bombings, invasions and mass murderous occupations of many nations, had never been hanged or imprisoned and reparations adjudicated. 

Why did delegates only decry, denounce and complain of annually planned starvation of millions of children and the genocidal foreign policies of the colonial powers that bring about the same kind of invasions, bombings and murderous occupations, which Nazis had been tried and convicted of as the United Nations was being founded?  Why are these universally signed on Nuremberg Principles of International Law never mentioned? It is also weird that delegates seem careful to avoid using the word ‘crime,’ let alone identify prosecutable crimes against humanity or prosecutable crimes against peace in their statements.

Were any of the delegates heralding the UN Charter aware that almost immediately  upon the founding of a colonial powers created incipient United Nations, a UN General Assembly with only one quarter of the members in today’s UN, that this body was pressured into self-authorizing itself pass a phony and insane UN partition plan to cut British occupied Palestine into six disjointed pieces, a plan never meant to be implemented but rather intended and fully expected to torch the Holy Land into permanent civil war and allow for the right Zionists faction heavily funded by Wall Street to force a brave international socialist Zionist majority to fight for their lives and at the same time be used to conquer out a military state that would be a Western outpost in the oil rich Arab lands. Your author has thoroughly documented [1] it as a typical British Empire joint Anglo-American colonial crime against humanity that used the United Nations and the unwanted survivors of a Holocaust and WW II made possible by enormous American investment in, and joint venturing with, a prostate Nazi Germany that built Hitler’s Wehrmacht up to world number one military in five years, all the while Hitler was making clear his intentions to clean Europe of Jews and move against the Soviet Union.

Delegates repeated automatically the time worn call for a Palestinian state that the Israelis will not allow. In 2009, Gaddafi told the General Assembly, “The two-State solution is impossible; it is not practical. Currently, these two States completely overlap. Partition is doomed to failure. These two States are not neighbors; they are coextensive, in terms of both population and geography. There are half a million Israeli settlers in the West Bank and a million Arab Palestinians in the territory known as Israel. The solution is therefore a democratic State without religious fanaticism or ethnicity.  Look at Palestinian and Israeli youth; they both want peace and democracy, and they want to live under one State. This conflict poisons the world. Arabs have no hostility or animosity towards Israel. We are cousins and of the same race.”

For sixty-seven years, the same colonial powers, who forced through passage of the frightening UN Partition Plan have kept up  a murderously deceitful pretense of trying to bring peace to Palestine and the oil rich Middle East, and UN delegates seem to willing to play along with it.  Gadaffi did not.

Did any of the delegates expressing pride in the accomplishments of the UN remember the two to three million Koreans slain during the invasion of Korea by American Armed Forces flying the UN flag, the UN flag painted as well on every US Air Force bomber during years of air attack that flattened every city and town of the entire Korean peninsula, North and South save Pusan a US naval base?

When delegates praised the work of UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, did any remember that Ban Ki-Moon often praises that US ‘Police Intervention’ dutifully called for by the UN’s first Secretary General, Trygve Lie,  as the Koreans of the North were sweeping away the unpopular dictatorship the US had set up in the South, recently documented by the present Southern government as having massacred more that 100,000 of its own citizens in the South prior to the North reunifying Korea in five short weeks.[2]

Six years ago Gaddafi told his fellow delegates, “Those responsible for causing the Korean War should be tried and should pay compensation and damages.” Does this not sound reasonable?
 
When many delegates spoke of the wonderful work of UN Peace Keeping Missions, were they aware how most  missions were created in the big powers controlled Security Council to enforce brutal imperialist foreign policies of the Anglo-American led European colonial-neocolonial powers? Poor Somalia is the most horrific example. Years of US support of cooperative war lords causing chaos led to the birth of a government made up of the country’s Islamic Courts that was supported by Somalia’s business community and was clean and efficient and extremely popular. When US air strikes could not save its war lords, US client armies of Ethiopia and Kenya were called upon to invade and it was the youth wing of the conservative Islamic Courts government, the Movement of Striving Youth, which drove out the Ethiopian army, forcing the US to have the UN call upon subservient African nations to send the troops that are still there fighting the now radicalized Shabab, or Movement of Striving Youth – of late, conveniently demonized for being intermeshed with an originally US created al Qaida.[3] Oxfam estimates more than a million Somalians have  starved to death during these years of disruption. It is commonly known that the ill trained and badly behaved African troops are hated just as the UN foreign occupation force in Haiti, where their job is to keep a US friendly government in power against the wishes of the Haitian people, whose popular priest socialist President was kidnapped by the US following an invasion of Haiti by thugs.[4][5][6]

Was the ghost of the UN Secretariat slandered revolutionary leader Gaddafi present at the 2015 General Assembly Debate? How many delegates remembered the UN ‘No Fly Zone’ under which the 53rd highest Quality of Life UN indexed nation, the wealthiest in Africa, once the poorest for being exploited by Britain and France, was destroyed mercilessly with unopposed air strikes by its former colonial occupying exploiters after initial devastation by air and naval missile strikes by the US superpower professedly “to protect Libyans from certain slaughter” by their beloved [7] revolutionary leader who was also Chairman of the African Union he had himself revived after its long sleep since the colonial powers backed overthrow of its first founder President Nkruma of Ghana. 

Prophetically in regard to his own assassination few years later, Gaddafi had warned,  “At present, the Security Council is security feudalism, political feudalism for those with permanent seats, protected by them and used against us. It should be called, not the Security Council, but the Terror Council.”

Six socialist presidents of Latin America, those of Argentina, Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Venezuela did call delegates attention to the Libyans now suffering incessant slaughter in a formerly prosperous Libya in describing the overall disastrous situation the world finds itself in due to continued colonial neocolonial economic, political and military control and exploitation. “They called Gadaffi a tyrant,” shouted Evo Morales, and some must have recalled Fidel Castro was also called a tyrant, and survived innumerable assassination attempts as did Gadaffi. With number one enemy Gadaffi gone, North Africa has been wide open for USAFRICON military penetration. At our UN of false appearances, there is mostly diplomatic silence about the uncomfortably obvious.

With the exception of Latin America’s revolutionary delegates, the striking embarrassment that various Muslim nations lie in ruins, in good part because of  criminal acts of the UN Secretary General, the destruction of these UN member nations went uncommented upon in the delegates’ speeches. The UN’s chief officer’s support for infantile stories thrown out for public deception that should not have been believed; CNN stories of public uprising and Libyan government violence without one single video or photo to prove such lies; the world treated to nine weeks of videos of tough guys in heavy weapons armed pickup trucks posing as liberators with little or no reports allowed from rebel held Benghazi and elsewhere,[8] all this must be diplomatically unremembered by the cooperative majority of delegates. [see a day by day chronicle history: There Was No Libyan Peaceful Protest Just Murderous Gangs and CNN’s Nic Robertson]

The same is true of Syria, suffering deadly US funded invasions of terrorists openly abetted by a Ban Ki-Moon concurring with every US thought up vilification of President Assad. However fiery President Fernandez of Argentina did threw up her hands in desperation as she railed against the US, “Now is the ISIS , this new monster that has appeared on television – terrorist beheading people in real stagings that one wonders how, from where, because let me , I have become quite suspicious of all after seeing all the things that have happened . And things that go on television in the series that both entertain and amuse us , fictions are small next to the reality we have to live today as world.” “Where do they get weapons , where do they get the resources.”

Raul Castro, in his turn, limited himself to lecturing, ” We renew our confidence that the people of Syria are capable of resolving their differences themselves and we demand the ceasing of outside interference.” (A bit too diplomatic as those “differences” were false flagged up to ‘civil war’ appearances four years ago) [9]

Afghanistan? That Muslim country, where a coalition of every single blessed Caucasian populated nation of Earth, even tiny Andorra, Lichtenstein, etc. has been part of a coalition of invaders and murderous occupiers of an innocent Afghan nation over fifteen bloody years of drug lord installed government and kids freezing to death outside the warmly comfortable military accommodations of ‘Coalition Forces.’  Now that is an impressive example of white people solidarity. The non pale skin world that includes the majority of UN delegates shows a backhanded solidarity in ignoring it.

At the 2015 UN debate, the biggest exception to diplomatic propriety was  Nícolas Madero of Venezuela, who spoke at length of the invasions of Afghanistan, and then at length of Iraq, Libya and Syria, shouting a one point, “Who is going to pay for the crimes in Libya, in Afghanistan, in Iraq in Syria and recognize the horror movie made in Hollywood, politics of horror, politics of terror.” Madero over and over called out the perpetrator by name “los Estados Unidos de America – the United States,” as no other delegate to the 2015 General Debate did.

Why didn’t a delegate answer Madero’s question with, ‘We must make the United States pay for the crimes not only in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Libya, in Syria, but in Vietnam, in Laos, in Cambodia, in Congo, in Greece, in Guatemala, in Dominican Republic, in Angola, in Yemen, in Somalia, in Panama, in Grenada, in Cuba, in Haiti, in Iran, in Chile and almost every single country in Latin America?

Rafael Correa of Ecuador, speaking in determined, even on occasion angry, demeanor, did use words that reminded one of law and order, ”can’t have liberty without justice, only seeking justice will we get real liberty,”  but in quoting an economist, “When plunder becomes a way of life, men create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it,” Correa seemed to put justice out of our reach. This may be true enough at the moment in regard to prosecuting economic crimes causing poverty, but not when it come to military madness. We have laws against murder which sadly no delegate demands be called into force. Making use of these laws would make investment in profitable illegal and death dealing use of armed forces unprofitable.  Prosecuting military crimes against humanity would reduce the investment in weapons and war which is the major cause of the unjust impoverishment of humanity. Raul Castro pointed out dramatically in the very opening of his address, “795 million people go hungry , 781 million adults are illiterate and 17 000 children die every day from preventable diseases , while annual military spending worldwide totals more than 1.7 trillion dollars.”
 
Evo Morales of Bolivia cried out to the General Assembly,

“Every year we hear here the speeches of Obama on war”
“wars that leave destruction and death, but also wealth for the arms industry”

and “If we want to end poverty we have no other way but to end the imperialist system”

The Vice-President of Nicaragua speaking for President Daniel Ortega cited the “greed of capitalism, the empire of global capitalism, the destruction of even developed nations” and that “the UN must respond to barbaric interventions.”

Dear readers and Their Excellencies representing member UN nations:

Persecuted humanity has the laws to prosecute and end the wars by which the imperialist system perpetuates itself. These international laws unlike many parts of the Charter are not observed voluntarily. No person anywhere, no nation’s law, is above the Nuremberg Principles of international law.[10]

What is needed is some awakening of that desire for justice in the court of public opinion that is usually a prerequisite to justice happening in a formal court.
M.I.T. professor Noam Chomsky’s often quoted hypothetical “All the US presidents after FDR would have been hanged if tried under the same laws as the as the Nazis were tried under,” is never responded to with a ‘Well, let’s try a few!’ Latin American delegates may have elaborated on Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s widely heard outcry, “God damn America for her crimes against humanity,” but today’s revolutionary delegates seemed to have backtracked from the investigations and prosecutions Gadaffi called for six years ago. Many such crimes crimes against humanity need no investigation, being long admitted to (as mistakes of course).

In June of this year, former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark entered a friend of the court brief supporting the case of Iraqi mom, Sundus Shaker Saleh, who is suing top of officials in the Bush administration for violating crimes against peace under laws set down at the Nuremberg Trials used to prosecute Nazi war criminals, which since than have become an integral part of the US Constitution. Former President Bush, former Vice President Richard Cheney, former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, former National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and former Secretary of State Colin Powell are all named as defendants.

In 2013, the Obama Administration had had Department of Justice attorneys file a successful ‘motion to dismiss’ and grant immunity to the government officials by citing the Westfall Act,  which shields government employees from criminal repercussions for any actions that take place “within the scope of their employment.”

The amicus brief submitted on Saleh’s behalf by the group of attorneys that include U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, the president of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers, the former president of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, the former president of the National Lawyers Guild, a founding board member of the International Commission for Labor Rights, and the co-chair of the International Committee of the National Lawyers Guild, among others—states that the previous court was “forbidden” to use Westfall protections to dismiss the charges because the Nuremberg Tribunal established “norms” that prohibit “the use of domestic laws as shields to allegations of aggression […] National leaders, even American leaders, do not have the authority to commit aggression and cannot be immune from allegations they have done so.” [emphasis added]  Nuremberg Principle Principle III reads as follows: The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible Government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.

Not only was this lawsuit unmentioned by the dozen or so delegates who spoke a few words about death and destruction still continuing in Iraq, but neither is it talked or written about  anywhere else. There is a kind of gentlemen’s agreement throughout the entire first world that it be not proper to bring up the subject of lawsuits against the powers that be, or even a hint of such an eventuality. Left progressive ostensibly anti-war journalism is even bereft of any allusion whatever to GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul having gotten to repeat on prime time news over a two week period years ago that “all US invasions and bombings beginning with Korea were illegal and unconstitutional.”

In vain has Former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark given his name to encouraging journalists not to write interesting exposes, erudite explanations, entertaining insights into the horror of the nearly continuous US genocide as Realpolitik, as if it were something other than prosecutable crimes against humanity and crimes against peace.  Mass homicidal events are being avidly discussed as news and politics, almost never as crimes against humanity and crimes against peace, rather as if they were as unchallengeable as the weather.  Professors and other intellectuals are, by such omission, leaving their reading public with the gut feeling that the lethal bombings, invasions, wars of occupation and covert violence are somehow lawful and that those engaging in, supporting and abetting this mayhem will not, and cannot, be brought before the law.

At the UN, this is somewhat exemplified by a subservient attitude of the delegates of the six-sevenths of humanity of the undeveloped, underdeveloped and now developing Third World still recovering from having been criminally plundered into such a condition over centuries by rapacious marauders from an under civilized Europe. Right now, there is no movement to hold the imperialist nations accountable, beyond a few marginalized writers. Which all goes to show why Gaddafi was so dangerous, for in that year the presidency of the General Assembly was held by a fellow Libyan, he went on at length about the justice that must be demanded:

“Another matter that should be voted on in the General Assembly is that of compensation for countries that were colonized, so as to prevent the colonization of a continent, the usurpation of its rights and the pillaging of its wealth from happening again.

Why are Africans going to Europe? Why are Asians going to Europe? Why are Latin Americans going to Europe? It is because Europe colonized those peoples and stole the material and human resources of Africa, Asia and Latin America — the oil, minerals, uranium, gold and diamonds, the fruit, vegetables and livestock and the people — and used them. Now, new generations of Asians, Latin Americans and Africans are seeking to reclaim that stolen wealth, as they have the right to do.

At the Libyan border, I recently stopped 1,000 African migrants headed for Europe. I asked them why they were going there. They told me it was to take back their stolen wealth — that they would not be leaving otherwise. If you decide to restore all of this wealth, there will be no more immigration from the Philippines, Latin America, Mauritius and India. Let us have the wealth that was stolen from us.

Why is the Third World demanding compensation? So that there will be no more colonization — so that large and powerful countries will not colonize, knowing that they will have to pay compensation. Colonization should be punished. The countries that harmed other peoples during the colonial era should pay compensation for the damage and suffering inflicted under their colonial rule.”

At this 64th General Assembly in 2009, Gaddafi had proudly asked, “Why is there no Libyan immigration to Italy? Italy agreed to provide Libya with $250 million a year in compensation over the next 20 years and to build a hospital for Libyans maimed during Italy’s occupation.”

And that although we know not how or where it will happen, when it becomes a topic of conversation throughout the world in the street, home, marketplace, workplace and school, a way will be found.

Upon my return to the less happy atmosphere in New York, it came to me that in the most widely read Anglo-American independent journalism and news commentary there exist without exception a doomsday scenario of impending world war and worse. The just concluded 70th UN General Debate gave me the same impression of hopelessness, blistering condemnations of the US by Presidents Fernandez, Morales, Castro, Correa, Madero and Vice-president Halleslevens of Nicaragua notwithstanding.

Apart for revolutionaries, one senses an incomprehensible attitude of helplessness, as if the world must perforce continue to be run lawlessly by investors in wars and thievery for as long as anyone can imagine.

For someone who has lived in for many years in China, other Asian cultures, Latin America and a bit in Africa  among peoples whose ways of life will inevitably be propelled into influencing thinking world wide as the West declines in economic power, this paralyzing poverty of thought that surrounds us at the moment is seen as temporary.

When the US loses its power to sanction its former victim nations into silence, a reconstituted United Nations, no longer under Anglo-American-EU control, can be expected to be adjudicating in its courts a plethora of mega monstrous in size lawsuits for compensation for millions of unlawful deaths and tens of millions of injuries, indemnity for enormous destruction of property and reparations for awesome theft of natural resources that parallel the descriptions of genocidal crimes described by the presidents of Venezuela and Nicaragua, economic terrorist crimes described by the presidents of Argentina and Cuba and the massive crimes against Mother Nature and our planetary home as described by the presidents of Bolivia and Ecuador.

Should a reader wish to calculate how great could be the cost of such expected future lawsuits for investors in the illegal use of US Armed Forces, five years ago former US Attorney General gave his blessing to a educational and stimulus website campaign: Prosecute US Crimes Against Humanity Now that contains the pertinent laws and a color coded country by country history of US crimes in nineteen countries.

Notes

1. US Economic Facilitation of Holocaust and Middle East Destabilizing Partition By jay janson
www.minorityperspective.co.uk/…/us-economic-facilitation-of-holocaust… 
Dec 6, 2012

http://www.minorityperspective.co.uk/2012/12/06/us-economic-facilitation-of-holocaust-and-middle-east-destabilizing-partition/
Synopsis: Israel is in bed with a US business elite that once heavily invested in Hitler, was itself anti-Semitic in outlook, coldly indifferent and even complicit during the Holocaust its investments made possible. A popular quip in Yiddish goes, “with such friends, who needs enemies?” Arabs saved Jews from Christian persecutions in 637, 1187, 1492. Now Christians are persecuting Arabs. Needed! Jewish-Arab Semitic solidarity.

An earlier and less through version of this article was published by OpEdNews in two parts:  June 9, 2011, titled: 
US Invested Heavily in Hitler Compensated Europe’s Jews with Arab Land – Therefore: [Parts 2 & 3] 2. Distortion  3. Imagining 
 
2 Prosecutable US Crimes Against Humanity In Korea. By Jay Janson. 31 March, 2013. Countercurrents.org. While staring at the New York Times front page photo …
http://www.countercurrents.org/janson310313.htm

3. Which country created Al Qaeda?
In this video Hilary Clinton admits that the US government created and funded Al-Qaeda in order to fight the soviet union, and she even considers that as a good thing.
Hillary Clinton : We created Al-Qaeda – Al-Qaeda YouTube
 m.youtube.com/watch?v=Dqn0bm4E9yw

4. Merciless US NATO UN Genocide In Somalia Brought Nairobi Shopping Mall Blowback!

http://www.countercurrents.org/janson141013.htm
Oct 16, 2013 The UN General Secretary Ban Ki-moon arrived in Somalia fresh from the ….. Internet explorer ‘s still the industry primary along with a good portion of folks will …

5. OpEdNews Op Eds 12/12/2011 at 08:59:50
Korean Traitor US Stooge UN ‘Terror Council’ Sec. Gen. in Somalia
By Jay Janson
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Korean-Traitor-US-Stooge-U-by-Jay-Janson-111210-798.html

6. The Kidnapping of President Jean Bertrand Aristide
Mar 31, 2004 – Background. Beginning in early February 2004, the democratically elected President of Haiti, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, faced an armed rebellion …
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/COH403A.html

7. Berlusconi says Libyans love Qaddafi: as Italians protest against NATO, Italian news agency ANSA.
http://www.voltairenet.org/article171382.html

8. There Was No Libyan Peaceful Protest, Just Murderous Gangs and Nic Robertson By Jay Janson June 20 2011 “Information Clearing House” — Nic Robertson …
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28376.htm

9. Syria: CIA, M16, French, Mossad, Saudi Involvement Unreported In Imperialist Media. By Jay Janson. 27 June, 2011. Countercurrents.org. What is unfolding in … www.countercurrents.org/janson270611.htm

10. THE UN CHARTER:

Article 2
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.
The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.  (Article 1. of Purposes of the United Nations reads: To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace.)
Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nürnberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal, subsequently part of the Charter of the United Nations, and by the way by Article II of the US Constitution, a integral part of that constitution (”In the United States…, our constitution declares a treaty to be the law of the land. It is, consequently, to be regarded in courts of justice as equivalent to an act of the legislature, whenever it operates of itself, without the aid of any legislative provision. – Chief Justice Marshall in 1829:)
Principle I
Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefor and liable to punishment.
Principle II
The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law.
Principle III
The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible Government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.
Principle IV
The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.
Principle V
Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law.
Principle VI
The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:
a
Crimes against peace:
(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts
mentioned under (i).
b
War crimes:
Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, illtreatment or deportation to slave labour or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill – treatment of prisoners of war, of persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
c
Crimes against humanity:
Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.
Principle VII
Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.
Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1950, vol. II, para 97

Jay Janson is an archival research peoples historian activist, musician and writer; has lived and worked on all continents in 67 countries; articles on media published in China, Italy, UK, India, Sweden and the US; now resides in NYC.   Is coordinator of the Howard Zinn co-founded King Condemned US Wars International Awareness Campaign: (King Condemned US Wars). http://kingcondemneduswars.blogspot.com/ and website historian of the Ramsey Clark co-founded Prosecute US Crimes Against Humanity Now Campaign. http://prosecuteuscrimesagainsthumanitynow.blogspot.com/ featuring a country by country history of US crimes and laws pertaining.

While the Republican contenders swish and sway through the presidential race with mixed success, their recent engagements of the GOP on the Hill can only be described as disastrous.  Much of this centres on one of US politics most important positions: that of the House Speaker.  John Boehner (R., Ohio) had promised to resign, effective from October 30, leaving the Republicans to fight it out as to who would actually fill the soon vacant seat.

On Thursday, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R., Calif.) took his hat out of the ring as a contender, feeling that he would be unable to farm a sufficient number of votes from the House Freedom Caucus.  “By refusing to give Kevin McCarthy the maybe 10 to 15 votes he needed to get to 218 [the minimum needed if all House members vote for the speaker] they decided to leave John Boehner serving as speaker.”  Those words by Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R.,Fla.) summed up a certain mood, one amply reflected by the divine guidance McCarthy was wishing for after he and his wife prayed.[1]  God, it seemed, had better things to do.

The reasoning behind his demise is put down to the debilitating factors that affected Boehner himself.  The camp of no compromise remains the shackle the party has to deal with, a sort of repetitive fanaticism that finds solace in ideology over practice.

Even ahead of any vote, McCarthy was facing promised resistance from the GOP hardline which has decided to regard Washington as a city of chronic blockages rather than agile movement.  The shock jock circuit, involving radio talk show hosts and various conservative groups, were digging the trenches in the electorates, hoping to trip up Boehner’s potential successor.

McCarthy’s position against a wholesale government shutdown was further compounded by a stumble of veracity on the Benghazi hearings regarding Hillary Clinton.  McCarthy had let the cat out of the bag of political tricks, cutting to the issue about what the primary aim of the hearings was: political, a weapon designed to lower Clinton’s popularity.  “Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right?  But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a special committee, what are her numbers today?”[2]

In letting this particular mask fall, McCarthy did himself few favours in attempting to win back voices within the dogmatic fold.  “Being unable to hold the line when it comes to conservative bullshit,” poses Amanda Marcotte, “is mandatory for a modern Republican who wants to hold office.”[3]

The result of this withdrawal has moved the shiny, conspicuous light of interest in the direction of Paul Ryan (R., Wis.), the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.  According to Rep. Devin Nunes (R., Calif.), “He’s really the only one that can do the job”.  Ryan, however, is treating the position as a poisoned chalice best avoided – for the moment.

From the hardline perspective, the speaker’s role has been distinctly one of terrier-like qualities with a barrel scraping IQ, evading options of keeping business going on in Washington while being fashionably reactionary.  In what must be an amusing spectacle to officials from other developed, let alone developing states, the scratching nature of US politics on the nature of borrowing limits to fund government expenses must seem an odd one.

Shutting down a government and effectively starving it of funds is something that the GOP, in its most extreme practice, have made its own during the Obama years.  Much of the business surrounding Boehner centred on the reminder from the Treasury Department that Congress had to raise the federal government’s borrowing limit by November 5.  Current funding expires on December 11, and lawmakers have been absorbed by the pure procedural nature of getting a two-year budget deal.

The GOP illness regarding the Speaker’s chair goes back to last year when Eric Cantor, then House Majority leader, found himself on the losing end of a challenge in his suburban Richmond district from local economics professor David Brat. Cantor was seen as the unofficial speaker-in-waiting, someone to slide effortlessly into the seat once Boehner vacated the position.  Instead, Cantor became the first sitting majority leader to lose a primary since the position’s creation in 1899 (The Atlantic, Jun 10, 2014).

It was also the scale that stunned US politics watchers, not to mention some in the GOP who felt that Tea Party hyperventilating was on its way out.  With 97 percent of the vote countered, Brat could positively become one with 56 percent, leaving Cantor dry at 44 percent.  This was Tea Party activism renascent, one dressed up in the faux anti-establishment rhetoric championed by such voices of admirable delusion as Ann Coulter.

The Brat success also signalled to various hardline lawmakers within the GOP that a reactionary stance over such policies as immigration reform might not be such a bad thing. The art of compromise was seen as the prose of surrender, given that Cantor was himself someone suspected of shedding the credentials that made him lead the sabotaging effort against the 2011 debt-limit deal.  That ingenious effort by the GOP establishment crippled Washington’s budgetary position sufficiently well to warrant a downgrade in the country’s credit rating.

A statement from McCarthy’s office does a good job of distilling the self-destructive mood in the GOP.  “Over the last week it has become clear to me that our conference is deeply divided and needs to unite behind one leader. I have always put the conference ahead of myself.”  The options for his replacement are few and far between.

Editor’s note:  This article is an excerpt from Greg Guma’s The People’s Republic: Vermont and the Sanders Revolution, originally published in 1987.

Madeleine Kunin was offended. She was being judged unfairly, she told the reporter from the Village Voice. Along with dozens of other writers, James Ridgeway was looking for insights into the race between Bernie Sanders, the Vermont “neosocialist,” and Kunin, the “neoliberal.”

The governor protested this classification. “You can’t have the strategies that were true in the 60s or even 70s: simply spending money,” she explained. “You’ve got to be accountable for every cent. You have to leverage the private sector and get them involved… I consider myself to be in the mold of governors like Dukakis, Cuomo, and to some extent Robb who is more conservative.”

It was vintage Kunin — cautious and firmly in the middle of the road. For years already she had lived with the nickname Straddlin’ Madeleine and had learned to make the best of it. Elected a state representative, she proved herself as a strong chairperson of the House Appropriations Committee and defeated Peter Smith, Vermont’s preppy Republican version of Robert Redford, to become lieutenant governor. After four years in Governor Richard Snelling’s shadow, she challenged him in 1982 in her first gubernatorial run and lost.

But Kunin didn’t straddle when it came to setting goals or building a personal organization. In the 1984 election, with Snelling temporarily retired, she squeaked into office over Attorney General John Easton, becoming Vermont’s first female chief executive, and began to set her own agenda.

In many ways, Kunin was an archetypal moderate: she favored social programs but fiscal conservatism. To progressives, her support of feminist and labor issues seemed weak and equivocal, yet she used her first term to bring women into state government and to prove, just as Sanders had done in Burlington, that being different — in her case, female — didn’t mean she was incompetent. When it came to keeping the state in sound financial shape or protecting water quality, she could be as strong as Sanders and Snelling.

Still, Kunin was no world-shaker. She shied away from raising the minimum wage or demanding that corporations give notice before closing down plants. She wanted nuclear plants to be safe, but she didn’t think they should be shut down “overnight.” In the estimation of Sanders and his Rainbow backers, Kunin was just another “lesser evil”; supporting her would not be worth losing the chance to expand the Progressive base. If a Sanders run meant that Smith would be elected, so be it — he would be only marginally different from her.

“If you ask her where she stands,” said Sanders of Kunin, “she’d say, in the middle of the Democratic party. She’s never said she’d do anything. The confusion lies in the fact that many people are excited because she’s the first woman governor. But after that there ain’t much.”

Kunin was not much kinder to her socialist opponent. “I think he has messianic tendencies,” she told Ridgeway. “That’s not uncommon in politicians. But it does mean he dismisses everyone else’s alternative solutions… His approach is always to tear down. But I think you can make progress and change for the better by working within the structure… A lot of what he says is rhetoric and undoable… He has to create a distinction between us, and to do that he has to push me more to the right, where I really don’t think I am. I don’t think it’s fair. He’s not running against evil, you know.”

The third player, Smith, had some kind words for Kunin. “She’s a good person,” he said, “she’s got some commitment.” But he also felt that she was a case of “vision without substance.” In Sanders, Smith saw passion, confusion, and noise. “If Bernie were as gutsy and honest as he says he is, he’d run as a Socialist,” charged the Republican. “He is a socialist! That’s why he went to Nicaragua.That’s why he goes to Berkeley.”

But if Sanders was a noisy neosocialist and Kunin was an empty vessel, what did that make Smith? He had begun his career as an educational reformer, launching Community College of Vermont. But his liberal leanings didn’t prevent him from joining the Republicans; he supported first Bush, then Reagan, in 1980. He was intelligent and a creative thinker, and yet willing to play the compliant foot-soldier in Reagan’s conservative revolution.

Kunin didn’t view either of her opponents as devils, but she was concerned about how to survive the campaign, particularly the series of public debates that would give Sanders his best opportunity to win more votes. On the podium, she realized, nobody in Vermont did it better than the mayor.

Her press secretary, Bob Sherman, contacted me early in the summer. He knew I wasn’t in Sanders’ camp this time, and he wondered whether I would be available to help Kunin prepare for her debate ordeal with a rehearsal. The idea was to stage a mock debate between the governor and stand-ins for her two challengers. Would I be able to “play” Bernie? The offer was irresistible.

We met in a Montpelier “safe house,” accompanied by key staff members. Democratic legislator Peter Youngbaer had prepared himself to be Smith; I had reviewed recent Sanders speeches and tried to unravel the magic of his style. With a video camera recording our face-off, we tackled environmental, tax, and development issues. Kunin’s problem, I discovered, was her preoccupation with details. She often answered questions by trying to explain the thinking that led to her policy choice rather than by simply taking a strong stand. Bernie’s strength, in contrast, was his ability to turn any question to his own advantage — even if that meant ignoring it — in order to get his point across.

In the end I summed up with some classic Sanderisms. “In my view, the Reagan administration has been a disaster for American,” I barked. “We are planning to spend a trillion dollars on Star Wars and hundreds of millions to overthrow the government of Nicaragua while, in Vermont, we don’t have enough money to adequately fund education or social services. That has to change.

“The other candidates think we can just say a lot of nice things and tinker here and there to make everything okay. I don’t. I believe we need fundamental change, and that the governor of Vermont should be leading the fight. We can be the conscience of the nation. We don’t have to settle for Reagan’s insanity or the indecision of the Democrats.”

Afterward, when Kunin saw her image on the screen, she was a bit shaken. “Sanders” and “Smith” had won some points, while she had been tedious and indecisive. Yet she balked at the suggestion that she challenge Sanders if he went on the attack, arguing, “He’s not the enemy.”

To support Kunin over Sanders was, of course, progressive heresy. Even  those who felt he was authoritarian could see no reason to support his Democratic opponent. As labor organizer Ellen David-Friedman put it, “Challenging the system is considered a better goal than maintaining the status quo.”

Queen Madeleine, Preppie Peter, and Lord Bernie — the nicknames created by columnist Peter Freyne were apt descriptions of Vermont’s new political royalty. Each was an established star with a proven popular base. But Sanders’ early boast that he was “running to win” was soon revised by his campaign organizers. A July poll put the Lord of Burlington at a mere 11 percent statewide, while the Queen, also a Burlingtonian, had 53, well outdistancing Preppie.

By October, the Sanders campaign, if not the candidate himself, had lowered its sights to seeking a respectable 20 percent. Within his organization, feelings were frayed and hopes disappointed. Writing in the Guardian, a radical newsweekly, Kevin Kelley explained that even David-Friedman, who had managed the campaign for several months, felt it hadn’t become a grassroots movement. “Bernie had trouble,” she said, “recruiting activists and contributors who had been involved in his previous campaigns. Some of them felt it was the wrong race to be running, and others thought it was more important that he stay in Burlington to consolidate the gains we had made there.”

She also noted that “middle-class progressives” weren’t enthusiastic since Sanders wasn’t organizing but simply running. “Bernie acts in a way that’s similar to [Jesse] Jackson in terms of focusing more on a candidacy and less on an organization,” she felt. She was still committed to his campaign, but she acknowledged his limitations. In a public letter to the left two weeks before the election, she praised Sanders’ leadership but scored his resistance to accountability or organization.

Murray Bookchin, a libertarian socialist thinker and leader of the emerging Green movement, was more blunt. “Bernie’s running a one-man show,” he said. “The only justification for a socialist campaign at this point is to try to educate people, and Sanders isn’t doing that at all. Instead, he’s running on the preposterous notion that he can get elected as governor this year.”

In truth, however, Sanders was running of issues as well: reducing reliance on the property tax, a more progressive income and corporate tax system, lowering utility bills, raising the minimum wage, and phasing out Vermont Yankee, among others. It was basically the same thrust he had always pushed — redistribution of income and wealth. But neither his reform program nor his powerful speaking style were enough to overcome the barriers in his way. His opponents could still outspend him, and his own ranks were split.

Working with Patrick Leahy, who was fighting Snelling to keep his US Senate seat, Kunin staged an impressive get-out-the-vote effort. It was the most sophisticated voter-identification program in state history. With unemployment at a record low and no state deficit, she had economics on her side. On Election Day, Kunin failed to win 50 percent of the vote, but she left both her opponents well behind and was dutifully confirmed by the legislature.

Sanders came away with 15 percent — far less than he had been hoping for, but nevertheless remarkable. Running as an Independent, he had established a solid base, and his percentage was far too big to be simply a protest vote. But it wasn’t just the total that was significant, noted Chris Graff, Vermont’s Associated Press bureau chief. “It is the fact that it came from the conservative hilltowns, the Republican strongholds, the farm communities.” Sanders had, in fact, won his highest percentage in the conservative Northeast Kingdom. Once again he had touched a chord and transcended traditional lines.

Greg Guma has lived in Vermont since the 1960s and wrote The People’s Republic: Vermont and the Sanders Revolution. His new sci-fi novel, Dons of Time, was released in October 2013.

Pundits and politicians are already looking for a convenient explanation for the twin Middle East disasters of the rise of Islamic State and the humanitarian catastrophe in Syria. The genuine answer is politically unpalatable, because the primary cause of both calamities is U.S. war and covert operations in the Middle East, followed by the abdication of U.S. power and responsibility for Syria policy to Saudi Arabia and other Sunni allies.

The emergence of a new state always involves a complex of factors. But over the past three decades, U.S. covert operations and war have entered repeatedly and powerfully into the chain of causality leading to Islamic State’s present position.

The causal chain begins with the role of the U.S. in creating a mujahedeen force to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s. Osama bin Laden was a key facilitator in training that force in Afghanistan. Without that reckless U.S. policy, the blowback of the later creation of al-Qaida would very likely not have occurred. But it was the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq that made al-Qaida a significant political-military force for the first time. The war drew Islamists to Iraq from all over the Middle East, and their war of terrorism against Iraqi Shiites was a precursor to the sectarian wars to follow.

The actual creation of Islamic State is also directly linked to the Iraq War. The former U.S. commander at Camp Bucca in Iraq has acknowledged that the detention of 24,000 prisoners, including hard-core al-Qaida cadres, Baathist officers and innocent civilians, created a “pressure cooker for extremism.” It was during their confinement in that camp during the U.S. troop surge in Iraq 2007 and 2008 that nine senior al-Qaida military cadres planned the details of how they would create Islamic State.

he Obama administration completed the causal chain by giving the green light to a major war in Syria waged by well-armed and well-trained foreign jihadists. Although the Assad regime undoubtedly responded to the firebombing of the Baath Party headquarters in Daraa in mid-March 2011 with excessive force, an armed struggle against the regime began almost immediately. In late March or early April, a well-planned ambush of Syrian troops killed at least two dozen soldiers near the same city. Other killings of troops took place in April in other cities, including Daraa, where 19 soldiers were gunned down.

During the second half of 2011 and through 2012, thousands of foreign jihadists streamed into Syria. As early as November 2011, al-Qaida was playing a central role in the war, carrying out spectacular suicide bombings in Damascus and Aleppo. Obama should have reacted to the first indications of that development and insisted that Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar keep external arms and military personnel and funding out of Syria in order to allow a process of peaceful change to take place. Instead, however, the administration became an integral part of a proxy war for regime change.

Seymour Hersh reported last year that an unpublished addendum to the Senate Intelligence Committee report on Benghazi revealed a covert CIA operation to arm Syrian rebels, in cooperation with Sunni allies’ intelligence services. In early 2012, Hersh reported, following an agreement with Turkey, then-CIA Director David Petraeus approved an elaborate covert operation in which Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar would fund the shipment of weapons to Syrian rebels from stocks captured from the Gadhafi government. The scheme employed front companies set up in Libya to manage the shipments of arms in order to separate the U.S. government from the operation. An October 2012 Defense Intelligence Agency report released by the Department of Defense to Judicial Watch confirmed the shipments of Libyan weapons from the port of Benghazi to two Syrian ports near Turkey beginning in October 2011 and continuing through August 2012.

A larger covert program involved a joint military operations center in Istanbul, where CIA officers worked with Turkish, Saudi and Qatari intelligence agencies that were also providing arms to their favorite Syrian rebels groups, according to sources who talked with The Washington Post’s David Ignatius.

By November 2012, al-Qaida’s Syrian franchise, al-Nusra Front, had 6,000 to 10,000 troops—mostly foreign fighters—under its command and was regarded as the most disciplined and effective fighting force in the field. The CIA’s Gulf allies armed brigades that had allied themselves with al-Nusra—or were ready to do so. A Qatari intelligence officer is said to have declared, “I will send weapons to al-Qaeda if it will help” topple Assad.

The CIA officials overseeing the covert operation knew very well what their Sunni allies were doing. After the U.S. shipments from Benghazi stopped in September 2012 because of the attack on the U.S. diplomatic post there, a CIA analysis reminded President Obama that the covert operation in Afghanistan had ended up creating a Frankenstein monster. Even the now-famous account in Hillary Clinton’s 2014 memoirs about Obama rejecting a proposal in late 2012 from CIA Director Petraeus for arming and training Syrian rebels does not hide the fact that everyone was well aware of the danger that arms sent to “moderates” would end up in the hands of terrorists.

Despite this, after rejecting Petraeus’ plan in 2012, Obama approved the covert training of “moderate” Syrian rebels in April 2013. As the Pentagon has been forced to acknowledge in recent weeks, that program has been a complete fiasco, as the units either joined al-Nusra or were attacked by al-Nusra. Meanwhile, as Vice President Joe Biden pointed out in October 2014, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates were pouring “hundreds of millions of dollars and tens, thousands of tons of weapons” into Syria that were ending up in the hands of the jihadists.

Unfortunately, Biden’s complaint came two and a half years too late. By October 2014, more than 15,000 foreign fighters, including 2,000 Westerners, were estimated to have gone to Syria. Islamic State and al-Nusra Front emerged as the two major contenders for power in Syria once Assad is overthrown, and the Saudis and Qataris were now ready to place their bets on al-Nusra. In early 2015, after King Salman inherited the Saudi throne, the three Sunni states began focusing their support on al-Nusra and its military allies, encouraging them to form a new military command, the “Army of Conquest.” The al-Nusra-led front then captured Idlib province in March.

Obama, focusing on the Iran nuclear agreement, has given no indication that he is troubled by his allies’ approach. If the Bush administration destabilized Iraq in order to increase U.S. military presence and power in the Middle East, the Obama administration has countenanced a proxy war that has destabilized and Syria because of his primary concern with consolidating the U.S. alliances with the Saudis and the other Sunni regimes.

Although it has been almost a rigid rule that pundits must ascribe U.S. fealty to its Saudi alliance to oil interests, oil is far from the top of the list of U.S interests today. More important to our national security state is the interest of the Pentagon and the military services to protect the military bases they have in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait and the UAE. Their need to preserve those alliance relationships is intensified by the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) cornucopia of military contracts for U.S. arms manufacturers that assures enormous profits will continue to flow for the foreseeable future. One estimate of the total at stake for the Pentagon and its private allies in military relationships with the GCC is $100 billion to $150 billion over two decades.

Those are crucial bureaucratic and business stakes for the U.S. national security state, which is usually driven by the bottom lines associated with different courses of action. Especially given the administration’s lack of a coherent geopolitical perspective on the region, the security state’s interests offer a persuasive explanation for Obama’s effectively farming out the most important element of its Syria policy to regional allies, with disastrous results.

Gareth Porter is an independent investigative journalist and winner of the 2012 Gellhorn Prize for journalism. He is the author of the newly published Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare.

The US Treasury has recently opened an inquiry about the so-called “Islamic State’s” (ISIS/ISIL) use of large numbers of brand-new Toyota trucks. The issue has arisen in the wake of Russia’s air operations over Syria and growing global suspicion that the US itself has played a key role in arming, funding, and intentionally perpetuating the terrorist army across Syria and Iraq.

ABC News in their article, “US Officials Ask How ISIS Got So Many Toyota Trucks,” reports:

U.S. counter-terror officials have asked Toyota, the world’s second largest auto maker, to help them determine how ISIS has managed to acquire the large number of Toyota pick-up trucks and SUVs seen prominently in the terror group’s propaganda videos in Iraq, Syria and Libya, ABC News has learned. 

Toyota says it does not know how ISIS obtained the vehicles and is “supporting” the inquiry led by the Terror Financing unit of the Treasury Department — part of a broad U.S. effort to prevent Western-made goods from ending up in the hands of the terror group.

The report went on to cite Iraqi Ambassador to the US, Lukman Faily:

“This is a question we’ve been asking our neighbors,” Faily said. “How could these brand new trucks… these four wheel drives, hundreds of them — where are they coming from?”

Not surprisingly, it appears the US Treasury is asking the wrong party. Instead of Toyota, the US Treasury’s inquiry should have started next door at the US State Department.

Mystery Solved 

Just last year it was reported that the US State Department had been sending in fleets of specifically Toyota-brand trucks into Syria to whom they claimed was the “Free Syrian Army.”

US foundation-funded Public Radio International (PRI) reported in a 2014 article titled, “This one Toyota pickup truck is at the top of the shopping list for the Free Syrian Army — and the Taliban,” that:

Recently, when the US State Department resumed sending non-lethal aid to Syrian rebels, the delivery list included 43 Toyota trucks.

Hiluxes were on the Free Syrian Army’s wish list. Oubai Shahbander, a Washington-based advisor to the Syrian National Coalition, is a fan of the truck.

“Specific equipment like the Toyota Hiluxes are what we refer to as force enablers for the moderate opposition forces on the ground,” he adds. Shahbander says the US-supplied pickups will be delivering troops and supplies into battle. Some of the fleet will even become battlefield weapons..

The British government has also admittedly supplied a number of vehicles to terrorists fighting inside of Syria. The British Independent’s 2013 article titled, “Revealed: What the West has given Syria’s rebels,” reported that (emphasis added):

So far the UK has sent around £8m of “non-lethal” aid, according to official papers seen by The Independent, comprising five 4×4 vehicles with ballistic protection; 20 sets of body armour; four trucks (three 25 tonne, one 20 tonne); six 4×4 SUVs; five non-armoured pick-ups; one recovery vehicle; four fork-lifts; three advanced “resilience kits” for region hubs, designed to rescue people in emergencies; 130 solar powered batteries; around 400 radios; water purification and rubbish collection kits; laptops; VSATs (small satellite systems for data communications) and printers.

It’s fair to say that whatever pipeline the US State Department and the British government used to supply terrorists in Syria with these trucks was likely used to send additional vehicles before and after these reports were made public.

The mystery of how hundreds of identical, brand-new ISIS-owned Toyota trucks have made it into Syria is solved. Not only has the US and British government admitted in the past to supplying them, their military forces and intelligence agencies ply the borders of Turkey, Jordan, and even Iraq where these fleets of trucks must have surely passed on their way to Syria – even if other regional actors supplied them. While previous admissions to supplying the vehicles implicates the West directly, that nothing resembling interdiction operations have been set up along any of these borders implicates the West as complicit with other parties also supplying vehicles to terrorists inside of Syria.

What Mystery?

Of course, much of this is not new information. So the question remains – why is the US Treasury just now carrying on with this transparent charade? Perhaps those in Washington believe that if the US government is the one asking this obvious question of how ISIS has managed to field such an impressive mechanized army in the middle of the Syrian desert, no one will suspect they had a role in it.

Of course, the trucks didn’t materialize in Syria. They originated outside of Syria and were brought in, and in great numbers, with the explicit knowledge and/or direct complicity of the US and its regional allies. Asking Toyota where the US State Department’s own trucks came from is another indication of just how lost US foreign policy, legitimacy, and credibility has become.

Russia’s intervention, and what should become a widely supported anti-terror coalition must keep in mind the criminality of the US and its partners when choosing its own partners in efforts to restore security and order across the Middle East and North Africa.

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

Russian air power together with Syrian ground forces constitute a potential death blow to Washington’s anti-Assad campaign – for the first time challenging it effectively, why US officials are flummoxed about what to do next.

On the one hand, Putin wants terrorism defeated and Syrians alone deciding who’ll lead them. On the other, he wants ISIS and other terrorist threats prevented from spreading, especially to Russia’s homeland, a scheme no doubt Washington intends, targeting China and Iran as well.

Syria’s military is rejuvenated. Russian air power raised its spirit. It’s on the move. The Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) headlined “Russian and Syrian Airstrikes Continue, More Casualties and Losses Among Terrorist Organizations’ Ranks,” saying:

“(A)rmy units (are) striking hard on terrorists’ positions,” inflicting heavy losses, destroying “their heavy armaments and equipment…”

Ongoing air and/or grounds operations are widespread –  targeting the Damascus countryside, Sweida, Daraa, Quneitra, Homs, Hama, Raqaa, Hasaka, the Aleppo countryside, Idlib and other areas.

On Thursday, Syrian Army and Air Force Chief of General Staff Gen. Ali Abdullah Ayoud issued a statement, saying:

“Today the Syrian armed forces started a wide-scale attack, aiming at uprooting terrorists’ gatherings and liberating the areas and towns which have been suffering (from) the woes and crimes of terrorism.”

Russian air power made the current offensive possible. Already, it’s inflicted significant damage to ISIS’ capability. Air and ground operations killed hundreds of terrorists. Many other fled in panic – many to residential areas Russia won’t bomb, others leaving Syria.

Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Mekdad said Moscow “produced significant results in several days that greatly surpass those achieved by the (so-called) US-led) coalition in over a year” – an operation hitting infrastructure targets, not ISIS or other terrorists.

Syria’s ambassador to Russia, Riad Haddad, said “strikes carried out by Russia’s aerospace forces against the IS positions in Syria are precise and efficient. Russia helps the Syrian army to conduct ground operations.”

“Coordination is carried out through the information center in Baghdad. However, coordination is also underway with participation of all general of the Syrian army. This is done so that precise airstrikes are delivered at the positions of the Islamic State terrorist organization.”

The entire free world supports Putin’s righteous mission. US officials ludicrously claiming he made a strategic blunder, encouraging the spread of terrorism reveals Washington’s tenuous position, now on the back foot for the first time in recent memory.

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg looked foolish saying “(i)n Syria, we have seen a troubling escalation of Russian military activities” code language for Putin beating Obama’s dirty game.

State Department spokesman Admiral John Kirby repeated the Big Lie, claiming Russia’s intervention “exacerbated the conflict…”

Media reports said Obama officials are discussing a no-fly zone as a possible option – illegal without Security Council authorization Russia won’t permit, nor will it deter its operations if unilaterally implemented.

Would US warplanes dare confront Russia’s belligerently? Don’t bet on it. They might come out second best. Kirby lied saying Russian air strikes target “opposition groups,” not ISIS.

“Greater than 90% of the strikes that we’ve seen them take to date have not been against ISIL or Al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorists.”

“They’ve been largely against opposition groups that want a better future for Syria and don’t want to see the Assad regime stay in power.”

Fact: All “opposition groups” are terrorists. No so-called “moderates” exist.

Fact: US bombing targets Syrian infrastructure, supporting, not attacking ISIS and other takfiri terrorists.

They’re US creations – death squad tactics, a strategy originating with Operation Phoenix in Vietnam in the 1960s and early 70s.

Fact: America’s war on terrorism is a  war OF terrorism at home and abroad. The goal: destroying fundamental freedoms. Replacing them with tyranny – continuing until Washington achieves unchallenged world dominance, a lunatic scheme threatening world peace.

Russia’s intervention is the most important development since Obama launched proxy war in March 2011. It has the potential to greatly impede Washington’s imperial Middle East agenda, maybe defeat it altogether.

Putin’s mission has US officials frantic, scrambling for a Plan B, unsure how to handle a real challenger, not like walkover countries Washington attacks. Bullies shun fair fights. They want things all their way.

A sort of St. George and the Dragon scenario may be developing. Imagine the good guy slaying the monster, freeing the world from its terror. Putin’s intervention deserves universal support.

A Final Comment.

RT International reported US, UK, Arab and Pakistani instructors working with ISIS elements in Afghanistan – planning to expand terrorism to Central Asia, especially Russia, part of Washington’s longstanding destabilization agenda.

According to Putin’s special representative for Afghanistan, Zamir Kabulov, “(t)here are several camps operated by (ISIS in Afghanistan) that train people from Central Asia and some regions of Russia. They speak Russian there.”

Russian intelligence estimates around 3,500 militants in Afghanistan, pledging allegiance to ISIS – and the number is rising, Kabulov explained.

He called “(t)he rise of (this terrorist group) in Afghanistan a high priority threat” – a key reason for Putin’s involvement in Syria. Perhaps Iraq is next, if Baghdad requests help.

Russian Armed Forces Chief of General Staff Gen. Valery Gerasimov estimates around 50,000 fighters in Afghanistan belonging to over 4,000 militant groups – Taliban elements by far the strongest with around 40,000 fighters.

ISIS elements are increasingly challenging them, Gerasimov said. They see Afghanistan as a rich recruiting ground, a foothold for expanding into Central Asia, according to Russia’s Main Intelligence Directorate chief Col. Gen. Igor Sergun.

He sees US-supported ISIS exploiting the worsening  situation in Afghanistan to strengthen its position,” posing a real threat to Russia’s security.

“We estimate that ISIL gets new troops by bribing field commanders of Taliban, the Islamic movement of Uzbekistan and other radical religious organizations operating on Afghan territory,” Sergun explained.

Defeating ISIS and other terrorist groups in Syria and Iraq takes on greater importance.

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.

A federal lawsuit was filed on October 6, demanding damages and relief for prisoners assaulted and tortured by Sonoma County sheriff deputies inside the county jail on May 28, 2015. The plaintiffs, Marqus Martinez and Daniel Banks, were two of at least 20 prisoners viciously beaten in the jail’s Administrative Segregation (high security) section on that day. Other abused inmates may join the suit.

At a press conference in Santa Rosa, about 60 miles north of San Francisco, attorney Isaak Schwaiger announced the legal action, and described the actions of the deputies: “Dressed in black, wearing black body armor, black ski masks and without badges, they went in like the Gestapo. From one module to the other end they carried on the beatings for five-and-a-half hours. Some prisoners were beaten four times.”

Joining Schwaiger at the speakers table were Laurie Banks, mother of Daniel Banks, and Karina Arango Lopez, sister of Jesus Lopez, who received particularly extreme and prolonged torture.

Attorney Isaak Schwaiger, Karina Arango Lopez, Laurie Banks Oct. 6 press conference Photo: Richard Becker

Laurie Banks read from a letter from her son, who was in the last cell attacked: “Mom I knew they were coming, they were going down the line.” She continued, “he was scared for his life. He had no idea how bad the beatings were.”

The assaults came to light as a result of inmates informing their attorneys of what had taken place. The attorneys urged their clients to write down their accounts of what had taken place in the jail on May 28. The letters were later forwarded to Schwaiger who is known in the area for a lawsuit he filed last December for a man tasered 23 times by Sonoma County deputies. The original letters were displayed at the press conference.

Sonoma County Sheriffs’ Department, Santa Rosa Police Department and other police agencies in Sonoma County are infamous for their records of killings and abuse. As far back as 1999, the U.S. Civil Rights Commission held hearings in Santa Rosa and recommended that a civilian review board be created.

The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors have declined to take any such action, even after the murder of 13-year-old Andy Lopez by Sonoma sheriff’s deputy Gelhaus in October 2013.

The office of Sheriff Steve Freitas predictably denied all allegations of torture and beatings, and claimed that the deputies were responding to a “riot that interfered with the safety of the jail.” What makes this claim ridiculous on its face is the fact that all the assaulted inmates were locked in individual cells, except for the times when they were dragged out for more abuse.

The sheriff has so far refused release videos which reportedly showed the beatings.

Schwaiger stated, “If he wants to call them [the abused inmates] liars then show me that video and I’ll be very happy to withdraw the lawsuit and walk away.”

He said that he believes “there are several hundred videos” at the jail documenting similar events.

The following are excerpts of a press release from the office of Attorney Isaak Schwaiger, with graphic descriptions of some of the abuse suffered by prisoners on May 28, drawn from the federal court filing.

A federal complaint filed today by the Law Office of Izaak Schwaiger on behalf of two Sonoma County men charges the County of Sonoma, Sheriff Steve Freitas, and other named Deputies with violations of the U.S. Constitution for heinous and inexplicable beatings of more than twenty inmates on May 28, 2015 in the Sonoma County Main Adult Detention Facility in Santa Rosa, CA.

The allegations set forth in the complaint describe in minute specificity the unconscionable events of May 28th, perpetrated by Sonoma County Deputy Sheriffs and ratified by Sonoma County Sheriff Steve Freitas.

They grabbed Montes and threw him to the ground, handcuffed him, then slammed his head into the floor, striking several rapid and violent blows about his head, shoulders, neck, and back. One deputy kicked Montes in the head. Another deployed a taser against the inmate. Deputies then removed Montes from the unit to administer “yard-counseling,” a practice that is common in the jail and routinely involves the application of physical violence to inmates. Deputies dressed in all black wearing ski masks dragged Montes to the shower, ordered him to strip naked, and told the inmate he was their “bitch.” While naked and defenseless, deputies threw Montes to the ground and began another round of savage beatings…

…deputies then began a third round of violent beatings, punching and kicking Lopez and smashing his face into the concrete. As the beatings continued, the lieutenant told Lopez that he was to blame for the violence. Lopez cried that they were treating him worse than an animal. The response from the deputies was swift. Lopez felt an unknown deputy punch the back of his neck and other deputies began punching, kicking, and body-slamming Lopez to the point of involuntary defecation. They placed shackles around Lopez’s feet and attached them through his handcuffs to a chain secured around his waist. A mask was put over his head and Deputy Medeiros began bashing his face into the floor. The deputies dragged Lopez to the mental health unit and stripped him naked. Covered in his own feces, Lopez pleaded for toilet paper. The deputies ignored his pleas, laughed at him, and locked him naked in isolation covered in his own feces for two days…

…Martinez repeatedly called for medical assistance for over an hour with no response. Due to his injuries, he was unable to pick himself up off the floor where the deputies left him. For two more hours he listened to screams of pain and torture from the other inmates as jail staff proceeded down the tier, removing each individual from his cell and subjecting him to similar beatings. Laying on the floor unable to move, Martinez heard his door open again. Hoping that it was the doctor, the inmate looked up just in time to see the SERT team returning to his cell wearing all black, with their nametags removed and ski masks covering their faces. They entered his cell and attacked him with overwhelming force, kicking, punching, and kneeing him and knocking his head into the floor. They called him a “bitch” and “a piece of shit.” They spat on him and threatened to continue the beatings if he were to ever yell out again…

While the housing module filled with the screams of other inmates, Daniel Banks, laid face down on his mattress with his hands behind his back. For hours he had listened to the beatings all around him. He hoped that by his show of submission he would avoid being beaten as well, but the deputies merely saved him for last. His cell door opened and four deputies wearing black entered the small cell. All but one was wearing a ski mask. The four deputies jumped on top of him and began kneeing and punching him in the back and wrenching his arms above his head, causing him excruciating pain. The deputies yelled, “stop resisting!” and smashed a pair of handcuffs around his wrists, causing the metal to cut into him and leaving him with bruising, swelling, permanent nerve damage and pain. Though face down, Banks turned to see his tormenters, and observed that one was not wearing a ski mask. He brought his face close to Banks’ and yelled, “That’s right – get a good look at me, you punk bitch – This is our house!” and spit in his face. The deputies brought Banks out of his cell, down the stairs, and into the yard where the beating continued…

Santa Rosa criminal defense and civil rights attorney Izaak Schwaiger received more than twenty letters from inmates following the beatings. A former prosecutor and Marine Corps veteran of the Iraq War, Schwaiger called the systematic assaults on the prisoners “gut-wrenching” and “beyond the pale.” Schwaiger’s early investigation reveals that jail staff videotaped a large portion of the beatings, and that those videos are in the possession of the Sonoma County Sheriff. “This is like a horror movie,” said Schwaiger. “And we have reason to believe this was not an isolated incident.”

The complaint seeks unspecified damages and injunctive relief.