Global Research Editor’s Note

We bring to the attention of our readers the following text of Osama bin Laden’s interview with Ummat, a Pakistani daily, published in Karachi on September 28, 2001. It was translated into English by the BBC World Monitoring Service and made public on September 29, 2001.

The authenticity of this interview, which is available in recognized electronic news archives, is confirmed.

Osama bin Laden categorically denies his involvement in the 9/11 attacks.

Bin Laden’s statements in this interview are markedly different from those made in the alleged Osama video tapes.

In this interview, Osama bin Laden exhibits an understanding of US foreign policy. He expresses his views regarding the loss of life on 9/11. He also makes statements as to who, in his opinion, might be the likely perpetrator of  the September 11 attacks.

This is an important text which has not been brought to the attention of Western public opinion.

We have highlighted key sections of this interview. It is our hope that the text of this interview, published barely a week before the onset of the war on Afghanistan, will contribute to a better understanding of the history of Al Qaeda, the role of Osama bin Laden and the tragic events of September 11, 2001.

Michel  Chossudovsky, May 9, 2011

 

Full text of September 2001 Pakistani paper’s “exclusive” interview with Usamah Bin-Ladin

Ummat (in Urdu), Karachi, 28 September 2001, pp. 1 and 7.

Ummat’s introduction

Kabul: Prominent Arab mojahed holy warrior Usamah Bin-Ladin has said that he or his al-Qa’idah group has nothing to do with the 11 September suicidal attacks in Washington and New York. He said the US government should find the attackers within the country. In an exclusive interview with daily “Ummat”, he said these attacks could be the act of those who are part of the American system and are rebelling against it and working for some other system. Or, Usamah said, this could be the act of those who want to make the current century a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity. Or, the American Jews, who are opposed to President Bush ever since the Florida elections, might be the masterminds of this act. There is also a great possibility of the involvement of US intelligence agencies, which need billions of dollars worth of funds every year. He said there is a government within the government in the United States.

The secret agencies, he said, should be asked as to who are behind the attacks. Usamah said support for attack on Afghanistan was a matter of need for some Muslim countries and compulsion for others. However, he said, he was thankful to the courageous people of Pakistan who erected a bulwark before the wrong forces. He added that the Islamic world was attaching great expectations with Pakistan and, in time of need, “we will protect this bulwark by sacrificing of lives”.

Following is the interview in full detail:

Ummat: You have been accused of involvement in the attacks in New York and Washington. What do you want to say about this? If you are not involved, who might be?

Usamah [Osama bin Laden]: In the name of Allah, the most beneficent, the most merciful. Praise be to Allah, Who is the creator of the whole universe and Who made the earth as an abode for peace, for the whole mankind. Allah is the Sustainer, who sent Prophet Muhammad for our guidance. I am thankful to the Ummat Group of Publications, which gave me the opportunity to convey my viewpoint to the people, particularly the valiant and Momin true Muslim people of Pakistan who refused to believe in lie of the demon.

I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children, and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children, and other people.

Such a practice is forbidden ever in the course of a battle. It is the United States, which is perpetrating every maltreatment on women, children, and common people of other faiths, particularly the followers of Islam. All that is going on in Palestine for the last 11 months is sufficient to call the wrath of God upon the United States and Israel.

There is also a warning for those Muslim countries, which witnessed all these as a silent spectator. What had earlier been done to the innocent people of Iraq, Chechnya, and Bosnia?

Only one conclusion could be derived from the indifference of the United States and the West to these acts of terror and the patronage of the tyrants by these powers that America is an anti-Islamic power and it is patronizing the anti-Islamic forces. Its friendship with the Muslim countries is just a show, rather deceit. By enticing or intimidating these countries, the United States is forcing them to play a role of its choice. Put a glance all around and you will see that the slaves of the United States are either rulers or enemies of Muslims .

The US has no friends, nor does it want to keep any because the prerequisite of friendship is to come to the level of the friend or consider him at par with you. America does not want to see anyone equal to it. It expects slavery from others. Therefore, other countries are either its slaves or subordinates.

However, our case is different. We have pledged slavery to God Almighty alone and after this pledge there is no possibility to become the slave of someone else. If we do that, it will be disregardful to both our Sustainer and his fellow beings. Most of the world nations upholding their freedom are the religious ones, which are the enemies of United States, or the latter itself considers them as its enemies. Or the countries, which do not agree to become its slaves, such as China, Iran, Libya, Cuba, Syria, and the former Russia as received .

Whoever committed the act of 11 September are not the friends of the American people. I have already said that we are against the American system, not against its people, whereas in these attacks, the common American people have been killed.

According to my information, the death toll is much higher than what the US government has stated. But the Bush administration does not want the panic to spread. The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; the people who are a part of the US system, but are dissenting against it. Or those who are working for some other system; persons who want to make the present century as a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity so that their own civilization, nation, country, or ideology could survive. They can be any one, from Russia to Israel and from India to Serbia. In the US itself, there are dozens of well-organized and well-equipped groups, which are capable of causing a large-scale destruction. Then you cannot forget the American Jews, who are annoyed with President Bush ever since the elections in Florida and want to avenge him.

Then there are intelligence agencies in the US, which require billions of dollars worth of funds from the Congress and the government every year. This funding issue was not a big problem till the existence of the former Soviet Union but after that the budget of these agencies has been in danger.

They needed an enemy. So, they first started propaganda against Usamah and Taleban and then this incident happened. You see, the Bush administration approved a budget of 40bn dollars. Where will this huge amount go? It will be provided to the same agencies, which need huge funds and want to exert their importance.

Now they will spend the money for their expansion and for increasing their importance. I will give you an example. Drug smugglers from all over the world are in contact with the US secret agencies. These agencies do not want to eradicate narcotics cultivation and trafficking because their importance will be diminished. The people in the US Drug Enforcement Department are encouraging drug trade so that they could show performance and get millions of dollars worth of budget. General Noriega was made a drug baron by the CIA and, in need, he was made a scapegoat. In the same way, whether it is President Bush or any other US president, they cannot bring Israel to justice for its human rights abuses or to hold it accountable for such crimes. What is this? Is it not that there exists a government within the government in the United Sates? That secret government must be asked as to who made the attacks.

Ummat: A number of world countries have joined the call of the United States for launching an attack on Afghanistan. These also include a number of Muslim countries. Will Al-Qa’idah declare a jihad against these countries as well?

Usamah: I must say that my duty is just to awaken the Muslims; to tell them as to what is good for them and what is not. What does Islam says and what the enemies of Islam want?

Al-Qa’idah was set up to wage a jihad against infidelity, particularly to encounter the onslaught of the infidel countries against the Islamic states. Jihad is the sixth undeclared element of Islam. The first five being the basic holy words of Islam, prayers, fast, pilgrimage to Mecca, and giving alms Every anti-Islamic person is afraid of it. Al-Qa’idah wants to keep this element alive and active and make it part of the daily life of the Muslims. It wants to give it the status of worship. We are not against any Islamic country nor we consider a war against an Islamic country as jihad.

We are in favour of armed jihad only against those infidel countries, which are killing innocent Muslim men, women, and children just because they are Muslims. Supporting the US act is the need of some Muslim countries and the compulsion of others. However, they should think as to what will remain of their religious and moral position if they support the attack of the Christians and the Jews on a Muslim country like Afghanistan. The orders of Islamic shari’ah jurisprudence for such individuals, organizations, and countries are clear and all the scholars of the Muslim brotherhood are unanimous on them. We will do the same, which is being ordered by the Amir ol-Momenin the commander of the faithful Mola Omar and the Islamic scholars. The hearts of the people of Muslim countries are beating with the call of jihad. We are grateful to them.

Ummat: The losses caused in the attacks in New York and Washington have proved that giving an economic blow to the US is not too difficult. US experts admit that a few more such attacks can bring down the American economy. Why is al-Qa’idah not targeting their economic pillars?

Usamah: I have already said that we are not hostile to the United States. We are against the system, which makes other nations slaves of the United States, or forces them to mortgage their political and economic freedom. This system is totally in control of the American Jews, whose first priority is Israel, not the United States. It is simply that the American people are themselves the slaves of the Jews and are forced to live according to the principles and laws laid by them. So, the punishment should reach Israel. In fact, it is Israel, which is giving a blood bath to innocent Muslims and the US is not uttering a single word.

Ummat: Why is harm not caused to the enemies of Islam through other means, apart from the armed struggle? For instance, inciting the Muslims to boycott Western products, banks, shipping lines, and TV channels.

Usamah: The first thing is that Western products could only be boycotted when the Muslim fraternity is fully awakened and organized. Secondly, the Muslim companies should become self-sufficient in producing goods equal to the products of Western companies. Economic boycott of the West is not possible unless economic self-sufficiency is attained and substitute products are brought out. You see that wealth is scattered all across the Muslim world but not a single TV channel has been acquired which can preach Islamic injunctions according to modern requirements and attain an international influence. Muslim traders and philanthropists should make it a point that if the weapon of public opinion is to be used, it is to be kept in the hand. Today’s world is of public opinion and the fates of nations are determined through its pressure. Once the tools for building public opinion are obtained, everything that you asked for can be done.

Ummat: The entire propaganda about your struggle has so far been made by the Western media. But no information is being received from your sources about the network of Al-Qa’idah and its jihadi successes. Would you comment?

Usamah: In fact, the Western media is left with nothing else. It has no other theme to survive for a long time. Then we have many other things to do. The struggle for jihad and the successes are for the sake of Allah and not to annoy His bondsmen. Our silence is our real propaganda. Rejections, explanations, or corrigendum only waste your time and through them, the enemy wants you to engage in things which are not of use to you. These things are pulling you away from your cause.

The Western media is unleashing such a baseless propaganda, which make us surprise but it reflects on what is in their hearts and gradually they themselves become captive of this propaganda. They become afraid of it and begin to cause harm to themselves. Terror is the most dreaded weapon in modern age and the Western media is mercilessly using it against its own people. It can add fear and helplessness in the psyche of the people of Europe and the United States. It means that what the enemies of the United States cannot do, its media is doing that. You can understand as to what will be the performance of the nation in a war, which suffers from fear and helplessness.

Ummat: What will the impact of the freeze of al-Qa’idah accounts by the US?

Usamah: God opens up ways for those who work for Him. Freezing of accounts will not make any difference for Al-Qa’idah or other jihad groups. With the grace of Allah, al-Qa’idah has more than three such alternative financial systems, which are all separate and totally independent from each other. This system is operating under the patronage of those who love jihad. What to say of the United States, even the combined world cannot budge these people from their path.

These people are not in hundreds but in thousands and millions. Al-Qa’idah comprises of such modern educated youths who are aware of the cracks inside the Western financial system as they are aware of the lines in their hands. These are the very flaws of the Western fiscal system, which are becoming a noose for it and this system could not recuperate in spite of the passage of so many days.

Ummat: Are there other safe areas other than Afghanistan, where you can continue jihad?

Usamah: There are areas in all parts of the world where strong jihadi forces are present, from Indonesia to Algeria, from Kabul to Chechnya, from Bosnia to Sudan, and from Burma to Kashmir. Then it is not the problem of my person. I am helpless fellowman of God, constantly in the fear of my accountability before God. It is not the question of Usamah but of Islam and, in Islam too, of jihad. Thanks to God, those waging a jihad can walk today with their heads raised. Jihad was still present when there was no Usamah and it will remain as such even when Usamah is no longer there. Allah opens up ways and creates loves in the hearts of people for those who walk on the path of Allah with their lives, property, and children. Believe it, through jihad, a man gets everything he desires. And the biggest desire of a Muslim is the after life. Martyrdom is the shortest way of attaining an eternal life.

Ummat: What do you say about the Pakistan government policy on Afghanistan attack?

Usamah: We are thankful to the Momin and valiant people of Pakistan who erected a blockade in front of the wrong forces and stood in the first file of battle. Pakistan is a great hope for the Islamic brotherhood. Its people are awakened, organized, and rich in the spirit of faith. They backed Afghanistan in its war against the Soviet Union and extended every help to the mojahedin and the Afghan people. Then these are very Pakistanis who are standing shoulder by shoulder with the Taleban. If such people emerge in just two countries, the domination of the West will diminish in a matter of days. Our hearts beat with Pakistan and, God forbid, if a difficult time comes we will protect it with our blood. Pakistan is sacred for us like a place of worship. We are the people of jihad and fighting for the defence of Pakistan is the best of all jihads to us. It does not matter for us as to who rules Pakistan. The important thing is that the spirit of jihad is alive and stronger in the hearts of the Pakistani people.

Copyright Ummat in Urdu, BBC translation in English, 2001

Read about Osama Bin Laden in Michel Chossudovsky’s international best-seller

According to Chossudovsky, the  “war on terrorism” is a complete fabrication based on the illusion that one man, Osama bin Laden, outwitted the $40 billion-a-year American intelligence apparatus. The “war on terrorism” is a war of conquest. Globalisation is the final march to the “New World Order”, dominated by Wall Street and the U.S. military-industrial complex.

Order Directly from Global Research

original

America’s “War on Terrorism”

by Michel
Chossudovsky

Welcome to the newly redesigned Global Research website!

September 8th, 2012 by Global Research

Dear Readers,

Welcome to the newly redesigned Global Research website!

We are very proud to launch an updated version of our website, featuring the same timely and analytical content as before, in a display that will be easier for our readers to navigate so that you can get the information you need as quickly and easily as possible.

On this website, you will be able to access an archive of more than 30,000 articles published by Global Research.

We thank all of our readers for the feedback you have sent us over the years and hope you will enjoy your browsing experience.

These changes would not be possible without your support, and for that we extend our sincere appreciation.

To help us cover the costs of important projects and necessary upgrades like this, we kindly ask that you consider making a donation to Global Research.

We also take this opportunity to invite you to become a Member of Global Research

If we stand together, we can fight media lies and expose the truth. There is too much at stake to choose ignorance.

Be aware, stay informed, spread the message of peace far and wide.

Feedback and suggestions regarding our new website are most welcome. To post a comment, kindly visit us on the Global Research facebook page

Sincerely,

 

The Global Research Team

THE 9/11 READER. The September 11, 2001 Terror Attacks

April 7th, 2014 by Prof Michel Chossudovsky

 

Note to Readers: Remember to bookmark this page for future reference.
Please Forward the GR I-Book far and wide. Post it on Facebook.



[scroll down for I-BOOK Table of Contents]

*

GLOBAL RESEARCH ONLINE

INTERACTIVE READER SERIES

GR I-BOOK No.  7 

THE 9/11 READER

The September 11, 2001 Terror Attacks

9/11 Truth: Revealing the Lies,  Commemorating the 9/11 Tragedy

Michel Chossudovsky (Editor)

August 2012


The 911/ Reader is part of Global Research’s Online Interactive I-Book Reader, which brings together, in the form of chapters, a collection of Global Research feature articles, including debate and analysis, on a broad theme or subject matter.  To consult our Online Interactive I-Book Reader Series, click here.


 

INTRODUCTION

The tragic events of September 11, 2001 constitute a fundamental landmark in American history. a decisive watershed, a breaking point. Millions of people have been misled regarding the causes and consequences of 9/11.

September 11 2001 opens up an era of crisis, upheaval and militarization of American society.

A far-reaching overhaul of US military doctrine was launched in the wake of 9/11.

Endless wars of aggression under the humanitarian cloak of “counter-terrorism” were set in motion. 

9/11 was also a stepping stone towards the relentless repeal of civil liberties, the militarization of law enforcement and the inauguration of “Police State USA”.

September 11, 2001 marks the onslaught of the “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT), used as a pretext and a justification by the US and its NATO allies to carry out a “war without borders”, a global war of conquest. 

At eleven o’clock, on the morning of September 11, the Bush administration had already announced that Al Qaeda was responsible for the attacks on the World Trade Center (WTC) and the Pentagon. This assertion was made prior to the conduct of an indepth police investigation.

CIA Director George Tenet stated that same morning that Osama bin Laden had the capacity to plan  “multiple attacks with little or no warning.”

Secretary of State Colin Powell called the attacks “an act of war” and President Bush confirmed in an evening televised address to the Nation that he would “make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them”.

Former CIA Director James Woolsey, without mentioning Afghanistan, pointed his finger at “state sponsorship,” implying the complicity of one or more foreign governments. In the words of former National Security Adviser, Lawrence Eagleburger, “I think we will show when we get attacked like this, we are terrible in our strength and in our retribution.”

That same evening at 9:30 pm, a “War Cabinet” was formed integrated by a select number of top intelligence and military advisors. And at 11:00 pm, at the end of that historic meeting at the White House, the “War on Terrorism” was officially launched.

The tragic events of 9/11 provided the required justification to wage war on Afghanistan on “humanitarian grounds”, with the full support of World public opinion and the endorsement of the “international community”.  Several prominent “progressive” intellectuals made a case for “retaliation against terrorism”, on moral and ethical grounds. The “just cause” military doctrine (jus ad bellum) was accepted and upheld at face value as a legitimate response to 9/11. 

In the wake of 9/11, the antiwar movement was completely isolated. The trade unions and civil society organizations had swallowed the media lies and government propaganda. They had accepted a war of retribution against Afghanistan, an impoverished country in Central Asia of 30 million people.

The myth of the “outside enemy” and the threat of “Islamic terrorists” was the cornerstone of the Bush administration’s military doctrine, used as a pretext to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention the repeal of civil liberties and constitutional government in America.

Amply documented but rarely mentioned by the mainstream media, Al Qaeda is a creation of the CIA going back to the Soviet- Afghan war. This was a known fact, corroborated by numerous sources including official documents of the US Congress, which the mainstream media chose to either dismiss or ignore. The intelligence community had time and again acknowledged that they had indeed supported Osama bin Laden, but that in the wake of the Cold War: “he turned against us”.

The 9/11 Commission Report has largely upheld the “outside enemy” mythology, heralding Al Qaeda as the “mastermind” organization behind the 9/11 attacks.

The official 9/11 narrative has not only distorted the causes underling the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings, it has also erased the historical record of US covert support to international terrorism, while creating the illusion that America and “Western Civilization” are threatened.

Without an “outside enemy”, there could be no “war on terrorism”. The entire national security agenda would collapse “like a deck of cards”. The war criminals in high office would have no leg to stand on.

After 9/11, the campaign of media disinformation served not only to drown the truth but also to kill much of the historical evidence on how this illusive Al Qaeda “outside enemy” had been fabricated and transformed into “Enemy Number One”.

Click to view video

VIDEO: AFTER 9/11: TEN YEARS OF WAR

Special GRTV Feature Production
- by James Corbett – 2011-09-08

***

The 911 Reader is composed of a carefully selected collection of key articles published by Global Research in the course of the last eleven years.

9/11 was an important landmark for Global Research. Our website was launched on September 9, 2001, two days prior to 9/11. Our coverage of 9/11 was initiated on September 12, 2001.

Within this collection of more than 60 chapters, we have included several important reports from our archives, published by Global Research in the immediate aftermath of the attacks. These articles provide a focus on issues pertaining to the 9/11 Timeline, foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks, the attack on the Pentagon, the issue of insider trading on Wall Street in the days preceding 9/11 pointing to foreknowledge of the attacks.

What prevails is a complex web of lies and fabrications, pertaining to various dimensions of the 9/11 tragedy. The falsehoods contained in the official 9/11 narrative are manifold, extending from the affirmation that Osama bin Laden was the mastermind, to the assertion by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) that the WTC buildings collapsed due to the impacts of fire. (see Part III).

Where was Osama bin Laden on September 11, 2001?

Is there any proof to the effect that Osama bin Laden, the bogeyman, coordinated the 9/11 attacks as claimed in the official 9/11 narrative?

According to CBS news (Dan Rather, January 28, 2002), “Enemy Number One” was admitted to the urology ward of a Pakistani military hospital in Rawalpindi on September 10, 2001, courtesy of America’s indefectible ally Pakistan. He could have been arrested at short notice which would have “saved us a lot of trouble”, but then we would not have had an Osama Legend, which has fed the news chain as well as presidential speeches in the course of the last eleven years.

DAN RATHER. As the United states and its allies in the war on terrorism press the hunt for Osama bin Laden, CBS News has exclusive information tonight about where bin Laden was and what he was doing in the last hours before his followers struck the United States September 11.

This is the result of hard-nosed investigative reporting by a team of CBS news journalists, and by one of the best foreign correspondents in the business, CBS`s Barry Petersen. Here is his report.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) BARRY PETERSEN, CBS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Everyone remembers what happened on September 11. Here`s the story of what may have happened the night before. It is a tale as twisted as the hunt for Osama bin Laden.

CBS News has been told that the night before the September 11 terrorist attack, Osama bin Laden was in Pakistan. He was getting medical treatment with the support of the very military that days later pledged its backing for the U.S. war on terror in Afghanistan. (transcript of CBS report, see http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CBS203A.html , see also http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/28/eveningnews/main325887.shtml

CBS News footage of the Rawalpindi, Pakistan, hospital where bin Laden was allegedly treated the day before 9/11. [Source: CBS News]

 

CBS News footage of the Rawalpindi, Pakistan, hospital where bin Laden was allegedly treated the day before 9/11.

CBS News footage of the Rawalpindi, Pakistan, hospital where bin Laden was allegedly treated the day before 9/11. [Source: CBS News]

The foregoing CBS report which  is of utmost relevance indicates two obvious facts:

1. Osama bin Laden could not reasonably have coordinated the 9/11 attacks from his hospital bed;

2. The hospital was under the jurisdiction of the Pakistani Armed Forces, which has close links to the Pentagon. Osama bin Laden’s whereabouts were known to both the Pakistani and US military.

 U.S. military and intelligence advisers based in Rawalpindi. were working closely with their Pakistani counterparts. Again, no attempt was made to arrest America’s best known fugitive. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld claimed, at the time, that the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden were unknown. According to Rumsfeld:  “Its like looking for a needle in a stack of hay”.

October 7, 2001: Waging America’s 9/11 War of Retribution against Afghanistan

The immediate response of the US and its allies to the 9/11 attacks was to the declare a war of retribution against Afghanistan on the grounds that the Taliban government was protecting “terror mastermind” Osama bin Laden. By allegedly harboring bin Laden, the Taliban were complicit, according to both the US administration and NATO, for having waged an act of war against the United States.

Parroting official statements, the Western media mantra on September 12, 2001 had already approved the launching of “punitive actions” directed against civilian targets in Afghanistan. In the words of William Saffire writing in the New York Times: “When we reasonably determine our attackers’ bases and camps, we must pulverize them — minimizing but accepting the risk of collateral damage” — and act overtly or covertly to destabilize terror’s national hosts”.

This decision was taken by the Bush-Cheney war cabinet in the evening of September 11, 2001. It was based on the presumption, “confirmed” by the head of the CIA that Al Qaeda was behind the attacks.

On the following morning, September 12, 2001, NATO’s Atlantic Council meeting in Brussels, endorsed the Bush administration’s declaration of war on Afghanistan, invoking Article 5 of the Washington Treaty.

An act of war by a foreign nation (Afghanistan) against a member of the Atlantic Alliance (the USA) is an act of war against all members under NATO’s doctrine of collective security. Under any stretch of the imagination, the attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon cannot be categorized as an act of war by a foreign country. But nobody seemed to have raised this issue.

Meanwhile, on two occasions in the course of September 2001, the Afghan government –through diplomatic channels– offered to hand over Osama Bin laden to US Justice. These overtures were turned down by president Bush, on the grounds that America “does not negotiate with terrorists”.

The war on Afghanistan was launched 26 days later on the morning of October 7, 2001. The timing of this war begs the question: how long does it take to plan and implement a major theater war several thousand miles away. Military analysts will confirm that a major theater war takes months and months, up to a year or more of advanced preparations. The war on Afghanistan was already in the advanced planning stages prior to September 11, 2001, which begs the question of foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks.

The repeal of civil liberties in America was launched in parallel with the bombing and invasion of Afghanistan, almost immediately following 9/11 with the adoption of the PATRIOT legislation and the setting up of a Homeland Security apparatus, under the pretext of protecting Americans. This post-911 legal and institutional framework had been carefully crafted prior to the 9/11 attacks.

Al Qaeda is a US Intelligence Asset

Important to the understanding of 9/11, US intelligence is the unspoken architect of “Islamic terrorism” going back to the heyday of the Soviet-Afghan war.

Bin Laden was 22 years old and was trained in a CIA sponsored guerrilla training camp. Education in Afghanistan in the years preceding the Soviet-Afghan war was largely secular. With religious textbooks produced in Nebraska, the number of CIA sponsored religious schools (madrasahs) increased from 2,500 in 1980 to over 39,000.

“Advertisements, paid for from CIA funds, were placed in newspapers and newsletters around the world offering inducements and motivations to join the [Islamic] Jihad.” (Pervez Hoodbhoy, Peace Research, 1 May 2005)

 ”The United States spent millions of dollars to supply Afghan schoolchildren with textbooks filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings….The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then as the Afghan school system’s core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books,..”, (Washington Post, 23 March 2002)

Under the Reagan administration, US foreign policy evolved towards the unconditional support and endorsement of the Islamic “freedom fighters”. This endorsement has not in any way been modified.

In a twisted irony, throughout the post 911 era,  US intelligence in liaison with Britain’s MI6, an Israel’s Mossad, continues to provide covert support to the radical Islamist organization allegedly responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Al Qaeda and its various affiliated groups including the Libya Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) and factions within the Free Syria Army (FSA) are directly supported by the US and NATO.

In a bitter irony, the US and its allies claim to be waging a “war on terrorism” against the alleged architects of 9/11, while also using Al Qaeda operatives as their foot-soldiers.


Front row, from left: Major Gen. Hamid Gul, director general of Pakistan’s
Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI), Director of Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
Willian Webster; Deputy Director for Operations Clair George; an ISI colonel; and senior CIA official,
Milt Bearden at a Mujahideen training camp in North-West Frontier Province of Pakistan in 1987.
(source RAWA)


Ronald Reagan meets Afghan Mujahideen Commanders at the White House in 1985 (Reagan Archives)

VIDEO (30 Sec.)

The Collapse of the World Trade Center Buildings

Based on the findings of  Richard Gage of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings was not caused by fire resulting from the crash of the planes:

In more than 100 steel-framed, high-rise fires (most of them very hot, very large and very long-lasting), not one has collapsed, ever. So it behooves all of us, as your own former chief of NIST’s Fire Science Division, Dr. James Quintiere, said, “to look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of these collapses.”

Let’s start with temperatures – 1,340° F. temperatures, recorded in thermal images of the surface of the World Trade Center rubble pile a week after 9/11 by NASA’s AVIRIS equipment on USGS overflights. Such temperatures cannot be achieved by oxygen-starved hydrocarbon fires. Such fires burn at only 600 to 800° F. Remember, there was no fire on the top of the pile. The source of this incredible heat was therefore below the surface of the rubble, where it must have been far hotter than 1,340 degrees.

Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc., who was hired for the Building 7 cleanup, said that “molten steel was found at 7 WTC.” Leslie Robertson, World Trade Center structural engineer, stated that on October 5, “21 days after the attacks, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running.” Fire department personnel, recorded on video, reported seeing “molten steel running down the channel rails… like you’re in a foundry – like lava from a volcano.” Joe O’Toole, a Bronx firefighter, saw a crane lifting a steel beam vertically from deep within a pile. He said “it was dripping from the molten steel.” Bart Voorsanger, an architect hired to save “relics from the rubble,” stated about the multi-ton “meteorite” that it was a “fused element of molten steel and concrete.”

Steel melts at about 2,850 degrees Fahrenheit, about twice the temperature of the World Trade Center Tower 1 and 2 fires as estimated by NIST. So what melted the steel?

Appendix C of FEMA’s BPAT Report documents steel samples showing rapid oxidation, sulfidation, and intergranular melting. A liquid eutectic mixture, including sulfur from an unknown source, caused intense corrosion of the steel, gaping holes in wide flange beams, and the thinning of half-inch-thick flanges to almost razor-sharpness in the World Trade Center 7 steel. The New York Times called this “the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation.”

NIST left all of this crucial forensic evidence out of its report. Why? Because it didn’t fit in with the official conspiracy theory.

Last year, physicist Steven Jones, two other physicists, and a geologist analyzed the slag at the ends of the beams and in the samples of the previously molten metal. They found iron, aluminum, sulfur, manganese and fluorine – the chemical evidence of thermate, a high-tech incendiary cutting charge used by the military to cut through steel like a hot knife through butter. The by-product of the thermate reaction is molten iron! There’s no other possible source for all the molten iron that was found. One of thermate’s key ingredients is sulfur, which can form the liquid eutectic that FEMA found and lower the melting point of steel.

In addition, World Trade Center 7′s catastrophic structural failure showed every characteristic of explosive, controlled demolition. … The destruction began suddenly at the base of the building. Several first responders reported explosions occurring about a second before the collapse. There was the symmetrical, near-free-fall speed of collapse, through the path of greatest resistance – with 40,000 tons of steel designed to resist this load – straight down into its own footprint. This requires that all the columns have to fail within a fraction of a second of each other – perimeter columns as well as core columns. There was also the appearance of mistimed explosions (squibs?) at the upper seven floors on the network video recordings of the collapse. And we have expert testimony from a European demolitions expert, Danny Jowenko, who said “This is controlled demolition… a team of experts did this… This is professional work, without any doubt.”

Fire cannot produce these effects. Fire produces large, gradual deformations and asymmetrical collapses. Thermate can produce all of these effects used in conjunction with linear shaped charges. If the thermate is formed into ultra-fine particles, as has been accomplished at Los Alamos National Laboratory, it is called super-thermate, and is very explosive.(Richard Gage, January 2008)

The following AE911Truth Video provides irrefutable evidence that the WTC center towers were brought down through controlled demolition.

According to David Ray Griffin: “The official theory of the collapse, therefore, is essentially a fire theory, so it cannot be emphasized too much that fire has never caused large steel-frame buildings to collapse—never, whether before 9/11, or after 9/11, or anywhere in the world on 9/11 except allegedly New York City—never.” (See David Ray Griffin).

According to Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, based on solid scientific analysis and evidence, the collapse of the WTC towers was engineered through controlled demolition. While AE11Truth does not speculate on who might be behind the conspiracy to bring down the WTC buildings, they nonetheless suggest that the carrying out such an operation would require a carefully planned course of action with prior access to the buildings as well as an advanced level of expertise in the use of explosives, etc.

The Collapse of WTC Building Seven

The most grotesque lie pertains to the BBC and CNN announcement in the afternoon of September 11, that WTC Building Seven (The Solomon Building) had collapsed. The BBC report went live at 5.00pm, 21 minutes before the actual occurrence of the collapse, indelibly pointing to foreknowledge of the collapse of WTC 7.  CNN anchor Aaron Brown announced that the building “has either collapsed or is collapsing” about an hour before the event. (See WTC7.net the hidden story of Building 7: Foreknowledge of WTC 7′s Collapse)

The Collapse of WTC Building Seven.

CNN anchor Aaron Brown seems to struggle to make sense of what he is seeing one minute after announcing that WTC Building 7, whose erect facade is clearly visible in his view towards the Trade Center, has or is collapsing.

Coverup and Complicity

The 911 Reader presents factual information and analysis which points to cover-up and complicity at the highest levels of the US government.

This body of articles by prominent authors, scholars, architects, engineers, largely refutes the official narrative of the 9/11 Commission Report, which is reviewed in Part IV. It  dispels the notion that America was attacked on September 11, 2001 on the orders of Osama bin Laden.

This is a central issue because US military doctrine since 9/11 has been predicated on “defending the American Homeland” against Islamic terrorists as well as waging pre-emptive wars against Al Qaeda and its various “state sponsors”.  Afghanistan was bombed and invaded as part of the “war on terrorism”. In March 2003, Iraq was also invaded.

War Propaganda

Fiction prevails over reality. For propaganda to be effective, public opinion must firmly endorse the official 9/11 narrative to the effect that Al Qaeda was behind the attacks. A well organized structure of media disinformation (Part XI) is required to reach this objective. Perpetuating the 9/11 Legend also requires defying as well smearing the 9/11 Truth Movement.

Throughout the post 9/11 era, a panoply of Al Qaeda related events and circumstances is presented to public opinion on a daily basis. These include terrorist threats, warnings and attacks, police investigations, insurgencies and counter-insurgencies, country-level regime change, social conflict, sectarian violence, racism, religious divisions, Islamic thought, Western values, etc.

In turn, 9/11, Al Qaeda – War on Terrorism rhetoric permeates political discourse at all levels of government, including bipartisan debate on Capitol Hill, in committees of the House and the Senate, at the British House of Commons, and, lest we forget, at the United Nations Security Council.

September 11 and Al Qaeda concepts, repeated ad nauseam have potentially traumatic impacts on the human mind and the ability of normal human beings to analyze and comprehend the “real outside World” of war, politics and the economic crisis.

What is at stake is human consciousness and comprehension based on concepts and facts.

With September 11 there are no verifiable “facts” and “concepts”, because 9/11 as well as Al Qaeda have evolved into a media mythology, a legend, an invented ideological construct, used as an unsubtle tool of media disinformation and war propaganda.

Al Qaeda constitutes a stylized, fake and almost folkloric abstraction of terrorism, which permeates the inner consciousness of millions of people around the World.

Reference to Al Qaeda has become a dogma, a belief, which most people espouse unconditionally.

Is this political indoctrination? Is it brain-washing? If so what is the underlying objective?

People’s capacity to independently analyse World events, as well as address causal relationships pertaining to politics and society, is significantly impaired. That is the objective!

The routine use of  9/11 and Al Qaeda to generate blanket explanations of complex political events is meant to create confusion. It prevents people from thinking.

All of these complex Al Qaeda related occurrences are explained –by politicians, the corporate media, Hollywood and the Washington think tanks under a single blanket “bad guys” heading, in which Al Qaeda is casually and repeatedly pinpointed as “the cause” of numerous terror events around the World.

The Alleged Role of Iraq in the 9/11 Attacks

9/11 mythology has been a mainstay of war propaganda. In the course of 2002, leading up to the invasion of Iraq in March 2003,  “Osama bin Laden” and “Weapons of Mass Destruction” statements circulated profusely in the news chain. While Washington’s official position was that Saddam Hussein was not behind the 9/11 attacks, insinuations abounded both in presidential speeches as well as in the Western media. According to Bush,  in an October 2002 press conference:

The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime’s own actions — its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. .,..  We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On September the 11th, 2001, America felt its vulnerability — even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source [Iraq], that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America. President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat, October 7, 2002)

Barely two weeks before the invasion of Iraq, September 11, 2001 was mentioned abundantly by president Bush. In the weeks leading up to the March invasion, 45 percent of  Americans believed Saddam Hussein was “personally involved” in the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. (See . The impact of Bush linking 9/11 and Iraq / The Christian Science Monitor – CSMonitor.com, March 14, 2003)

Meanwhile, a new terrorist mastermind had emerged: Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi.

In Colin Powell’s historic address to the United Nations Security Council, in February 2003, detailed “documentation” on a sinister relationship between Saddam Hussein and Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi was presented, focussing on his ability to produce deadly chemical, biological and radiological weapons, with the full support and endorsement of the secular Baathist regime. The implication of Colin’s Powell’s assertions, which were totally fabricated, was that Saddam Hussein and an Al Qaeda affiliated organization had joined hands in the production of WMD in Northern Iraq and that the Hussein government was a “state sponsor” of terrorism.

The main thrust of the disinformation campaign continued in the wake of the March 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq. It consisted in presenting the Iraqi resistance movement as “terrorists”. The image of “terrorists opposed to democracy” fighting US “peacekeepers” appeared on television screens and news tabloids across the globe.

Iran: Alleged State Sponsor of 9/11

In the wake of the Iraq invasion, the same alleged “state sponsorship” of terrorism accusations emerged in relation to Iran.

In December 2011, the Islamic Republic of Iran was condemned by a Manhattan court, for its alleged role in supporting Al Qaeda in the 9/11 attacks.

The investigation into Tehran’s alleged role was launched in 2004, pursuant to a recommendation of the 9/11 Commission “regarding an apparent link between Iran, Hezbollah, and the 9/11 hijackers”. The 91/11 Commission’s recommendation was that the this “apparent link” required  “further investigation by the U.S. government.” (9/11 Commission Report , p. 241). (See Iran 911 Case ).

In the December 2011 court judgment (Havlish v. Iran)  “U.S. District Judge George B. Daniels ruled  that Iran and Hezbollah materially and directly supported al Qaeda in the September 11, 2001 attacks and are legally responsible for damages to hundreds of family members of 9/11 victims who are plaintiffs in the case”.

According to the plaintiffs attorneys “Iran, Hezbollah, and al Qaeda formed a terror alliance in the early 1990s. Citing their national security and intelligence experts, the attorneys explained “how the pragmatic terror leaders overcame the Sunni-Shi’a divide in order to confront the U.S. (the “Great Satan”) and Israel (the “Lesser Satan”)”. Iran and Hezbollah allegedly provided “training to members of al Qaeda in, among other things, the use of explosives to destroy large buildings.” (See Iran 911 Case ).

This judicial procedure is nothing more than another vicious weapon in the fabricated “War on Terror” to be used against another Muslim country, with a view to destabilizing Iran as well as justifying ongoing military threats. It also says a lot more about the people behind the lawsuit than about the accused. The expert witnesses who testified against Iran are very active in warmongering neocon circles. They belong to a web of architects of the 21st century Middle-Eastern wars, ranging from high profile propagandists to intelligence and military officers, including former U.S. officials.

But what makes this case absurd is that in September 2011, a few months before the judgment, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has questioned the official 9/11 narrative, was accused by Al-Qaeda leaders of  “spreading conspiracy theories about the 9/11 attacks”. The semi-official media outlet of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, insisted that al-Qaeda “had been behind the attacks and criticised the Iranian president for discrediting the terrorist group.” (See Julie Levesque, Iran Accused of being behind 9/11 Attacks. U.S. Court Judgment, December 2011 (Havlish v. Iran), Global Research,  May 11, 2012)

Al Qaeda: US-NATO Foot-soldiers

Ironically, while Washington accuses Iran and Afghanistan of supporting terrorism, the historical record and evidence indelibly point to the “state sponsorship” of Al Qaeda by the CIA, MI6 and their counterparts in Pakistan, Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

Al Qaeda death squads have been recruited to wage America’s humanitarian wars throughout the Middle East and North Africa.

In Syria Al Qaeda units were recruited by NATO and the Turkish High command: “Also discussed in Brussels and Ankara, our sources report, is a campaign to enlist thousands of Muslim volunteers in Middle East countries and the Muslim world to fight alongside the Syrian rebels.” (http://www.debka.com/article/21255/  Debkafile, August 31, 2011).

In Libya, jihadists from Afghanistan trained by the CIA were dispatched to fight with the “pro-democracy” rebels under the helm of “former” Libya Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) Commander Abdel Hakim Belhadj:

Western policy makers admit that NATO’s operations in Libya have played the primary role in emboldening Al Qaeda’s AQIM faction (Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb). The Fortune 500-funded Brookings Institution’s Bruce Riedel in his article, “The New Al Qaeda Menace,” admits that AQIM is now heavily armed thanks to NATO’s intervention in Libya, and that AQIM’s base in Mali, North Africa, serves as a staging ground for terrorist activities across the region. http://www.globalresearch.ca/al-qaeda-and-natos-pan-arab-terrorist-blitzkrieg/

Table of Contents of the 9/11 Reader

In Part I, the 911 Reader provides a review of what happened on the morning of 9/11, at the White House, on Capitol Hill, the Pentagon, at Strategic Command Headquarters (USSTRATCOM), What was the response of the US Air Force in the immediate wake of the attacks?  Part II focusses on “What Happened on the Planes” as described in the 9/11 Commission Report.

Part III sheds light on what caused the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings. It also challenges the official narrative with regard to the attack on the Pentagon.

Part IV reviews and refutes the findings of the 9/11 Commission Report.

Part V focusses on the issue of foreknowledge by Western intelligence agencies. Part VI examines the issue of how foreknowledge of the attacks was used as an instrument of insider trading on airline stocks in the days preceding September 11, 2001. The bonanza financial gains resulting from insurance claims to the leaseholders of the WTC buildings is also examined.

Part VII focusses on the history and central role of Al Qaeda as a US intelligence asset. Since the Soviet-Afghan war, US intelligence has supported the formation of various jihadist organizations. An understanding of this history is crucial in refuting the official 9/11 narrative which claims that Al Qaeda, was behind the attacks.

Part VIII centers on the life and death of 9/11 “Terror Mastermind” Osama bin Laden, who was recruited by the CIA in the heyday of the Soviet Afghan war. This section also includes an analysis of the mysterious death of Osama bin Laden, allegedly executed by US Navy Seals in a suburb of Islamabad in May 2011.

Part  IX  focusses on “False Flags” and the Pentagon’s “Second 9/11″. Part X examines the issue of “Deep Events” with contributions by renowned scholars Peter Dale Scott and Daniele Ganser.

Part XI  examines the structure of 9/11 propaganda which consists in “creating” as well “perpetuating” a  “9/11 Legend”. How is this achieved? Incessantly, on a daily basis, Al Qaeda, the alleged 9/11 Mastermind is referred to by the Western media, government officials, members of the US Congress, Wall Street analysts, etc. as an underlying cause of numerous World events.

Part XII focusses on the practice of 9/11 Justice directed against the alleged culprits of the 9/11 attacks.

The legitimacy of 9/11 propaganda requires fabricating “convincing evidence” and “proof” that those who are accused actually carried out the attacks. Sentencing of Muslims detained in Guantanamo is part of war propaganda. It depicts innocent men who are accused of the 9/11 attacks, based on confessions acquired through systematic torture throughout their detention.

Part  XIII focusses on 9/11 Truth.  The objective of 9/11 Truth is to ultimately dismantle the propaganda apparatus which is manipulating the human mindset. The 9/11 Reader concludes with a retrospective view of 9/11 ten years later.


PART  I

Timeline: What Happened on the Morning of September 11, 2001

Nothing Urgent: The Curious Lack of Military Action on the Morning of September. 11, 2001
- by George Szamuely – 2012-08-12
Political Deception: The Missing Link behind 9-11
- by Michel Chossudovsky – 2002-06-20
On the morning of September 11, Pakistan’s Chief Spy General Mahmoud Ahmad, the alleged “money-man” behind the 9-11 hijackers, was at a breakfast meeting on Capitol Hill hosted by Senator Bob Graham and Rep. Porter Goss, the chairmen of the Senate and House Intelligence committees.
9/11 Contradictions: Bush in the Classroom
- by Dr. David Ray Griffin – 2008-04-04
9/11 Contradictions: When Did Cheney Enter the Underground Bunker?
- by David Ray Griffin – 2008-04-24
VIDEO: Pilots For 9/11 Truth: Intercepted
Don’t miss this important documentary, now on GRTV
- 2012-05-16

PART II

What Happened on the Planes

“United 93″: What Happened on the Planes?
- by Michel Chossudovsky – 2006-05-01
  Phone Calls from the 9/11 Airliners
Response to Questions Evoked by My Fifth Estate Interview
- by Prof David Ray Griffin – 2010-01-12
Given the cell phone technology available in 2001, cell phone calls from airliners at altitudes of more than a few thousand feet, were virtually impossible
Ted Olson’s Report of Phone Calls from Barbara Olson on 9/11: Three Official Denials
- by David Ray Griffin – 2008-04-01
Ted Olson’s report was very important. It provided apparent “evidence” that American 77 had struck the Pentagon.

 

PART III

What Caused the Collapse of

The WTC Buildings and the Pentagon?

The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True
- by Dr. David Ray Griffin – 2006-01-29
The official theory about the Twin Towers says that they collapsed because of the combined effect of the impact of the airplanes and the resulting fires
Evidence Refutes the Official 9/11 Investigation: The Scientific Forensic Facts
- by Richard Gage, Gregg Roberts – 2010-10-13
VIDEO: Controlled Demolitions Caused the Collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) buildings on September 11, 2001
- by Richard Gage – 2009-09-20
VIDEO: 9/11: The Myth and The Reality
Now on GRTV
- by Prof. David Ray Griffin – 2011-08-30
Undisputed Facts Point to the Controlled Demolition of WTC 7
- by Richard Gage – 2008-03-28
VIDEO: 9/11 Explosive Evidence: Experts Speak Out
See the trailer for this ground-breaking film on GRTV
- 2011-08-03
9/11: “Honest Mistake” or BBC Foreknowledge of Collapse of WTC 7? Jane Standley Breaks Her Silence
- by James Higham – 2011-08-18
The Collapse of WTC Building Seven.
Interview. Comment by Elizabeth Woodworth
- by David Ray Griffin – 2009-10-17
  Building What? How SCADs Can Be Hidden in Plain Sight: The 9/11 “Official Story” and the Collapse of WTC Building Seven
- by Prof David Ray Griffin – 2010-05-30
Besides omitting and otherwise falsifying evidence, NIST also committed the type of scientific fraud called fabrication, which means simply “making up results.”
VIDEO; Firefighters’ Analysis of the 9/11 Attacks Refutes the Official Report
- by Erik Lawyer – 2012-08-27
VIDEO: Pentagon Admits More 9/11 Remains Dumped in Landfill
- by James Corbett – 2012-03-01
The Pentagon revealed that some of the unidentifiable remains from victims at the Pentagon and Shanksville sites on September 11, 2001 were disposed of in a landfill.
9/11: The Attack on the Pentagon on September 11, 2001
The Official Version Amounts to an Enormous Lie
- by Thierry Meyssan – 2012-08-16

PART IV

Lies and Fabrications: The 9/11 Commission Report

A National Disgrace: A Review of the 9/11 Commission Report
- by David Ray Griffin – 2005-03-24
The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571 Page Lie
- by Dr. David Ray Griffin – 2005-09-08
September 11, 2001: 21 Reasons to Question the Official Story about 9/11
- by David Ray Griffin – 2008-09-11
911 “Conspiracy Theorists” Vindicated: Pentagon deliberately misled Public Opinion
Military officials made false statements to Congress and to the 911 Commission
- by Michel Chossudovsky – 2006-08-02
The 9/11 Commission’s Incredible Tales
Flights 11, 175, 77, and 93
- by Prof. David Ray Griffin – 2005-12-13
9/11 and the War on Terror: Polls Show What People Think 10 Years Later
- by Washington’s Blog – 2011-09-10

PART  V

Foreknowledge of 9/11

  VIDEO: The SECRET SERVICE ON 9/11: What did the Government Know?
Learn more on this week’s GRTV Feature Interview
- by Kevin Ryan, James Corbett – 2012-04-10
9/11 Foreknowledge and “Intelligence Failures”: “Revealing the Lies” on 9/11 Perpetuates the “Big Lie”
- by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky – 2011-09-14
“Foreknowledge” and “Failure to act” upholds the notion that the terrorist attacks (“act of war”) “waged by Muslims against America” are real, when all the facts and findings point towards coverup and complicity at the highest levels of the US government.
Foreknowledge of 9/11 by Western Intelligence Agencies
- by Michael C. Ruppert – 2012-08-21

PART VI

Insider Trading and the 9/11 Financial Bonanza

9/11 Attacks: Criminal Foreknowledge and Insider Trading lead directly to the CIA’s Highest Ranks
CIA Executive Director “Buzzy” Krongard managed Firm that handled “Put” Options on UAL
- by Michael C. Ruppert – 2012-08-13
The 9/11 Attacks on the World Trade Center (WTC): Unspoken Financial Bonanza
- by Prof Michel Chossudovsky – 2012-04-27
SEPTEMBER 11, 2001: Insider Trading 9/11 … the Facts Laid Bare
- by Lars Schall – 2012-03-20
Osama Bin Laden and The 911 Illusion: The 9/11 Short-Selling Financial Scam
- by Dean Henderson – 2011-05-09

PART VII

9/11 and the “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT)

Political Deception: The Missing Link behind 9-11
- by Michel Chossudovsky – 2002-06-20
On the morning of September 11, Pakistan’s Chief Spy General Mahmoud Ahmad, the alleged “money-man” behind the 9-11 hijackers, was at a breakfast meeting on Capitol Hill hosted by Senator Bob Graham and Rep. Porter Goss, the chairmen of the Senate and House Intelligence committees.
9/11 ANALYSIS: From Ronald Reagan and the Soviet-Afghan War to George W Bush and September 11, 2001
- by Michel Chossudovsky – 2010-09-09
Osama bin Laden was recruited by the CIA in 1979. The US spent millions of dollars to supply Afghan schoolchildren with textbooks filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings.

 

  The Central Role of Al Qaeda in Bush’s National Security Doctrine
“Revealing the Lies” on 9/11 Perpetuates the “Big Lie”
- by Michel Chossudovsky – 2007-07-12
NATO’s Doctrine of Collective Security
- by Michel Chossudovsky – 2009-12-21
- by Michel Chossudovsky – 2010-08-30
What is now unfolding is a generalized process of demonization of an entire population group
Osamagate
- by Michel Chossudovsky – 2001-10-09
The main justification for waging this war has been totally fabricated. The American people have been deliberately and consciously misled by their government into supporting a major military adventure which affects our collective future.
The “Demonization” of Muslims and the Battle for Oil
- by Michel Chossudovsky – 2007-01-04
Muslim countries possess three quarters of the World’s oil reserves. In contrast, the United States of America has barely 2 percent of total oil reserves.
  Was America Attacked by Muslims on 9/11?
- by David Ray Griffin – 2008-09-10
Much of US foreign policy since 9/11 has been based on the assumption that America was attacked by Muslims on 9/11.
  New Documents Detail America’s Strategic Response to 9/11
Rumsfeld’s War Aim: “Significantly Change the World’s Political Map”
- by National Security Archive – 2011-09-12

PART VIII

The Alleged 9/11 Mastermind:

The Life and Death of  Osama bin Laden

Who Is Osama Bin Laden?
- by Michel Chossudovsky – 2001-09-12
  VIDEO: The Last Word on Osama Bin Laden
- by James Corbett – 2011-05-24
Osama bin Laden: A Creation of the CIA
- by Michel Chossudovsky – 2011-05-03
Interview with Osama bin Laden. Denies his Involvement in 9/11
Full text of Pakistani paper’s Sept 01 “exclusive” interview
- 2011-05-09
Where was Osama on September 11, 2001?
- by Michel Chossudovsky – 2008-09-11
On September 10. 2001, Osama was in a Pakistan military hospital in Rawalpindi, courtesy of America’s indefectible ally Pakistan
Osama bin Laden, among the FBI’s “Ten Most Wanted Fugitives”: Why was he never indicted for his alleged role in 9/11?
- by Michel Chossudovsky – 2006-09-17
Osama bin Laden: Already Dead… Evidence that Bin Laden has been Dead for Several Years
- by Prof. David Ray Griffin – 2011-05-02
The Mysterious Death of Osama bin Laden: Creating Evidence Where There Is None
- by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts – 2011-08-04
The Assassination of Osama bin Laden: Glaring Anomalies in the Official Narrative
Osama was Left Handed…
- by Felicity Arbuthnot – 2011-05-11
The Assassination of Osama Bin Laden
- by Fidel Castro Ruz – 2011-05-07
Dancing on the Grave of 9/11. Osama and “The Big Lie”
- by Larry Chin – 2011-05-05

PART  IX

 ”False Flags”: The Pentagon’s Second 9/11

The Pentagon’s “Second 911″
“Another [9/11] attack could create both a justification and an opportunity to retaliate against some known targets”
- by Michel Chossudovsky – 2006-08-10
The presumption of this military document, is that a Second 911 attack “which is lacking today” would usefully create both a “justification and an opportunity” to wage war on “some known targets
Crying Wolf: Terror Alerts based on Fabricated Intelligence
- by Michel Chossudovsky – 2006-08-20
This is not the first time that brash and unsubstantiated statements have been made regarding an impending terror attack, which have proven to be based on “faulty intelligence”.

PART X

“Deep Events” and State Violence

The Doomsday Project and Deep Events: JFK, Watergate, Iran-Contra, and 9/11
- by Prof. Peter Dale Scott – 2011-11-22
The Doomsday Project is the Pentagon’s name for the emergency planning “to keep the White House and Pentagon running during and after a nuclear war or some other major crisis.”
JFK and 9/11
Insights Gained from Studying Both
- by Dr. Peter Dale Scott – 2006-12-20
In both 9/11 and the JFK assassination, the US government and the media immediately established a guilty party. Eventually, in both cases a commission was set up to validate the official narrative.
Able Danger adds twist to 9/11
9/11 Ringleader connected to secret Pentagon operation
- by Dr. Daniele Ganser – 2005-08-27
Atta was connected to a secret operation of the Pentagon’s Special Operations Command (SOCOM) in the US. A top secret Pentagon project code-named Able Danger identified Atta and 3 other 9/11 hijackers as members of an al-Qaida cell more than a year before the attacks.
9/11, Deep State Violence and the Hope of Internet Politics
- by Prof. Peter Dale Scott – 2008-06-11
The unthinkable – that elements inside the state would conspire with criminals to kill innocent civilians – has become thinkable…
Al Qaeda: The Database.
- by Pierre-Henri Bunel – 2011-05-12

PART XI

Propaganda: Creating and Perpetuating the 9/11 Legend

September 11, 2001: The Propaganda Preparation for 9/11: Creating the Osama bin Laden “Legend”
- by Chaim Kupferberg – 2011-09-11
THE 9/11 MYTH: State Propaganda, Historical Revisionism, and the Perpetuation of the 9/11 Myth
- by Prof. James F. Tracy – 2012-05-06
  Al Qaeda and Human Consciousness: Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda…. An Incessant and Repetitive Public Discourse
- by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky – 2012-03-24
9/11 Truth, Inner Consciousness and the “Public Mind”
- by James F. Tracy – 2012-03-18

PART XII

Post 9/11 “Justice”

IRAN ACCUSED OF BEING BEHIND 9/11 ATTACKS.
U.S. Court Judgment, December 2011 (Havlish v. Iran)
- by Julie Lévesque – 2012-05-11
U.S. Court Judgment, December 2011 (Havlish v. Iran)
American Justice”: The Targeted Assassination of Osama Bin Laden
Extrajudicial executions are unlawful
- by Prof. Marjorie Cohn – 2011-05-10
ALLEGED “MASTERMIND” OF 9/11 ON TRIAL IN GUANTANAMO: Military Tribunals proceed Despite Evidence of Torture
- by Tom Carter – 2012-05-30
Self-confessed 9/11 “mastermind” falsely confessed to crimes he didn’t commit
- by Washington’s Blog – 2012-07-15
911 MILITARY TRIAL: Pentagon Clears Way for Military Trial of Five charged in 9/11 Attacks
- by Bill Van Auken – 2012-04-06
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s trial will convict us all
- by Paul Craig Roberts – 2009-11-25

PART XIII

9/11 Truth

Revealing the Lies,  Commemorating the 9/11 Tragedy

VIDEO: Commemorating the 10th Anniversary of 9/11
- by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky – 2011-09-01
VIDEO: AFTER 9/11: TEN YEARS OF WAR
Special GRTV Feature Production
- by James Corbett – 2011-09-08

*   *  *

Read about 9/11 in Michel Chossudovsky’s international best-seller America’s “War on Terrorism”

According to Chossudovsky, the  “war on terrorism” is a complete fabrication based on the illusion that one man, Osama bin Laden, outwitted the $40 billion-a-year American intelligence apparatus. The “war on terrorism” is a war of conquest. Globalisation is the final march to the “New World Order”, dominated by Wall Street and the U.S. military-industrial complex.

Order Directly from Global Research

America's War on Terrorism

Salafism and the CIA: Destabilizing the Russian Federation?

September 14th, 2012 by F. William Engdahl

Part I: Syria comes to the Russian Caucasus

On August 28 Sheikh Said Afandi, acknowledged spiritual leader of the Autonomous Russian Republic of Dagestan, was assassinated. A jihadist female suicide bomber managed to enter his house and detonate an explosive device.

The murder target had been carefully selected. Sheikh Afandi, a seventy-five-year old Sufi Muslim leader, had played the critical role in attempting to bring about reconciliation in Dagestan between jihadist Salafi Sunni Muslims and other factions, many of whom in Dagestan see themselves as followers of Sufi. With no replacement of his moral stature and respect visible, authorities fear possible outbreak of religious war in the tiny Russian autonomous republic.[1]

The police reported that the assassin was an ethnic Russian woman who had converted to Islam and was linked to an Islamic fundamentalist or Salafist insurgency against Russia and regional governments loyal to Moscow in the autonomous republics and across the volatile Muslim-populated North Caucasus region.

Ethnic Muslim populations in this region of Russia and of the former Soviet Union, including Uzbekistan, Kyrgystan and into China’s Xinjiang Province, have been the target of various US and NATO intelligence operations since the Cold War era ended in 1990. Washington sees manipulation of Muslim groups as the vehicle to bring uncontrollable chaos to Russia and Central Asia. It’s being carried out by some of the same organizations engaged in creating chaos and destruction inside Syria against the government of Bashar Al-Assad. In a real sense, as Russian security services clearly understand, if they don’t succeed in stopping the Jihadists insurgency in Syria, it will come home to them via the Caucasus.

The latest Salafist murders of Sufi and other moderate Muslim leaders in the Caucasus are apparently part of what is becoming ever clearer as perhaps the most dangerous US intelligence operation ever—playing globally with Muslim fundamentalism.

Previously US and allied intelligence services had played fast and loose with religious organizations or beliefs in one or another country. What makes the present situation particularly dangerous—notably since the decision in Washington to unleash the misnamed Arab Spring upheavals that began in Tunisia late 2010, spreading like a brushfire across the entire Islamic world from Afghanistan across Central Asia to Morocco—is the incalculable wave upon wave of killing, hatreds, destruction of entire cultures that Washington has unleashed in the name of that elusive dream named “democracy.” They do this using alleged Al-Qaeda groups, Saudi Salafists or Wahhabites, or using disciples of Turkey’s Fethullah Gülen Movement to ignite fires of religious hatred within Islam and against other faiths that could take decades to extinguish. It could easily spill over into a new World War.

Fundamentalism comes to Caucasus

Following the dissolution of the USSR, radical Afghanistani Mujahadeen, Islamists from Saudi Arabia, from Turkey, Pakistan and other Islamic countries flooded into the Muslim regions of the former USSR. One of the best-organized of these was the Gülen Movement of Fethullah Gülen, leader of a global network of Islamic schools and reported to be the major policy influence on Turkey’s Erdogan AKP party.

Gülen was quick to establish The International Dagestani-Turkish College in Dagestan. During the chaotic days after the Soviet collapse, the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation officially registered and permitted unfettered activity for a variety of Islamic foundations and organizations. These included the League of the Islamic World, the World Muslim Youth Assembly, the reportedly Al-Qaeda friendly Saudi foundation ‘Ibrahim ben Abd al-Aziz al-Ibrahim.’ The blacklist also included Al-Haramein a Saudi foundation reported tied to Al-Qaeda, and IHH, [2] a Turkish organization banned in Germany, that allegedly raised funds for jihadi fighters in Bosnia, Chechnya, and Afghanistan, and was charged by French intelligence of ties to Al Qaeda.[3] Many of these charities were covers for fundamentalist Salafists with their own special agenda.

As many of the foreign Islamists in Chechnya and Dagestan were found involved in fomenting the regional unrest and civil war, Russian authorities withdrew permission of most to run schools and institutions. Throughout the North Caucasus at the time of the Chechyn war in the late 1990’s, there were more than two dozen Islamic institutes, some 200 madrassas and numerous maktabas (Koranic study schools) present at almost all mosques.

The International Dagestani-Turkish College was one that was forced to close its doors in Dagestan. The College was run by the Fethullah Gülen organization.[4]

At the point of the Russian crackdown on the spread of Salafist teaching inside Russia at the end of the 1990’s, there was an exodus of hundreds of young Dagestani and Chechyn Muslim students to Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and other places in The Middle east, reportedly to receive training with the Gülen movement and various Saudi-financed organizations, including Salafists. [5] It is believed in Russia that the students trained by Gülen supporters or Saudi and other Salafist fundamentalist centers then were sent back to Dagestan and the North Caucasus to spread their radical strain of Islam.

By 2005 the situation in the Caucasus was so influenced by this Salafist intervention that the Chechen Salafist, Doku Umarov, cited by the UN Security Council for links to Al-Qaeda,[6] unilaterally declared creation of what he called the Caucasus Emirate, announcing he planned to establish an Islamic state under Sharia law encompassing the entire North Caucasus region including Dagestan. He modestly proclaimed himself Emir of the Caucasus Emirate. [7]

*  *  *

WWIII Scenario

*  *  *

 

Part II: Salafism at war with Sufi tradition

Salafism, known in Saudi Arabia as Wahhabism, is a fundamentalist strain of Islam which drew world attention and became notorious in March 2001 just weeks before the attacks of September 11. That was when the Salafist Taliban government in Afghanistan willfully dynamited and destroyed the historic gigantic Buddhas of Bamiyan on the ancient Silk Road, religious statues dating from the 6th Century. The Taliban Salafist leaders also banned as “un-islamic” all forms of imagery, music and sports, including television, in accordance with what they considered a strict interpretation of Sharia.

Afghani sources reported that the order to destroy the Buddhas was made by Saudi-born jihadist Wahhabite, Osama bin Laden, who ultimately convinced Mullah Omar, Taliban supreme leader at the time to execute the act.[8]

Before and…After Salafist Taliban …

While Sufis incorporate the worship of saints and theatrical ceremonial prayers into their practice, Salafis condemn as idolatry any non-traditional forms of worship. They also call for the establishment of Islamic political rule and strict Sharia law. Sufism is home to the great spiritual and musical heritage of Islam, said by Islamic scholars to be the inner, mystical, or psycho-spiritual dimension of Islam, going back centuries.

As one Sufi scholar described the core of Sufism, “While all Muslims believe that they are on the pathway to God and will become close to God in Paradise–after death and the ‘Final Judgment’– Sufis believe as well that it is possible to become close to God and to experience this closeness–while one is alive. Furthermore, the attainment of the knowledge that comes with such intimacy with God, Sufis assert, is the very purpose of the creation. Here they mention the hadith qudsi in which God states, ‘I was a hidden treasure and I loved that I be known, so I created the creation in order to be known.’ Hence for the Sufis there is already a momentum, a continuous attraction on their hearts exerted by God, pulling them, in love, towards God.” [9]

The mystical Islamic current of Sufism and its striving to become close to or one with God is in stark contrast to the Jihadist Salafi or Wahhabi current that is armed with deadly weapons, preaches a false doctrine of jihad, and a perverse sense of martyrdom, committing countless acts of violence. Little wonder that the victims of Salafist Jihads are mostly other pacific forms of Islam including most especially Sufis.

The respected seventy-five year old Afandi had publicly denounced Salafist Islamic fundamentalism. His murder followed a July 19 coordinated attack on two high-ranking muftis in the Russian Volga Republic of Tatarstan. Both victims were state-approved religious leaders who had attacked radical Islam. This latest round of murders opens a new front in the Salafist war against Russia, namely attacks on moderate Sufi Muslim leaders.

Whether or not Dagestan now descends into internal religious civil war that then spreads across the geopolitically sensitive Russian Caucasus is not yet certain. What is almost certain is that the same circles who have been feeding violence and terror inside Syria against the regime of Alawite President Bashar al-Assad are behind the killing of Sheikh Afandi as well as sparking related acts of terror or unrest across Russia’s Muslim-populated Caucasus. In a very real sense it represents Russia’s nightmare scenario of “Syria coming to Russia.” It demonstrates dramatically why Putin has made such a determined effort to stop a descent into a murderous hell in Syria.

Salafism and the CIA

The existence of the so-called jihadist Salafi brand of Islam in Dagestan is quite recent. It has also been deliberately imported. Salafism is sometimes also called the name of the older Saudi-centered Wahhabism. Wahhabism is a minority originally-Bedouin form of the faith originating within Islam, dominant in Saudi Arabia since the 1700’s.

Irfan Al-Alawi and Stephen Schwartz of the Centre for Islamic Pluralism give the following description of Saudi conditions under the rigid Wahhabi brand of Islam:

Women living under Saudi rule must wear the abaya, or total body cloak, and niqab, the face veil; they have limited opportunities for schooling and careers; they are prohibited from driving vehicles; are banned from social contact with men not relatives, and all personal activity must be supervised including opening bank accounts, by a male family member or “guardian.” These Wahhabi rules are enforced by a mutawiyin, or morals militia, also known as “the religious police,” officially designated the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice (CPVPV) who patrol Saudi cities, armed with leather-covered sticks which they freely used against those they considered wayward. They raid homes looking for alcohol and drugs, and harassed non-Wahhabi Muslims as well as believers in other faiths.” [10]

It’s widely reported that the obscenely opulent and morally-perhaps-not-entirely-of- the-highest-standards Saudi Royal Family made a Faustian deal with Wahhabite leaders. The deal supposedly, was that the Wahhabists are free to export their fanatical brand of Islam around to the Islamic populations of the world in return for agreeing to leave the Saudi Royals alone.[11] There are, however, other dark and dirty spoons stirring the Wahhabite-Salafist Saudi stew.

Little known is the fact that the present form of aggressive Saudi Wahhabism, in reality a kind of fusion between imported jihadi Salafists from Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood and the fundamentalist Saudi Wahhabites. Leading Salafist members of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood were introduced into the Saudi Kingdom in the 1950’s by the CIA in a complex series of events, when Nasser cracked down on the Muslim Brotherhood following an assassination attempt. By the 1960’s an influx of Egyptian members of the Muslim Brotherhood in Saudi Arabia fleeing Nasserite repression, had filled many of the leading teaching posts in Saudi religious schools. One student there was a young well-to-do Saudi, Osama bin Laden.  [12]

During the Third Reich, Hitler Germany had supported the Muslim Brotherhood as a weapon against the British in Egypt and elsewhere in the Middle East. Marc Erikson describes the Nazi roots of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood thus:

…as Italian and German fascism sought greater stakes in the Middle East in the 1930s and ’40s to counter British and French controlling power, close collaboration between fascist agents and Islamist leaders ensued. During the 1936-39 Arab Revolt, Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, head of German military intelligence, sent agents and money to support the Palestine uprising against the British, as did Muslim Brotherhood founder and “supreme guide” Hassan al-Banna. A key individual in the fascist-Islamist nexus and go-between for the Nazis and al-Banna became the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin el-Husseini.[13]

After the defeat of Germany, British Intelligence moved in to take over control of the Muslim Brotherhood. Ultimately, for financial and other reasons, the British decided to hand their assets within the Muslim Brotherhood over to their CIA colleagues in the 1950s. [14]

According to former US Justice Department Nazi researcher John Loftus,  “during the 1950s, the CIA evacuated the Nazis of the Muslim Brotherhood to Saudi Arabia. Now, when they arrived in Saudi Arabia, some of the leading lights of the Muslim Brotherhood, like Dr Abdullah Azzam, became the teachers in the madrassas, the religious schools. And there they combined the doctrines of Nazism with this weird Islamic cult, Wahhabism.” [15]

“Everyone thinks that Islam is this fanatical religion, but it is not,” Loftus continues. “They think that Islam–the Saudi version of Islam–is typical, but it’s not. The Wahhabi cult has been condemned as a heresy more than 60 times by the Muslim nations. But when the Saudis got wealthy, they bought a lot of silence. This is a very harsh cult. Wahhabism was only practised by the Taliban and in Saudi Arabia–that’s how extreme it is. It really has nothing to do with Islam. Islam is a very peaceful and tolerant religion. It always had good relationships with the Jews for the first thousand years of its existence.” [16]

Loftus identified the significance of what today is emerging from the shadows to take over Egypt under Muslim Brotherhood President Morsi, and the so-called Syrian National Council, dominated in reality by the Muslim Brotherhood and publicly led by the more “politically correct” or presentable likes of Bassma Kodmani. Kodmani, foreign affairs spokesman for the SNC was twice an invited guest at the Bilderberg elite gathering, latest in Chantilly, Virginia earlier this year.[17]

The most bizarre and alarming feature of the US-financed  regime changes set into motion in 2010, which have led to the destruction of the secular Arab regime of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt and Muhammar Qaddafi in Libya, and the secular regime of President Ben Ali in Tunisia, and which have wreaked savage destruction across the Middle East, especially in the past eighteen months in Syria, is the pattern of emerging power grabs by representatives of the murky Salafist Muslim Brotherhood.

By informed accounts, a Saudi-financed Sunni Islamic Muslim Brotherhood dominates the members of the exile Syrian National Council that is backed by the US State Department’s Secretary Clinton and by Hollande’s France. The Syrian Muslim Brotherhood is tied, not surprisingly to the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood of President Mohammed Morsi who recently in a meeting of the Non-Aligned in Iran called openly for the removal of Syria’s Assad, a logical step if his Muslim Brothers in the present Syrian National Council are to take the reins of power. The Saudis are also rumored to have financed the ascent to power in Tunisia of the governing Islamist Ennahda Party,[18] and are documented to be financing the Muslim Brotherhood-dominated Syrian National Council against President Bashar al-Assad. [19]

Part III: Morsi’s Reign of Salafi Terror

Indicative of the true agenda of this Muslim Brotherhood and related jihadists today is the fact that once they have power, they drop the veil of moderation and reconciliation and reveal their violently intolerant roots. This is visible in Egypt today under Muslim Brotherhood President Mohammed Morsi.

Unreported in mainstream Western media to date are alarming direct reports from Christian missionary organizations in Egypt that Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood has already begun to drop the veil of “moderation and conciliation” and show its brutal totalitarian Salafist colors, much as Khomeini’s radical Sharia forces did in Iran after taking control in 1979-81.

In a letter distributed by the Christian Aid Mission (CAM), a Christian Egyptian missionary wrote that Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood “announced they would destroy the country if Morsi didn’t win, but they also said they will take revenge from all those who voted for [his opponent Ahmed] Shafiq, especially the Christians as they are sure we did vote for Shafiq. Yesterday they began by killing two believers in el Sharqiya because of this,” the missionary added, speaking on condition of anonymity.[20]

This report came only weeks after Egyptian State TV (under Morsi’s control) showed ghastly video footage of a convert from Islam to Christianity being murdered by Muslims. The footage showed a young man being held down by masked men with a knife to his throat. As one man was heard chanting Muslim prayers in Arabic, mostly condemning Christianity, another man holding the knife to the Christian convert’s throat began to cut, slowly severing the head amid cries of “Allahu Akbar” (“Allah is great”), according to transcripts. In the letter, the Egyptian missionary leader added that, “soon after Morsi won, Christians in upper Egypt were forcibly prevented from going to churches.” Many Muslims, the letter claimed, “also began to speak to women in the streets that they had to wear Islamic clothing including the head covering. They act as if they got the country for their own, it’s theirs now.” [21]

Already in 2011 Morsi’s Salafist followers began attacking and destroying Sufi mosques across Egypt. According to the authoritative newspaper Al-Masry Al-Youm (Today’s Egyptian), 16 historic mosques in Alexandria belonging to Sufi orders have been marked for destruction by so-called ‘Salafis’. Alexandria has 40 mosques associated with Sufis, and is the headquarters for 36 Sufi groups. Half a million Sufis live in the city, out of a municipal total of four million people. Aggression against the Sufis in Egypt has included a raid on Alexandria’s most distinguished mosque, named for, and housing, the tomb of the 13th century Sufi Al-Mursi Abu’l Abbas.[22]

Notably, the so-called “democratically elected” regime in Libya following the toppling of Mohamar Qaddafi by NATO bombs in 2011, has also been zealous in destroying Sufi mosques and places of worhip. In August this year, UNESCO Director General Irina Bokova expressed “grave concern” at the destruction by Islamic Jihadists of Sufi sites in Zliten, Misrata and Tripoli and urged perpetrators to “cease the destruction immediately.” [23] Under behind-the-scenes machinations the Libyan government is dominated by Jihadists and by followers of the Muslim Brotherhood, as in Tunisia and Egypt. [24]

The explosive cocktail of violence inherent in allowing the rise to power of Salafist Islamists across the Middle East was clear to see, symbolically enough on the night of September 11,th when a mob of angry supporters of the fanatical Salafist group, Ansar Al-Sharia, murdered the US Ambassador to Libya and three US diplomats, burning the US Consulate in Bengazi to the ground in protest over a YouTube release of a film by an American filmmaker showing the Prophet Mohammed indulging in multiple sex affairs and casting doubt on his role as God’s messenger. Ironically that US Ambassador had played a key role in toppling Qaddafi and opening the door to the Salafist takeover in Libya. At the same time angry mobs of thousands of Salafists surrounded the US Embassy in Cairo in protest to the US film. [25]

Ansar Al-Sharia (“Partisans of Islamic law” in Arabic) reportedly is a spinoff of Al-Qaeda and claims organizations across the Middle East from Yemen to Tunisia to Iraq, Egypt and Libya. Ansar al-Sharia says it is reproducing the model of Sharia or strict Islamic law espoused by the Taliban in Afghanistan and the Islamic State of Iraq, a militant umbrella group that includes al-Qaeda in Iraq. The core of the group are jihadists who came out of an “Islamic state”, either in Afghanistan in the mid-1990s, or among jihadists in Iraq after the US-led invasion in 2003.[26]

The deliberate detonation now of a new round of Salafist fundamentalist Jihad terror inside Muslim regions of the Russian Caucasus is exquisitely timed politically to put maximum pressure at home on the government of Russia’s Vladimir Putin.

Putin and the Russian Government are the strongest and most essential backer of the current Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad, and for Russia as well the maintenance of Russia’s only Mediterranean naval base at Syria’s Tartus port is vital strategically. At the same time, Obama’s sly message to Medvedev to wait until Obama’s re-election to evaluate US intent towards Russia and Putin’s cryptic recent comment that a compromise with a re-elected President Obama might be possible, but not with a President Romney, [27] indicate that the Washington “stick-and-carrot” or hard cop-soft cop tactics with Moscow might tempt Russia to sacrifice major geopolitical alliances, perhaps even that special close and recent geopolitical alliance with China.[28] Were that to happen, the World might witness a “reset” in US-Russian relations with catastrophic consequences for world peace.

F. William Engdahl*  is the author of Full Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order

Notes:

[1] Dan Peleschuk, Sheikh Murdered Over Religious Split Say Analysts, RIA Novosti, August 30, 2012, accessed in

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20120830/175517955.html.

[2] Mairbek  Vatchagaev, The Kremlin’s War on Islamic Education in the North Caucasus, North Caucasus Analysis Volume: 7 Issue: 34, accessed in http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=3334

[3] Iason Athanasiadis, Targeted by Israeli raid: Who is the IHH?, The Christian Science Monitor, June 1, 2010, accessed in http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2010/0601/Targeted-by-Israeli-raid-Who-is-the-IHH.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Mairbek Vatchagaev, op. cit.

[6] UN Security Council, QI.U.290.11. DOKU KHAMATOVICH UMAROV, 10 March 2011, accessed in http://www.un.org/sc/committees/1267/NSQI29011E.shtml. The UN statement reads: “Doku Khamatovich Umarov was listed on 10 March 2011 pursuant to paragraph 2 of resolution 1904 (2009) as being associated with Al-Qaida, Usama bin Laden or the Taliban for “participating in the financing, planning, facilitating, preparing, or perpetrating of acts or activities by, in conjunction with, under the name of, on behalf of, or in support of”, “recruiting for”, “supplying, selling or transferring arms and related materiel to” and “otherwise supporting acts or activities of” the Islamic Jihad Group (QE.I.119.05), the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (QE.I.10.01), Riyadus-Salikhin Reconnaissance and Sabotage Battalion of Chechen Martyrs (RSRSBCM) (QE.R.100.03) and Emarat Kavkaz (QE.E.131.11).”

[7] Tom Jones, Czech NGO rejects Russian reports of link to alleged Islamist terrorists al-Qaeda, May 10, 2011, accessed in http://www.ceskapozice.cz/en/news/society/czech-ngo-rejects-russian-reports-link-alleged-islamist-terrorists-al-qaeda?utm_source=tw&utm_medium=enprofil&utm_campaign=twennews.

[8] The Times of India, Laden ordered Bamyan Buddha destruction, The Times of India, March 28, 2006.

[9] Dr. Alan Godlas, Sufism — Sufis — Sufi Orders:

[10] Irfan Al-Alawi and Stephen Schwartz, Wahhabi Internal Contradictions as Saudi Arabia Seeks Wider Gulf Leadership, Center for Islamic Pluralism, May 21, 2012, accessed in http://www.islamicpluralism.org/2040/wahhabi-internal-contradictions-as-saudi-arabia

[11] Irfan Al-Alawi and Stephen Schwartz, Wahhabi Internal Contradictions as Saudi Arabia Seeks Wider Gulf Leadership, May 21, 2012, accessed in http://www.islamicpluralism.org/2040/wahhabi-internal-contradictions-as-saudi-arabia.

[12] Robert Duncan, Islamic Terrorisms Links to Nazi Fascism, AINA, July 5, 2007, accessed in http://www.aina.org/news/2007070595517.htm.

[13] Marc Erikson, Islamism, fascism and terrorism (Part 2), AsiaTimes.Online, November 8, 2002, accessed in http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/DK08Ak03.html.

[14] Ibid.

[15] John Loftus, The Muslim Brotherhood, Nazis and Al-Qaeda,  Jewish Community News, October 11, 2006, accessed in http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/loftus101106.htm

[16] Ibid.

[17] Charlie Skelton, The Syrian opposition: who’s doing the talking?: The media have been too passive when it comes to Syrian opposition sources, without scrutinising their backgrounds and their political connections. Time for a closer look …, London Guardian, 12 July 2012, accessed in http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/12/syrian-opposition-doing-the-talking.

[18] Aidan Lewis, Profile: Tunisia’s Ennahda Party, BBC News, 25 October 2011, accessed in http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15442859.

[19] Hassan Hassan, Syrians are torn between a despotic regime and a stagnant opposition: The Muslim Brotherhood’s perceived monopoly over the Syrian National Council has created an opposition stalemate, The Guardian, UK, 23 August, 2012, accessed in http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/23/syrians-torn-despotic-regime-stagnant-opposition.

[20] Stefan J. Bos, Egypt Christians Killed After Election of Morsi, Bosnewslife, June 30, 2012, accessed in http://www.bosnewslife.com/22304-egypt-christians-killed-after-election-morsi.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Irfan Al-Alawi, Egyptian Muslim Fundamentalists Attack Sufis, Guardian Online [London],

April 11, 2011, accessed in http://www.islamicpluralism.org/1770/egyptian-Muslim-fundamentalists-attack-sufis

[23] Yafiah Katherine Randall, UNESCO urges Libya to stop destruction of Sufi sites, August 31, 2012, Sufi News and Sufism World Report, accessed in http://sufinews.blogspot.de/.

[24] Jamie Dettmer, Libya elections: Muslim Brotherhood set to lead government, 5 July, 2012, The Telegraph, London, accessed in http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/9379022/Libya-elections-Muslim-Brotherhood-set-to-lead-government.html.

[25] Luke Harding, Chris Stephen, Chris Stevens, US ambassador to Libya, killed in Benghazi attack: Ambassador and three other American embassy staff killed after Islamist militants fired rockets at their car, say Libyan officials, London Guardian, 12 September 2012, accessed in http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/12/chris-stevens-us-ambassador-libya-killed.

[26] Murad Batal al-Shishani, Profile: Ansar al-Sharia in Yemen, 8 March 2012, accessed in  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17402856.

[27] David M. Herszenhorn, Putin Says Missile Deal Is More Likely With Obama, The New York Times, September 6, 2012, accessed in http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/07/world/europe/putin-calls-missile-deal-more-likely-if-obama-wins.html. According to an interview Putin gave on Moscow’s state-owned RT TV, Herszenhorn reports, “Mr. Putin said he believed that if Mr. Obama is re-elected in November, a compromise could be reached on the contentious issue of American plans for a missile defense system in Europe, which Russia has strongly opposed. On the other hand, Mr. Putin said, if Mr. Romney becomes president, Moscow’s fears about the missile system — that it is, despite American assurances, actually directed against Russia — would almost certainly prove true.

“Is it possible to find a solution to the problem, if current President Obama is re-elected for a second term? Theoretically, yes,” Mr. Putin said, according to the official transcript posted on the Kremlin’s Web site. “But this isn’t just about President Obama. “For all I know, his desire to work out a solution is quite sincere,” Mr. Putin continued. “I met him recently on the sidelines of the G-20 summit in Los Cabos, Mexico, where we had a chance to talk. And though we talked mostly about Syria, I could still take stock of my counterpart. My feeling is that he is a very honest man, and that he sincerely wants to make many good changes. But can he do it? Will they let him do it?”

[28] M.K. Bhadrakumar, Calling the China-Russia split isn’t heresy, Asia Times,  September 5, 2012, accessed in http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/NI05Ad01.html.

 

Click for Latest Global Research News

October 17th, 2013 by Global Research News

Latest Global Research Articles. Subscribe to GR’s RSS Feed

December 30th, 2012 by Global Research News

A deluge of articles have been quickly put into circulation defending France’s military intervention in the African nation of Mali. TIME’s article, “The Crisis in Mali: Will French Intervention Stop the Islamist Advance?” decides that old tricks are the best tricks, and elects the tiresome “War on Terror” narrative.TIME claims the intervention seeks to stop “Islamist” terrorists from overrunning both Africa and all of Europe. Specifically, the article states:

“…there is a (probably well-founded) fear in France that a radical Islamist Mali threatens France most of all, since most of the Islamists are French speakers and many have relatives in France. (Intelligence sources in Paris have told TIME that they’ve identified aspiring jihadis leaving France for northern Mali to train and fight.) Al-Qaeda in Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), one of the three groups that make up the Malian Islamist alliance and which provides much of the leadership, has also designated France — the representative of Western power in the region — as a prime target for attack.”

What TIME elects not to tell readers is that Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) is closely allied to the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG whom France intervened on behalf of during NATO’s 2011 proxy-invasion of Libya – providing weapons, training, special forces and even aircraft to support them in the overthrow of Libya’s government.

As far back as August of 2011, Bruce Riedel out of the corporate-financier funded think-tank, the Brookings Institution, wrote “Algeria will be next to fall,” where he gleefully predicted success in Libya would embolden radical elements in Algeria, in particular AQIM. Between extremist violence and the prospect of French airstrikes, Riedel hoped to see the fall of the Algerian government. Ironically Riedel noted:

Algeria has expressed particular concern that the unrest in Libya could lead to the development of a major safe haven and sanctuary for al-Qaeda and other extremist jihadis.

And thanks to NATO, that is exactly what Libya has become – a Western sponsored sanctuary for Al-Qaeda. AQIM’s headway in northern Mali and now French involvement will see the conflict inevitably spill over into Algeria. It should be noted that Riedel is a co-author of “Which Path to Persia?” which openly conspires to arm yet another US State Department-listed terrorist organization (list as #28), the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) to wreak havoc across Iran and help collapse the government there – illustrating a pattern of using clearly terroristic organizations, even those listed as so by the US State Department, to carry out US foreign policy.Geopolitical analyst Pepe Escobar noted a more direct connection between LIFG and AQIM in an Asia Times piece titled, “How al-Qaeda got to rule in Tripoli:”

“Crucially, still in 2007, then al-Qaeda’s number two, Zawahiri, officially announced the merger between the LIFG and al-Qaeda in the Islamic Mahgreb (AQIM). So, for all practical purposes, since then, LIFG/AQIM have been one and the same – and Belhaj was/is its emir. “

“Belhaj,” referring to Hakim Abdul Belhaj, leader of LIFG in Libya, led with NATO support, arms, funding, and diplomatic recognition, the overthrowing of Muammar Qaddafi and has now plunged the nation into unending racist and tribal, genocidal infighting. This intervention has also seen the rebellion’s epicenter of Benghazi peeling off from Tripoli as a semi-autonomous “Terror-Emirate.” Belhaj’s latest campaign has shifted to Syria where he was admittedly on the Turkish-Syrian border pledging weapons, money, and fighters to the so-called “Free Syrian Army,” again, under the auspices of NATO support.

Image: NATO’s intervention in Libya has resurrected listed-terrorist organization and Al Qaeda affiliate, LIFG. It had previously fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, and now has fighters, cash and weapons, all courtesy of NATO, spreading as far west as Mali, and as far east as Syria. The feared “global Caliphate” Neo-Cons have been scaring Western children with for a decade is now taking shape via US-Saudi, Israeli, and Qatari machinations, not “Islam.” In fact, real Muslims have paid the highest price in fighting this real “war against Western-funded terrorism.”

….

LIFG, which with French arms, cash, and diplomatic support, is now invading northern Syria on behalf of NATO’s attempted regime change there, officially merged with Al Qaeda in 2007 according to the US Army’s West Point Combating Terrorism Center (CTC). According to the CTC, AQIM and LIFG share not only ideological goals, but strategic and even tactical objectives. The weapons LIFG received most certainly made their way into the hands of AQIM on their way through the porous borders of the Sahara Desert and into northern Mali.

In fact, ABC News reported in their article, “Al Qaeda Terror Group: We ‘Benefit From’ Libyan Weapons,” that:

A leading member of an al Qaeda-affiliated terror group indicated the organization may have acquired some of the thousands of powerful weapons that went missing in the chaos of the Libyan uprising, stoking long-held fears of Western officials.”We have been one of the main beneficiaries of the revolutions in the Arab world,” Mokhtar Belmokhtar, a leader of the north Africa-based al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb [AQIM], told the Mauritanian news agency ANI Wednesday. “As for our benefiting from the [Libyan] weapons, this is a natural thing in these kinds of circumstances.”

It is no coincidence that as the Libyan conflict was drawing to a conclusion, conflict erupted in northern Mali. It is part of a premeditated geopolitical reordering that began with toppling Libya, and since then, using it as a springboard for invading other targeted nations, including Mali, Algeria, and Syria with heavily armed, NATO-funded and aided terrorists.

French involvement may drive AQIM and its affiliates out of northern Mali, but they are almost sure to end up in Algeria, most likely by design.

Algeria was able to balk subversion during the early phases of the US-engineered “Arab Spring” in 2011, but it surely has not escaped the attention of the West who is in the midst of transforming a region stretching from Africa to Beijing and Moscow’s doorsteps – and in a fit of geopolitical schizophrenia – using terrorists both as a casus belli to invade and as an inexhaustible mercenary force to do it.

Today’s Most Popular Stories

October 15th, 2013 by Global Research News

Click to Get the Latest Global Research Articles

December 23rd, 2013 by Global Research News

Global Research’s Ukraine Report: 100+ articles

April 4th, 2014 by Global Research News

 The original BBC Video Report was published by BBC Russian Service on July 23, 2014.

Why did BBC delete this report by Olga Ivshina?

Is it because the BBC team was unable to find any evidence that a rocket was launched in the area that the Ukrainian Security Service (“SBU”) alleges to be the place from which the Novorossiya Militia launched a “BUK” missile?

Or is it because every eyewitness interviewed by the BBC team specifically indicated the presence of a Ukrainian military aircraft right beside the Malaysian Airlines Boeing MH17 at the time that it was shot down?

Or is it because of eyewitness accounts confirming that the Ukrainian air force regularly used civilian aircraft flying over Novorossiya as human shields to protect its military aircraft conducting strikes against the civilian population from the Militia’s anti-aircraft units?

Highlights of Witness statements (see complete transcript below)

Eyewitness #1: There were two explosions in the air. And this is how it broke apart. And [the fragments] blew apart like this, to the sides. And when …

Eyewitness #2: … And there was another aircraft, a military one, beside it. Everybody saw it.

Eyewitness #1: Yes, yes. It was flying under it, because it could be seen. It was proceeding underneath, below the civilian one.

Eyewitness #3: There were sounds of an explosion. But they were in the sky. They came from the sky. Then this plane made a sharp turn-around like this. It changed its trajectory and headed in that direction [indicating the direction with her hands].

 

Video: The Catastrophe of #MH17: #BBC in the Search of the “#BUK”

Introductory Paragraphs to the BBC Video Report

by slavyangrad.wordpress.com

Intro of BBC Report (For Full Transcript see below)

The “black boxes” of the crashed Malaysian Boeing have finally been transferred into the hands of the experts. However, how much can they tell us?

The recorders logged the coordinates and the heading of the aircraft at the time of the incident and may have recorded the sound of the explosion. However, they will not tell us what exactly caused the explosion.

The inhabitants of the nearby villages are certain that they saw military aircraft in the sky shortly prior to the catastrophe. According to them, it actually was the jet fighters that brought down the Boeing.

The Ukrainian government rejects this version of events. They believe that the Boeing was shot down using a missile from a “BUK” complex that came in from Russia.

The Ukrainian Security Service has published photographs and a video, which, in its opinion, prove that the Boeing was shot down with a “BUK” missile.

BBC reporter Olga Ivshina and producer Oksana Vozhdayeva decided to find the place from which the missile was allegedly launched.


Original BBC Video Report: Preserved by Google Web-cache

Transcript of the BBC Video Report

DPR Representative: Here it is.

Olga Ivshina, BBC: The black boxes from the crashed Boeing are finally being transferred into the hands of the experts. However, how much can they tell us?

The recorders logged the coordinates and the heading of the aircraft at the time of the incident and may have recorded the sound of the explosion. However, they will not tell us what exactly caused the explosion.

The inhabitants of the nearby villages are certain that they saw military aircraft in the sky shortly prior to the catastrophe. According to them, it actually was the jet fighters that brought down the Boeing.

Eyewitness #1: There were two explosions in the air. And this is how it broke apart. And [the fragments] blew apart like this, to the sides. And when …

Eyewitness #2: … And there was another aircraft, a military one, beside it. Everybody saw it.

Eyewitness #1: Yes, yes. It was flying under it, because it could be seen. It was proceeding underneath, below the civilian one.

Eyewitness #3: There were sounds of an explosion. But they were in the sky. They came from the sky. Then this plane made a sharp turn-around like this. It changed its trajectory and headed in that direction [indicating the direction with her hands].

Olga Ivshina, BBC: The Ukrainian government rejects this version of events. They believe that the Boeing was shot down using a missile from a “BUK” complex that came in from the direction of Russia.

Vitaliy Naida, Department of Counterintelligence of SBU [Ukrainian Security Service]: This was a BUK M1 system from which the aircraft was shot down. It came to Ukraine early in the morning on the 17th of July. It was delivered by a tow truck to the city of Donetsk. After that, it was redeployed from Donetsk, as part of a column of military equipment, to the area of the city of Torez, to the area of Snezhnoye, to the area of Pervomaisk.

Olga Ivshina, BBC: The Ukrainian Security Service has published photographs and a video, which, in its opinion, prove that the Boeing was shot down with a “BUK” missile. We attempted to verify these photographs and information at the location.

One of the photographs showed a landscape not far from the city of Torez, on which smoke could be seen coming from the presumed location of the missile’s launch. We attempted to find this location, and it appears that we were successful.

We are now on the outskirts of the city of Torez. Behind me, approximately five kilometres away, is the city of Snezhnoye. And the landscape here matches the landscape that we can see on the photograph published by the Ukrainian Security Service.

To find the place from which the smoke was allegedly coming from, we adopted as markers these three poplars and the group of trees. Presumably, this is the place that can be seen on the photograph published by the SBU. And here are our markers: the three solitary poplars and the small group of trees in the distance.

The smoke that can be seen on the photograph came from somewhere over there [pointing behind her], behind my back. The SBU believes that this is a trace coming from the launch of a “BUK” missile.

However, it must be noted that there are here, approximately in the same place, the Saur-Mogila memorial, near which the fighting continues almost unabated, and a coalmine. It turns out that the smoke with the same degree of probability could have been coming from any of these locations.

Having circled around the nearby fields, we were unable to find any traces of a missile launch. Nor did the local inhabitants that we encountered see any “BUK” either.

At the ruins of an apartment building in the city of Snezhnoye, the topic of the jet fighters that may have been escorting civilian aircraft comes up again. A bomb dropped from above took away the lives of eleven civilians here.

Sergey Godovanets, Commander of the Militia of the city of Snezhnoye: They use these civilian aircraft to hide behind them. It is only now that they stopped flying over us – but, usually, civilian aircraft would always fly above us. And they hide [behind them]. [The experience in] Slavyansk had demonstrated that they would fly out from behind a civilian aircraft, bomb away, and then hide, once again, behind the civilian aircraft and fly away.

Olga Ivshina, BBC: The commander of the local militia emphasizes that they have no weaponry capable of shooting down a jet fighter [flying] at a significant height. However, he says that if such weaponry were to appear, they would have tried to.

Sergey Godovanets: If we know that it is not a civilian aircraft, but a military one, then – yes.

Olga Ivshina, BBC: So, could the Boeing have been shot down by the militias that had mistaken it for a military aircraft? There is as yet no unequivocal confirmation of either this or any other version [of what took place]. The international experts are just beginning their work with the information obtained from the crashed airliner. It now appears that it is difficult to overstate the importance of this investigation. Olga Ivshina, BBC.

The Catastrophe of #MH17:

#BBC in the Search of the “BUK” – The Video Report Deleted by BBC

Translation by: Valentina Lisitsa
http://slavyangrad.wordpress.com

Sobre a questão do plano de voo (flight path) seguido pelo MH17, a Malaysian Airlines confirma que o piloto recebeu instruções da torre de controle de tráfego de Kiev para voar a uma altitude mais baixa no momento em que entrou no espaço aéreo da Ucrânia.

“O MH17 possuía um plano de voo exigindo que voasse a 35 mil pés através do espaço aéreo ucraniano. Isto está próximo da altitude “óptima”.

“Contudo, a altitude de um avião é determinado pelo controle do tráfego aéreo no terreno. Ao entrar no espaço aéreo ucraniano, o MH17 foi instruído pelo seu controle de tráfego aéreo para que voasse a 33 mil pés”.

(Para mais pormenores ver comunicados de imprensa em: www.malaysiaairlines.com/my/en/site/mh17.html )

.A altitude de voo de 33 mil pés [10 km] está 1000 pés [305 m] acima do limite (ver imagem ao lado). A exigência das autoridades ucranianas de controle de tráfego aéreo foi implementada.

Desvio do plano de voo “normal” que fora aprovado 

Em relação ao plano de voo do MH17, a Malaysian Airlines confirma que seguiu as regras estabelecidas pelo Eurocontrol e pela International Civil Aviation Authority (ICAO) (negritos acrescentados):

Gostaria de mencionar comentários recentes divulgados por responsáveis do Eurocontrol, o organismo que aprova planos de voo europeus sob as regras do ICAO. Segundo o Wall Street Journal, os responsáveis declararam que cerca de 400 voos comerciais, incluindo 150 voos internacionais atravessavam diariamente o Leste da Ucrânia antes do crash. Responsáveis do Eurocontrol também declararam que nos dois dias anteriores ao incidente, 75 diferentes companhias aéreas voaram a mesma rota do MH17. O plano de voo do MH17 seguia uma rota aérea importante e movimentada, como uma auto-estrada no céu. Ele seguia uma rota que fora especificada pelas autoridades internacionais da aviação, aprovada pelo Eurocontrol e utilizada por centenas de outros aviões. 

O aparelho voava à altitude estabelecida, e considerada segura, pelo controle local de tráfego aéreo. E nunca se desviou no interior daquele espaço aéreo restringido. [esta declaração da MAS é refutada por evidências recentes].

O voo e seus operadores seguiram as regras. Mas, sobre o terreno, as regras de guerra foram rompidas. Num acto inaceitável de agressão, parece que o MH17 foi derrubado; seus passageiros e tripulantes mortos por um míssil.

A rota sobre o espaço aéreo da Ucrânia onde se verificou o incidente é habitualmente utilizada para voos da Europa para a Ásia. Um voo de uma outra companhia aérea estava na mesma rota no momento do incidente com o MH17, assim como um certo número de outros voos de outras companhias aéreas nos dias e semanas anteriores. O Eurocontrol mantém registos de todos os voos através do espaço aéreo europeu, incluindo aqueles através da Ucrânia.

O que esta declaração confirma é que o “plano de voo habitual” do MH17 era semelhante aos planos de voo de cerca de 150 voos internacionais diários através da Ucrânia do Leste. Segundo a Malaysian Airlines, “A rota habitual de voo [através do Mar de Azov] fora anteriormente declarada segura pela Organização Internacional da Aviação Civil (ICAO). A International Air Transportation Association havia declarado que o espaço aéreo que o avião atravessava não estava sujeito a restrições”. 

O plano de voo aprovado está indicado nos mapas abaixo.

.O plano de voo regular do MH17 (e de outros voos internacionais) ao longo de um período de dez dias antes de 17 de Julho (a data do desastre), cruzando a Ucrânia do Leste numa direcção para Sudeste é através do Mar de Azov. (ver mapa ao lado)

O plano de voo foi alterado em 17 de Julho. 

O voo e seus operadores seguiram as regras. Mas sobre o terreno, as regras da guerra foram rompidas. Num acto inaceitável de agressão, parece que o MH17 foi derrubado; seus passageiros e tripulantes mortos por um míssil. (MAS, ibid)

Embora os registos áudio do voo MH17 tenham sido confiscados pelo governo de Kiev, a ordem para alterar o plano de voo não veio do Eurocontrol.

Será que a ordem para alterar o plano de voo veio das autoridades ucranianas? Será que o piloto recebeu instruções para mudar a rota?

Falsificações dos media britânicos: “Vamos fazer aparecer uma tempestade” 

Reportagens dos media britânicos reconhecem que houve uma alteração no plano de voo, afirmando sem prova que foi para “evitar temporais com trovões (thunderstorms) no Sul da Ucrânia”.

O director de operações da MAS, Capitão Izham Ismail também refutou afirmações de que a meteorologia tempestuosa (heavy weather) levasse o MH17 a alterar seu plano de voo. “Não houve relatos do piloto a sugerir que isto fosse caso”, disse Izham. ( News Malaysia , 20/Julho/2014)

O que é significativo, contudo, é que os media ocidentais reconheceram que a alteração no plano de voo ocorreu e que a narrativa da “meteorologia tempestuosa” é uma falsificação.

Caças da Ucrânia num corredor reservado para a aviação comercial 

Vale a pena notar que um caça SU-25 ucraniano equipado com mísseis R-60 ar-ar foi detectado a 5-10 km do avião da Malásia, dentro de um corredor aéreo reservado à aviação civil.


Imagem: cortesia do Ministério da Defesa russo

Qual foi a finalidade desta deslocação da força aérea? Estava o caça ucraniano a “escoltar” o avião da Malásia numa direcção vinda do Norte rumo à zona de guerra?

A alteração no plano de voo do MH17 da Malaysian Airlines em 17 de Julho está indicada claramente no mapa abaixo. Ela conduz o MH17 sobre a zona de guerra, nomeadamente Donetsk e Lugansk.

Comparação: Plano de voo do MH17 em 16 de Julho e plano de voo do MH17 sobre a zona de guerra em 17 de Julho de 2014 

Capturas de écran de planos de voo do MH17 de 14 a 17/Julho/2014 

14 de Julho.

15 de Julho.

16 de Julho.

17 de Julho.

O primeiro mapa dinâmico compara os dois planos de voo. O segundo plano de voo, que é aquele de 17 de Julho, conduz o avião sobre a zona de guerra do oblast de Donetsk na fronteira com o oblast de Lugansk.

As quatro imagens estáticas mostram capturas de écrans dos Planos de Voo do MH17 no período de 14 a 17 de Julho de 2014.

A informação transmitida por estes mapas sugere que o plano de voo foi alterado em 17 de Julho.

O MH17 foi desviado da rota normal do Sudoeste sobre o Mar de Azov para uma rota sobre o oblast de Donetsk.

Quem ordenou a alteração do plano de voo?

Apelamos à Malysian Airlines a que clarifique sua declaração oficial e pedimos a divulgação das gravações áudio entre o piloto e a torre de controle de tráfego aéreo de Kiev.

A transcrição destas gravações áudio deveria ser tornada pública.

Também deve ser confirmado:   Esteve o caça ucraniano SU-25 em comunicação com o avião MH17? 

A evidência confirma que o plano de voo em 17 de Julho NÃO era o habitual plano de voo aprovado. Ele foi alterado.

A alteração não foi ordenada pelo Eurocontrol.

Quem esteve por trás deste plano de voo alterado que dirigiu o avião para dentro da zona de guerra, resultando em 298 mortes? 

Qual foi a raxzão para alterar o plano de voo?

O prejuízo causado à Malaysian Airlines em consequências destas duas trágicas ocorrência também deve ser considerado. A Malaysian Airlines tem altos padrões de segurança e um registo excelente.

Estes dois acidentes fazem parte de um empreendimento criminoso. Eles não resultam de negligência da parte da Malaysian Airlines, a qual enfrenta uma bancarrota potencial.

21/Julho/2014

O original encontra-se em www.globalresearch.ca/…

Tradução  http://resistir.info/

The World Is Doomed By Western Insouciance

July 27th, 2014 by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

 European governments and the Western media have put the world at risk by enabling Washington’s propaganda and aggression against Russia. 

Washington has succeeded in using transparent lies to demonize Russia as a dangerous aggressive country led by a new Hitler or a new Stalin, just as Washington succeeded in demonizing Saddam Hussein in Iraq, the Taliban in Afghanistan, Gaddafi in Libya, Assad in Syria, Chavez in Venezuela, and, of course, Iran.  

The real demons–Clinton, Bush, Obama–are “the exceptional and indispensable people” above the reach of demonization. Their horrific real crimes go unnoticed, while fictitious crimes are attributed to the unexceptional and dispensable people and countries.

The reason that Washington demonizes a leader and a country is to permit the creation of circumstances that Washington can use to act with force against a leader and a country.

 Washington’s incessant lies alleging “Russian aggression” have created Russian aggression out of thin air.  John Kerry and the State Department’s Marie Harf issue new lies daily, but never any supporting evidence.  With the stage set, the US Senate, the NATO commander and the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff are busy at work energizing the wheels of war.

 Senate bill 2277 provides for beefing up forces on Russia’s borders and for elevating Ukraine’s status to “ally of the US” so that US troops can assist the war against “terrorists” in Ukraine.

See also:  http://www.globalresearch.ca/collapse-of-ukraine-government-prime-minister-yatsenyuk-resigns-amidst-pressures-exerted-by-the-imf/5393168

 NATO commander Breedlove is preparing his plans for stockpiling war material on Russia’s borders so that US/NATO troops can more quickly strike Russia.  http://rt.com/news/175292-nato-poland-supply-base/

Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, is at work preparing American opinion for the upcoming war.

 On July 24 Dempsey told the Aspen Security Forum, a high level group where US opinion is formed, that Putin’s aggression in Ukraine is comparable to Stalin’s invasion of Poland in 1939 and that the Russian threat was not limited to Ukraine or Eastern Europe but was global. 

The intellects in the Aspen Forum did not break out laughing when Dempsey told them that Russia’s (alleged but unproven) involvement in Ukraine was the first time since 1939 that a country made a conscious decision to use its military force inside another sovereign nation to achieve its objectives.  No one asked Dempsey what Washington has been doing during the last three presidential regimes:  Clinton in Serbia, Bush and Obama in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Pakistan, and Yemen, Obama in Libya and Syria.

 Here are Dempsey’s words: “You’ve got a Russian government that hs made a conscious decision to use its military force inside another sovereign nation to achieve its objectives. It’s the first time since 1939 or so that that’s been the case. They clearly are on a path to assert themselves differently not just in Eastern Europe, but Europe in the main, and towards the United States.”

 Washington’s view that the world is its oyster is so ingrained that neither Dempsey nor his upper echelon audience at the Aspen Forum noticed the absurdity of his statement. Washington and the brainwashed US population take if for granted that the “exceptional, indispensable nation” is not limited in its actions by the sovereignty of other countries.

 Washington takes for granted that US law prevails in other countries over the countries’ own laws–just ask France or Switzerland, that Washington can tell foreign financial institutions and corporations with whom they can do business and with whom they cannot–just ask every country and company prevented from doing business with Iran, that Washington can invade any country whose leader Washington can demonize and overthrow–just ask Iraq, Honduras, Libya, Serbia, and so forth, and that Washington can conduct military operations against peoples in foreign countries, such as Pakistan and Yemen, with which Washington is not at war.

All of this is possible, because Washington has claimed the title from Israel of being “God’s Chosen People.”  Of course, Israel’s loss of the title has not stopped Israel from acting the same way.

 Washington now has in motion the wheels of war.  Once the wheels of war begin to turn,  momentum carries them forward.  The foolish, indeed utterly stupid, governments and media in Europe seem unaware of Washington’s orchestration of their future or lack thereof, or they are indifferent to it.  They are dooming themselves and all of humanity by their insouciance. Heaven help if the British PM or French president or German chancellor were not invited to the White House or the Polish nonentity did not get his Washington stipend.

Readers who cannot tolerate problems without solutions always request solutions.  OK, here is the solution:

The only possibility of avoiding war is that Putin take his case to the UN.  If Washington can send Colin Powell to the UN unarmed with any truth to make Washington’s case for war against Iraq, Putin should be able to take his case to the UN against Washington’s war against Russia.

 The case that the emperor has no clothes is an easy one to make.

Unlike Washington, Putin is willing to share the evidence that Russia has about who is doing what in Ukraine.  It is a simple matter to establish that Washington organized a coup that overthrew an elected government, supports violence against those who object to the coup, and has turned a deaf ear to Russia’s repeated pleas for Kiev and the separatists to negotiate their differences.

 Putin should make it clear to the world that Washington continues with provocative military steps against Russia, with force buildups on Russia’s borders and calls for more buildups, with S.2277 which reads like a US preparation for war, with provocative actions and accusations by top US generals and government officials against Russia, and with efforts to isolate Russia and to inflict economic and political injury on Russia.

Putin should make it clear to the world that there is a limit to the provocations that Russia can accept and that Russia believes that Russia is in danger of preemptive nuclear attack by Washington.  Putin can describe Washington’s withdrawal from the ABM treaty, the construction of ABM bases on Russia’s borders, and the announced change in Washington’s war doctrine that elevates US nuclear forces from a retaliatory role to a preemptive first strike role. These actions are clearly directed at Russia (and China–wake up China! You are next!).

 Putin must state clearly that the likely consequence of the world continuing to enable Washington’s lies and aggression will be not merely another disastrous war but the termination of life.

 The governments of the world, especially Washington’s vassals in Europe, Canada, Australia, and Japan, need to be told that it is their responsibility to stop their enabling of Washington’s aggression or to accept their responsibility for World War III.

At least we could all have the enjoyment of watching the arrogant Samantha Powers and the craven British lapdog rise and walk out of the UN proceedings. There is no doubt whatsoever that Washington is unable to answer the charges.

Here again is the Wolfowitz Doctrine that controls US foreign policy and that condemns Planet Earth to death:

“Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that posses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.”

A hostile power is defined as any country that is not a Washington vassal.

The Wolfowitz Doctrine commits the United States, its peoples, Washington’s gullible EU allies and those peoples to war with Russia and China.  Unless Russia and China surrender, the world will be destroyed.

The destruction of the world is what the idiot EU governments and the presstitute Western media are fostering by their enablement of Washington’s lies and aggression.

The downing of Malaysian Airlines flight 17 (MH17) is a tragedy that will be remembered for years to come.

However, the way in which the West has distorted the facts about what happened is no mere accident.

Rather, it is a clear attempt by Washington and its allies and proxies to capitalize on the incident, using it as a weapon in their continued belligerent and aggressive policies toward Russia.Recent days have seen a deluge of propaganda from both the US Government and the western media (especially US media) which, despite being short on facts, has attempted to place the blame for MH17 squarely on Russia and Russian President Vladimir Putin. 

While this certainly is no surprise given the public demonization campaign of Russia throughout the conflict in Ukraine, it undoubtedly crosses the line from laughable to utterly irresponsible and dangerous. Given the already icy relations between the two countries, it seems that Washington has as part of its strategy the inflammation of tensions.

But why? What does the US political establishment, which includes both major parties, hope to gain from this tragedy? Or, perhaps more specifically, how does the United States plan to capitalize on the incident? The propaganda, spin, and outright lies from Western media cannot be understood in a vacuum. Rather, they must be recognized as part and parcel of the larger political agenda of the West both in Ukraine, and Eastern Europe as a whole.

Lies, Damned Lies, and Western Media

Although the investigation into the crash has only just begun, that has not stopped Washington from attempting to shape the narrative into an indictment of Russia, accusing Moscow of being behind the attacks. Headlines such as White House Blames Russia For MH17 Crash, Saying There’s No Believable Alternative (Huffington Post) and Congress: MH17 Crash Is ‘Ac of Terror,’ and Putin May Be To Blame (The Daily Beast), both of which interestingly come from “liberal” media outlets, have become routine in recent days. The not so subtle, indeed overt, implication of such headlines is that Russia is responsible for the downing of MH17, despite there being no evidence to that effect.

Essentially, the US political establishment, and its corporate media appendage, attempted to make a flimsy case into a politically expedient narrative that would bolster the US-NATO agenda in Ukraine, while simultaneously legitimizing the belligerent, anti-Russian rhetoric and policies that the White House and Congress have been pursuing. Moreover, Washington has attempted to use the incident to deflect attention from the brutal war crimes and other embarrassing aspects of the US-backed Kiev regime’s horrific war against the people of eastern Ukraine.

The specific lies, omissions, and distortions propagated by Washington and its dutiful media servants must be recalled in order to debunk them, but perhaps more importantly, to demonstrate the clear and unmistakable way in which they have been used to cobble together a false narrative that, despite being an admitted fabrication, will be made permanent in the minds of many Americans.

The Kiev regime has proclaimed repeatedly that Russia was behind the attack, offering “evidence” of “Russian participation.” The first piece of “evidence” were the tape recordings that purportedly provided proof that anti-Kiev rebels and, by implication, Russian agents working with them, had admitted to downing MH17. However, a careful analysis by renowned digital sound analyst Nikolai Popov and his team of experts concluded that that the recordings were not authentic, that is to say, they were cobbled together using various recordings from before the disaster occurred. As Popovnoted, “This audio recording is not an integral file and is made up of several fragments.”

While Popov’s team’s findings should not be taken as gospel, they do call into question the authenticity of the supposed “evidence.” In fact, it is quite likely that the recordings were constructed from actual conversations by anti-Kiev rebels discussing the downing of a Ukrainian Su-25 fighter jet days before the MH17 incident. Of course, the findings should not be seen as definitive, but as yet, they constitute the only sound analysis done of the recordings. It seems more than convenient that neither the US nor any of its partners have carried such an analysis, and have instead chosen to proclaim the recordings’ authenticity based purely on faith that Kiev is telling the truth. Naturally, this is a dangerous assumption considering the established pattern of lying by Kiev to further its war against the citizens of the East.

Indeed, the regime in Kiev has lied its way throughout the last week with almost every statement and piece of “evidence” it has provided. Yet another example can be found in the video the government released which purportedly showed a Russian Buk missile battery with at least one missile missing moving in the direction of Russia from rebel-held territory. Unfortunately for Kiev, the videos have been examined by many familiar with the region and exposed as distortions insofar as they actually show the Buk systems in Kiev-controlled territory, not rebel areas as Poroshenko & Co. have alleged. And so, with this information, it raises the question not only of Kiev’s lies regarding Russian involvement, but also the far more sinister likelihood that it was, in fact, Kiev’s military forces, whether under orders or simply through irresponsibility and negligence, that actually downed MH17.

Additionally, one must examine the claims made and repeated ad nauseam by Kiev that it had no military aircraft in the skies when MH17 was shot down. From July 17 (the day of the incident) until July 21 (the day Russia’s Ministry of Defense presented its intelligence), the Kiev regime continually denied allegations that its military aircraft were in the vicinity of MH17. However, once Russia’s MoD provided the international press with evidence refuting that claim and showing that not only were Ukrainian jets in the vicinity, but they were within firing range, magically that talking point ceased to be repeated. In other words, every aspect of the Kiev regime’s narrative has been thoroughly discredited.

And so, by July 23rd, the media headlines which had, until that point, simply been reiterating the claims made by Kiev and using “US assessments” (whatever that’s worth), began to finally admit that there is absolutely no evidence directly tying Russia to the incident. So, the US State Department, along with nearly all major media, were exposed as part of a comprehensive propaganda matrix designed to further US foreign policy aims, rather than report information accurately and objectively. More to the point, just two days earlier, the US State Department made the claim that it had the intelligence to “prove” Russian involvement but, when pressed by Associated Press journalist Matt Lee, refused to provide any hard evidence, be it intelligence or reconnaissance imagery, to support their claims.

So once again Secretary of State John Kerry, and the entire State Department, have been made to look foolish in their rush to accuse Russia of wrongdoing, as was the case with the Secretary of State regurgitating the discredited claim of anti-semitic leaflets being handed out by anti-Kiev rebel forces. The US media, like the State Department, obviously have egg on their face, as can be demonstrated quite clearly by the NY Post headlines of July 22nd and July 23rd. On July 22nd, the Post printed on its cover the headline “Dear Vlad – ‘Thank you…for murdering my loved and only child’”, followed less than twenty four hours later with the headline “US: No direct link to Russia found in MH17 attack.” This sort of shameful propaganda, designed to enflame anti-Russian sentiments, rather than report facts, is standard fare for US media and the corporate interests it serves.

Washington’s Political Agenda

The attempts by the US and its allies and proxies to blame Russia for the downing of MH17 expose a transparently cynical foreign policy in Ukraine, and Eastern Europe more broadly, that seeks to dominate and intimidate Russia politically, economically, and militarily. Naturally, this strategy is doomed to fail as the Russia of 2014 is certainly not the Russia of 1994. The MH17 episode is a case in point, showing just how the Washington and Kiev have tried to capitalize on every opportunity to achieve strategic goals by demonizing Russia.

A close look at some of the statements from the State Department in recent days illustrates clearly the way in which the Obama administration tried to leverage the disaster in order to buttress the failing war against the anti-Kiev rebels in eastern Ukraine. US State Department Deputy Spokesperson Marie Harf indicated in a briefing with reporters that the US asked Russia to demand that the anti-Kiev rebels “leave the region” in which the crash occurred so that an investigation could take place. In other words, Washington seeks to use the MH17 investigation as a backdoor option for Kiev to regain territory that it has been unable to conquer militarily; an undoubtedly, and quite despicably, cynical ploy by the US.

But of course, the US is now trying to use the fact that Russia was not involved in the attack “directly” as a way for Washington to drive a wedge between Moscow and the anti-Kiev rebels. By stating that Russia is not “directly” responsible, Washington is attempting to put Putin in a corner by giving him the opportunity to exonerate himself and Russia by abandoning the anti-Kiev forces, letting them hang to save his skin. Once again, it seems that the Obama administration is grossly underestimating Putin’s resolve on the issue of Ukraine. It is quite clear that the Kremlin is never going to allow a hostile regime that is publicly on the record as seeking NATO participation/observer status and is outwardly hostile to Russia and ethnic Russians to dominate the whole country and create problems in the future.

Indeed, this issue of Putin’s resolve is central to understanding why Russia has been so assertive in Ukraine since the crisis began. As Putin explained on July 22nd:

We shall provide an adequate and well-measured response to NATO’s expansion towards Russia’s borders, and we shall take note of [the West] setting up a global missile defense architecture and building up its arsenals of precision-guided weapons…No matter what our Western counterparts tell us, we can see what’s going on. As it stands, NATO is blatantly building up its forces in Eastern Europe, including the Black Sea and the Baltic Sea areas. Its operational and combat training activities are gaining in scale…The so-called competitive struggle at the international arena will imply the use of tools in both economic and political fields. This will include the potential of security services, modern information and communication technologies, and connections of dependent, puppet NGOs – the so-called soft power…apparently, some countries regard it as democracy.

Such frank tough talk from Putin is a good indication of why the US regards him and Russia as the primary obstacle to its goal of maintaining and extending US hegemony. Despite the US missile plans for Eastern Europe, the continued imposition of punitive sanctions on key individuals and entities in Russia, the expansion of NATO and its attempt to absorb former Soviet republics into its sphere of influence, and a host of other issues, Russia stands firm and undeterred. Whatever one may think about Putin and his government, it’s quite clear that they are not going to succumb to the usual arm-twisting, threats, blackmail, subversion or destabilization that the US employs to get its way. Perhaps this, at least in part, explains why Putin is more popular in his country than any other leader in the world.

The downing of MH17 is a shocking tragedy. The dead should be mourned alongside the innocent eastern Ukrainians who have also paid with their lives for the regime change operation that the US sponsored in Ukraine. However, beyond the sorrow and despair engendered by MH17, the world should focus its attention on the political maneuvers that the US has employed to capitalize on the tragedy and, in so doing, moving forward with its agenda of destabilization and aggression against Russia. Washington’s belligerent policy is nothing new. However, the stakes have never been higher than they are today.

Eric Draitser is an independent geopolitical analyst based in New York City, he is the founder of StopImperialism.org and OP-ed columnist for RT, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

It’s Weaponized Media and We are The Target

July 27th, 2014 by Global Research News

It’s weaponized media, and We are the target, says renowned artist Anthony Freda.

 ”We must step up the fight against the controlled mainstream press.

Why do people still trust the same media, politicians and intelligence agencies

We know they lied to us regarding Iraq.

It’s weaponized media, and We are the target.”

.

.

Visit Anthony Freda’s website at: http://www.anthonyfreda.com/index.html

.

Anthony Freda Art

Remember when our rulers told us that regimes like Saddam, Gaddafi, and Assad were the epitome of evil and must be liberated because they allegedly killed their own citizens? Probably not. Americans have short memories.

I only remind you to let you know that the U.S. and other Western governments have reversed their stance on regimes killing their own citizens. They now fully endorse and support this rule-with-an-iron-fist so long as the victims can be successfully labeled “separatists” or “terrorists”.

In fact, they want in on the action. The Pentagon began wargaming this week with the regime in Ukraine on how best to kill pesky citizens in Eastern Ukraine who oppose the U.S. Vice President’s son stealing and fracking shale gas on their land.

People who defend their land and families are called “terrorists” when imperial powers want their resources. In turn, Western rulers call violent coups “duly elected” if they pledge allegiance to the IMF.

This situation is creating friction among the world’s superpowers not seen since the Cold War. Obama recently expressed concern that ”The old order isn’t holding and we’re not quite where we need to be in terms of a new order.” Later in the speech he blamed uncooperative nations (read Russia) for standing in the way of the New World Order.

It seems if Russia doesn’t get on board with the Western-led world order, these powers are destined to clash in a West vs. East showdown over international banking and the control of gas supplies.

Here are 25 recent events, or data points, that our rulers hope we forget when they blame the collapse of the old world order on Russia:

  1. US spent $5 billion to destabilize Ukraine, not to mention the millions NGOs spent on “opposition groups“. The State Department was even caught playing kingmaker in Ukraine in secret recordings during the takeover.
  2. November 21st, 2013 - Ukraine’s President abandons an agreement on closer trade ties with EU, instead seeking closer cooperation with Russia. Violent pro-EU protests begin to organize.
  3. December 17th, 2013 - Putin offers to buy $15bn of Ukrainian debt and discount the price of Russian gas by about a third.
  4. February 2014 – Violence of coup peaks on the 20th. On 22nd protesters took control of Kiev and Parliament votes to remove president from power.
  5. February 23rd – New interim government named, replaces head of Ukraine central bank.
  6. March 6th – Obama signs national emergency executive order to punish Ukrainians that ”undermine democratic processes and institutions” of the coup government in Ukraine. You can’t make this stuff up.
  7. March 16th - Crimea holds voter referendum to split from coup government in Kiev and ally with Russia, passes by over 95%.
  8. March 20th – Obama announces more unilateral sanctions on Russia.
  9. March 24th – Leaked tape where former prime minister of Ukraine and darling of the West, Yulia Tymoshenko, calls for wiping out all Russians with nuclear weapons.
  10. April 29th – Obama unilaterally expands sanctions on Russia.
  11. April 30th – Newly installed regime in Kiev receives $17 billion from the IMF for “economic reforms”. (December deal from Russia with better terms for Ukrainian people discarded.)
  12. May 3rd – Obama calls Kiev’s coup government “duly elected“.
  13. May 11th – Eastern Ukraine votes for independence from Kiev and for self-rule.  Kiev mobilizes military to punish citizens for disloyalty.
  14. May 15th – US Vice President’s son Hunter Biden named to the board of Ukraine gas company.
  15. May 21st – Russia and China sign historic $400 billion “Holy Grail” gas deal not using petrodollars.
  16. May 27th – Second day in office, new Ukraine president launches military ”anti-terrorist operation“ against eastern Ukrainians.
  17. June 3rd - NATO pledges military support for Ukraine to battle dissidents.
  18. June 16th – Ukraine refuses to pay its gas bill to Moscow’s Gazprom, Russia cuts off gas.
  19. June 26th – Gazprom agrees to drop the dollar to settle contracts with China.
  20. June 27th – The EU signs an association agreement with Ukraine, along with Georgia and Moldova
  21. July 15th – BRICS nations fund international development bank to compete with the IMF, World Bank, and the dollar itself.
  22. July 17th – Commercial airliner MH17 shot out of the sky over eastern Ukraine. Appears to be classic false flag event after the West immediately blamed Russia citing sketchy YouTube videos.
  23. July 2014 – US announces yet more sanctions on RussiaEU and Canada both join in calls for more sanctions for Russia.
  24. July 2014 – Joe Biden’s son’s company prepares to drill shale gas in east Ukraine.
  25. July 2014 – Pentagon creates military plan to clear path for gas drilling in rebel-held areas of Ukraine.
I’m sure I missed a few.  Feel free to fill in the blanks in the comment section below.

War in Our Collective Imagination

July 27th, 2014 by David Swanson

Remarks at Veterans For Peace Convention, Asheville, NC, July 27, 2014.

I started seeing graphics pop up on social media sites this past week that said about Gaza: “It’s not war. It’s murder.”  So I started asking people what exactly they think war is if it’s distinct from murder.  Well, war, some of them told me, takes place between armies.  So I asked for anyone to name a war during the past century (that is, after World War I) where all or even most or even a majority of the dying was done by members of armies.  There may have been such a war.  There are enough scholars here today that somebody probably knows of one.  But if so, it isn’t the norm, and these people I was chatting with through social media couldn’t think of any such war and yet insisted that that’s just what war is.  So, is war then over and nobody told us?

For whatever reasons, I then very soon began seeing a graphic sent around that said about Gaza: “It’s not war. It’s genocide.”  And the typical explanation I got when I questioned this one was that the wagers of war and the wagers of genocide have different attitudes.  Are we sure about that? I’ve spoken to advocates for recent U.S. wars who wanted all or part of a population wiped out.  Plenty of supporters of the latest attacks on Gaza see them as counter-terrorism.  In wars between advanced militaries and poor peoples most of the death and injury is on one side and most of it — by anyone’s definition — civilian.  This is as true in Afghanistan, where war rolls on largely unchallenged, as in Gaza, about which we are newly outraged.

Well, what’s wrong with outrage? Who cares what people call it? Why not criticize the war advocates rather than nitpicking the war opponents’ choice of words?  When people are outraged they will reach for whatever word their culture tells them is most powerful, be it murder or genocide or whatever.  Why not encourage that and worry a little more about the lunatics who are calling it defense or policing or terrorist removal?  (Eight-year-old terrorists!)

Yes, of course.  I’ve been going after CNN news readers for claiming Palestinians want to die and NBC for yanking its best reporter and ABC for claiming scenes of destruction in Gaza that just don’t exist in Israel are in fact in Israel — and the U.S. government for providing the weapons and the criminal immunity.  I’ve been promoting rallies and events aimed at swaying public opinion against what Israel has been doing, and against the sadistic bloodthirsty culture of those standing on hills cheering for the death and destruction below, quite regardless of what they call it.  But, as you’re probably aware, only the very most open-minded war advocates attend conventions of Veterans For Peace.  So, I’m speaking here backstage, as it were, at the peace movement.  Among those of us who want to stop the killing, are there better and worse ways to talk about it?  And is anything revealed by the ways in which we tend to talk about it when we aren’t hyper-focused on our language?

I think so.  I think it’s telling that the worst word anyone can think of isn’t war.  I think it’s even more telling that we condemn things by contrasting them with war, framing war as relatively acceptable.  I think this fact ought to be unsettling because a very good case can be made that war, in fact, is the worst thing we do, and that the distinctions between war and such evils as murder or genocide can require squinting very hard to discern.

We’ve all heard that guns don’t kill people, people kill people.  There is a parallel belief that wars don’t kill people, people who misuse wars, who fight bad wars, who fight wars improperly, kill people.  This is a big contrast with many other evil institutions.  We don’t oppose child abuse selectively, holding out the possibility of just and good incidents of child abuse while opposing the bad or dumb or non-strategic or excessive cases of child abuse. We don’t have Geneva Conventions for proper conduct while abusing children.  We don’t have human rights groups writing reports on atrocities and possible law violations committed in the course of abusing children.  We don’t distinguish UN-sanctioned child abuse.  The same goes for numerous behaviors generally understood as always evil: slavery or rape or blood feuds or duelling or dog fighting or sexual harassment or bullying or human experimentation or — I don’t know — producing piles of I’m-Ready-for-Hillary posters.  We don’t imagine there are good, just, and defensible cases of such actions.

And this is the core problem: not support for bombing Gaza or Afghanistan or Pakistan or Iraq or anywhere else that actually gets bombed, but support for an imaginary war in the near future between two armies with different colored jerseys and sponsors, competing on an isolated battlefield apart from any villages or towns, and suffering bravely and heroically for their non-murderous non-genocidal cause while complying with the whistles blown by the referees in the human rights organizations whenever any of the proper killing drifts into lawless imprisonment or torture or the use of improper weaponry.  Support for specific possible wars in the United States right now is generally under 10 percent.  More people believe in ghosts, angels, and the integrity of our electoral system than want a new U.S. war in Ukraine, Syria, Iran, or Iraq. The Washington Post found a little over 10 percent want a war in Ukraine but that the people who held that view were the people who placed Ukraine on the world map the furthest from its actual location, including people who placed it in the United States.  These are the idiots who favor specific wars.  Even Congress, speaking of idiots, on Friday told Obama no new war on Iraq.

The problem is the people, ranging across the population from morons right up to geniuses, who favor imaginary wars.  Millions of people will tell you we need to be prepared for more wars in case there’s another Adolf Hitler, failing to understand that the wars and militarism and weapons sales and weapons gifts — the whole U.S. role as the arsenal of democracies and dictatorships alike — increase rather than decrease dangers, that other wealthy countries spend less than 10 percent what the U.S. does on their militaries, and that 10 percent of what the U.S. spends on its military could end global starvation, provide the globe with clean water, and fund sustainable energy and agriculture programs that would go further toward preventing mass violence than any stockpiles of weaponry.  Millions will tell you that the world needs a global policeman, even though polls of the world find the widespread belief that the United States is currently the greatest threat to peace on earth.  In fact if you start asking people who have opposed every war in our lifetimes or in the past decade to work on opposing the entire institution of war, you’ll be surprised by many of the people who say no.

I’m a big fan of a book called Addicted to War.  I think it will probably be a powerful tool for war abolition right up until war is abolished.  But its author told me this week that he can’t work to oppose all wars because he favors some of them.  Specifically, he said, he doesn’t want to ask Palestinians to not defend themselves.  Now, there’s a really vicious cycle.  If we can’t shut down the institution of war because Palestinians need to use it, then it’s harder to go after U.S. military spending, which is of course what funds much of the weaponry being used against Palestinians.  I think we should get a little clarity about what a war abolition movement does and does not do.  It does not tell people what they must do when attacked.  It is not focused on advising, much less instructing, the victims of war, but on preventing their victimization.  It does not advise the individual victim of a mugging to turn the other cheek.  But it also does not accept the disproven notion that violence is a defensive strategy for a population.  Nonviolence has proven far more effective and its victories longer lasting.  If people in Gaza have done anything at all to assist in their own destruction, it is not the supposed offenses of staying in their homes or visiting hospitals or playing on beaches; it is the ridiculously counterproductive firing of rockets that only encourages and provides political cover for war/ genocide/ mass murder.

I’m a huge fan of Chris Hedges and find him one of the most useful and inspiring writers we have.  But he thought attacking Libya was a good idea up until it quite predictably and obviously turned out not to be.  He still thinks Bosnia was a just war.  I could go on through dozens of names of people who contribute mightily to an anti-war movement who oppose abolishing war.  The point is not that anyone who believes in 1 good war out of 100 is to blame for the trillion dollar U.S. military budget and all the destruction it brings.  The point is that they are wrong about that 1 war out of 100, and that even if they were right, the side-effects of maintaining a culture accepting of war preparations would outweigh the benefits of getting 1 war right.  The lives lost by not spending $1 trillion a year in the U.S. and another $1 trillion in the rest of the world on useful projects like environmental protection, sustainable agriculture, medicine and hygiene absolutely dwarf the number of lives that would be saved by halting our routine level of war making.

If you talk about abolishing war entirely, as many of us have begun focusing on through a new project called World Beyond War, you’ll also find people who want to abolish war but believe it’s impossible. War is natural, they say, inevitable, in our genes, decreed by our economy, the unavoidable result of racism or consumerism or capitalism or exceptionalism or carnivorism or nationalism.  And of course many cultural patterns interact with and facilitate war, but the idea that it’s in our genes is absurd, given how many cultures in our species have done and do without it.  I don’t know what — if anything — people usually mean when they call something “natural” but presumably it’s not the provocation of suicide, which is such a common result of participating in war, while the first case of PTSD due to war deprivation has yet to be discovered.  Most of our species’ existence, as hunter-gatherers, did not know war, and only the last century — a split-second in evolutionary terms — has known war that at all resembles war today.  War didn’t used to kill like this.  Soldiers weren’t conditioned to kill.  Most guns picked up at Gettysburg had been loaded more than once.  The big killers were diseases, even in the U.S. Civil War, the war that the U.S. media calls the most deadly because Filipinos and Koreans and Vietnamese and Iraqis don’t count.  Now the big killer is a disease in our thinking, a combination of what Dr. King called self-guided missiles and misguided men.

Another hurdle for abolishing war is that the idea rose to popularity in the West in the 1920s and 1930s and then sank into a category of thought that is vaguely treasonous.  War abolition was tried and failed, the thinking goes, like communism or labor unions and now we know better.  While abolishing war is popular in much of the world, that fact is easily ignored by the 1% who misrepresent the 10% or 15% who live in the places that constitute the so-called International Community.  Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come or weaker than an idea whose time has come and gone.  Or so we think.  But the Renaissance was, as its name suggests, an idea whose time came again, new and improved and victorious.  The 1920s and 1930s are a resource for us.  We have stockpiles of wisdom to draw upon.  We have example of where things were headed and how they went of track.

Andrew Carnegie took war profits and set up an endowment with the mandate to eliminate war and then to hold a board meeting, determine the second worst thing in the world, and begin eliminating that.  This sounds unique or eccentric, but is I believe a basic understanding of ethics that ought to be understood and acted upon by all of us.  When someone asks me why I’m a peace activist I ask them why in the hell anyone isn’t.  So, reminding the Carnegie Endowment for Peace what it’s legally obligated to do, and dozens of other organizations along with it, may be part of the process of drawing inspiration from the past.  And of course insisting that the Nobel Committee not bestow another peace prize on a war-thirsty presidential candidate or any other advocate of war is part of that.

The case against war that is laid out at WorldBeyondWar.orgincludes these topics:

War is immoral.

War endangers us.

War threatens our environment.

War erodes our liberties.

War impoverishes us.

We need $2 trillion/year for other things.

I find the case to be overwhelming and suspect many of you would agree.  In fact Veterans For Peace and numerous chapters and members of Veterans For Peace have been among the first to sign on and participate.  And we’ve begun finding that thousands of people and organizations from around the world agree as people and groups from 68 countries and rising have added their names on the website in support of ending all war.  And many of these people and organizations are not peace groups.  These are environmental and civic groups of all sorts and people never involved in a peace movement before.  Our hope is of course to greatly enlarge the peace movement by making war abolition as mainstream as cancer abolition.  But we think enlargement is not the only alteration that could benefit the peace movement.  We think a focus on each antiwar project as part of a broader campaign to end the whole institution of war will significantly change how specific wars and weapons and tactics are opposed.

How many of you have heard appeals to oppose Pentagon waste? I’m in favor of Pentagon waste and opposed to Pentagon efficiency.  How can we not be, when what the Pentagon does is evil?  How many of you have heard of opposition to unnecessary wars that leave the military ill-prepared?  I’m in favor of leaving the military ill-prepared, but not of distinguishing unnecessary from supposedly necessary wars. Which are the necessary ones?  When sending missiles into Syria is stopped, in large part by public pressure, war as last resort is replaced by all sorts of other options that were always available.  That would be the case anytime any war is stopped.  War is never a last resort any more than rape or child abuse is a last resort.  How many of you have seen opposition to U.S. wars that focuses almost exclusively on the financial cost and the suffering endured by Americans?  Did you know polls find Americans believing that Iraq benefitted and the United States suffered from the war that destroyed Iraq?  What if the financial costs and the costs to the aggressor nation were in addition to moral objections to mass-slaughter rather than instead of?  How many of you have seen antiwar organizations trumpet their love for troops and veterans and war holidays, or groups like the AARP that advocate for benefits for the elderly by focusing on elderly veterans, as though veterans are the most deserving?  Is that good activism?

I want to celebrate those who resist and oppose war, not those who engage in it.  I love Veterans For Peace because it’s for peace.  It’s for peace in a certain powerful way, but it’s the being for peace that I value.  And being for peace in the straightforward meaning of being against war.  Most organizations are afraid of being for peace; it always has to be peace and justice or peace and something else.  Or it’s peace in our hearts and peace in our homes and the world will take care of itself.  Well, as Veterans For Peace know, the world doesn’t take care of itself.  The world is driving itself off a cliff.  As Woody Allen said, I don’t want to live on in the hearts of my countrymen, I want to live on in my apartment.  Well, I don’t want to find peace in my heart or my garden, I want to find peace in the elimination of war.  At WorldBeyondWar.org is a list of projects we think may help advance that, including, among others:

  • Creating an easily recognizable and joinable mainstream international movement to end all war.
  • Education about war, peace, and nonviolent action — including all that is to be gained by ending war.
  • Improving access to accurate information about wars. Exposing falsehoods.
  • Improving access to information about successful steps away from war in other parts of the world.
  • Increased understanding of partial steps as movement in the direction of eliminating, not reforming, war.
  • Partial and full disarmament.
  • Conversion or transition to peaceful industries.
  • Closing, converting or donating foreign military bases.
  • Democratizing militaries while they exist and making them truly volunteer.
  • Banning foreign weapons sales and gifts.
  • Outlawing profiteering from war.
  • Banning the use of mercenaries and private contractors.
  • Abolishing the CIA and other secret agencies.
  • Promoting diplomacy and international law, and consistent enforcement of laws against war, including prosecution of violators.
  • Reforming or replacing the U.N. and the ICC.
  • Expansion of peace teams and human shields.
  • Promotion of nonmilitary foreign aid and crisis prevention.
  • Placing restrictions on military recruitment and providing potential soldiers with alternatives.
  • Thanking resisters for their service.
  • Encouraging cultural exchange.
  • Discouraging racism and nationalism.
  • Developing less destructive and exploitative lifestyles.
  • Expanding the use of public demonstrations and nonviolent civil resistance to enact all of these changes.

I would add learning from and working with organizations that have been, like Veterans For Peace, working toward war abolition for years now and inspiring others to do the same.  And I would invite you all to work withWorldBeyondWartoward our common goal.

David Swanson is Director of World Beyond War, host of Talk Nation Radio, author of books including War No More: The Case for Abolition, War Is A Lie, and When the World Outlawed War.

Israel Murders IDF Soldier to Prevent His Capture

July 27th, 2014 by Richard Silverstein

Sgt. Guy Levy of the armored corps, killed July 26, 2014 by the IDF to prevent his capture

I’ve devoted a good deal of my life to Israel.  I’ve studied, read, visited, lived, breathed it.  Not in the way diehard pro-Israel fanatics do.  But in a different way that matched my own intellectual and political proclivities.  It’s a subject that is rich, varied, troubling, bedeviling, and exhilarating.  But every once in a while I learn something I never thought possible; and I don’t mean this in a good way.

Tonight, my Israeli source informed me that Sgt. Guy Levy, serving in the armored corps, was captured by Hamas fighters.  He had been part of a joint engineering-armored-combat unit searching for tunnels.  Troops entered a structure and discovered a tunnel.  Suddenly, out of the shaft sprang two militants who dragged one of the soldiers into it.  By return fire, one of the Palestinians was killed, while the other fled, presumably with the soldier.

This Israeli report, which was censored by the IDF, says only that the attempt to capture the soldier failed.  It says nothing about his fate.  The expectation of anyone reading it would be that the soldier was freed.  But he was not.  In order to prevent the success of the operation, the IDF killed him.  Nana reports that the IDF fired a tank shell into the building, which is the same way another captured soldier was killed by the IDF during Cast Lead.

I would presume that once the militant fled into the tunnel with his prisoner that the IDF destroyed the tunnel and entombed those within it, including the soldier.  I would also presume that the IDF knows he is dead because they retrieved his body.

To the uninitiated this will seem a terribly strange, uncivilized, even immoral act.  But that’s where I learned something I’d never known before about the IDF.  There is an unwritten secret regulation written by the IDF High Command, but nowhere codified in writing.  Its existence is protected by military censorship.  Journalists have rarely written about it.  When they have it’s usually been in code or by inference.

It’s called the Hannibal Directive.  Though the Wikipedia article doesn’t explain the reference to Hannibal, I assume it relates to the death of the great Carthaginian general, who took poison rather than allow himself to be captured by his mortal enemy, the Romans.  Though Sara Leibovich-Dar wrote in 2003 that the name came from a military computer!

In my long history of dedication to this subject, I’ve rarely seen anything that has disturbed me as much.  The Hannibal Directive is:

…A secret directive of the Israel Defense Forces with the purpose of preventing Israeli soldiers being captured by enemy forces in the course of combat.

…The order, drawn up in 1986 by a group of top Israeli officers, states that at the time of a kidnapping the main mission becomes forcing the release of the abducted soldiers from their kidnappers, even if that means injury to Israeli soldiers.

The order allows commanders to take whatever action is necessary, including endangering the life of an abducted soldier, to foil the abduction…

As happens so often in these cases, an IDF commander instrumental in drafting the order denied the horrific logic of the directive and then offered an example of how he would proceed which only confirmed it:

In a rare interview by one of the authors of the directive, Yossi Peled…denied that it implied a blanket order to kill Israeli soldiers rather than let them be captured by enemy forces. The order only allowed the army to risk the life of a captured soldier, not to take it. “I wouldn’t drop a one-ton bomb on the vehicle, but I would hit it with a tank shell”, Peled was quoted saying. He added that he personally “would rather be shot than fall into Hizbullah captivity.”

In other words, the IDF will do almost everything in its power to prevent capture of its soldiers including killing him.  It might not put a bullet directly in his brain, but it would certainly shell a home or vehicle in which he was situated.

Perhaps there’s a lingering bit of the liberal Zionist I once was here, but I’d always heard that Israel never leaves a soldier behind.  It does everything possible to bring all its troops home, and once captured does everything possible to retrieve or free them.

All this time I was sorely mistaken.  When all hope is lost of liberating the soldier from captivity, he dies.  What’s equally disturbing is that the existence of the directive is an open secret.  Commanders warn their soldiers that no one may be captured and that if you are you must commit suicide.  If you can’t do that, then they will do their best to kill you.  Perhaps they don’t articulate it precisely in those words, but that’s the clear intent.

Lest you think Hannibal is a theoretical regulation, it has been implemented before and captured soldiers have been killed by the IDF.  Most recently it happened during Operation Cast Lead:

During the war there was a case where the Hannibal directive was invoked. An Israeli soldier was shot and injured by a Hamas fighter during a search of a house in one of the neighborhoods of Gaza. The wounded soldiers’ comrades evacuated the house due to fears that it was booby-trapped. According to testimony by soldiers who took part in the incident the house was then shelled to prevent the wounded soldier from being captured by Hamas.

You have every right to ask: what soldier in his right mind would follow such an order.  There are thankfully examples of ones who refused.  But there are a number who didn’t including the tank commander who fired on his comrade in that home in Gaza, killing him.

You also have a right to ask how the IDF could approve such a regulation.  The answer is it didn’t.  It has never been vetted by military lawyers.  If it had been, the High Command might’ve been told it was an illegal, immoral directive which had no standing.  Then the IDF would have to implement an order its highest legal authorities had deemed treif.  That would never do.  So neither the generals, nor the Judge Advocate has ever delved into the matter.  It is yet another example of the national security state refusing to examine the deepest, most troubling principles on which it is based.

Implementation of the Hannibal Directive comes on the heels of the freeing of Gilad Shalit after five years in captivity.  The nation freed 1,000 Palestinian prisoners in order to release Shalit.  Israeli hardliners screamed bloody murder about freeing murderers with blood on their hands.  Some said it would have been better if Shalit had died rather than face this ignominy.

I believe that Benny Gantz and Bibi Netanyahu aren’t prepared to go through such a trauma again.  They believe their constituency would understand if they killed a soldier rather than lose him to capture.  Let’s make no mistake about this: it is a purely political calculation.  A nakedly, cynical political calculation.  It suggests that the interests of the nation trump the life of the individual.  These are considerations of an authoritarian state and not a democratic one.  A democracy values the individual.  It recognizes that the nation cannot exist without the individual.  Even that the nation should not exist unless it respects and values that individual.

The Hannibal Directive perverts such principles.  It embraces a fascist perspective in which the individual is subsumed within the mass.  He has no specific individual value unless he is serving the interest of the nation.  And his interests may, when necessary be sacrificed to the greater good.

I thank Dvorit Shargel for raising an important, and thorny issue. She implored me to consider the trauma of Levy’s family hearing their son was killed not by Palestinian fire, which would be painful enough, but by his own comrades.

It’s very doubtful the IDF would tell the family the truth unless it had no other choice. So then the question is, should we allow the IDF to lie just to cover up the use of the Hannibal directive and allow the family to believe he was killed by the enemy instead of his own?

My answer to this reluctantly is No. The greatest good is served by transparency. By knowing the truth, telling the truth, forcing everyone involved to explain what they did and why. Secrecy and pandering helps no one, even the dead soldiers’s family. I am sorry if this causes them added suffering. But blaming me is blaming the messenger not the real culprit.

Here is some of the discussion around the matter conducted by military ethicists (if there can be such a thing):

Dr. Avner Shiftan, an army physician with the rank of major, came across the Hannibal directive while on reserve duty in South Lebanon in 1999. In army briefings he “became aware of a procedure ordering soldiers to kill any IDF soldier if he should be taken captive by Hizbullah. This procedure struck me as being illegal and not consistent with the moral code of the IDF. I understood that it was not a local procedure but originated in the General Staff, and had the feeling that a direct approach to the army authorities would be of no avail, but would end in a cover-up.” He contacted Asa Kasher, the Israeli philosopher noted for his authorship of Israel Defense Forces’ Code of Conduct, who “found it difficult to believe that such an order exists,” since this “is wrong ethically, legally and morally”. He doubted that “there is anyone in the army” believing that `better a dead soldier than an abducted soldier’.

On this point however Asa Kasher was apparently wrong. In 1999 the IDF Chief of StaffShaul Mofaz said in an interview with Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth: “In certain senses, with all the pain that saying this entails, an abducted soldier, in contrast to a soldier who has been killed, is a national problem.” Asked whether he was referring to cases like Ron Arad (an Air Force navigator captured in 1986) and Nachshon Wachsman (an abducted soldier killed in 1994 in a failed rescue attempt), he replied “definitely, and not only.”

The legality of the order has never formally been examined by the IDF’s legal department. According to Prof. Emanuel Gross, from the Faculty of Law at the University of Haifa:…”Orders like that have to go through the filter of the Military Advocate General’s Office, and if they were not involved that is very grave,” he says. “The reason is that an order that knowingly permits the death of soldiers to be brought about, even if the intentions were different, carries a black flag and is a flagrantly illegal order that undermines the most central values of our social norms.

I hate to harp on this, but liberal Zionists enjoy claiming Israel is a nation of laws.  That it upholds the rule of law.  But this is clearly not the case.  No democratic nation would permit such a directive after undergoing legal review.  So the answer in Israel is simply to prevent it from undergoing any such review.  It allows the flourishing of a secret code that governs critical aspects of the Israeli military.

A section of the barrier — erected by Israeli officials to prevent the passage of Palestinians — with graffiti using President John F. Kennedy’s famous quote when facing the Berlin Wall, “Ich bin ein Berliner.” (Photo credit: Marc Venezia)

Virtually the entire U.S. news media and almost every national politician bends to the desires of Israel’s government regardless of its behavior, a reality that enables the persecution and even slaughter of Palestinians.

While viewing the massacre of Gazans, you may wonder why 1.7 million Arabs are crowded on that tiny strip of seashore and are being bombed day and night into death and ruins by Israel’s powerful military machine. A glimpse of history is timely.

Facts set forth below are little known in America:

Sixty years ago 800,000 Arabs fled their ancestral homes in rural Palestine fearing death as a Jewish onslaught obliterated without a trace over 500 Arab towns, villages and hamlets. Massacres were reported. Those who fled are forbidden to return home.

Fifty years later, a survey show the refugee problem staggering: 766,000 in Gaza; 741,000 in Jordan; 408,000 in Syria; and 144,000 in Egypt; smaller numbers in other Arab states.

Gaza soon became a part of Israel Occupied Palestine. Refugees and their descendants struggle there for survival. Israeli controls are brutal. Potable water is nearly gone. Most of the population depends for survival on food and water distributed by United Nations officials. If supplies are not increased starvation – not just malnutrition – is certain. Arabs huddle behind high fences equipped with Israeli remote-controlled machine guns. A gate that once served as an occasional opening to freedom is now kept locked by the government of Egypt at Israel’s request.

Gaza has long been described as the largest open-air prison in the world.

Israeli punishment of Gazans became more severe seven years ago when they exercised the right of self-determination by electing the Hamas Party to manage local affairs. Once Hamas took control in Gaza, Israel and the U.S. government conspired in a sustained but unsuccessful attempt to destroy the organization. Hamas was reelected to a second term and recently achieved a cooperative arrangement with the Fatah organization that maintains a measure of authority in the West Bank.

Infuriated because all gates stay closed, Hamas sends rockets over the fence. They do little damage but incite Israelis to launch heavy lethal bombing.  Revenge is not commendable, but I understand why people penned up like cattle may welcome pain and discomfort for their oppressors.

The current assault on Gaza is Israel’s third in seven years. This is the first time Hamas has used sustained rocket fire, but it is no match for Israel’s artillery, missiles and bombs. Thanks to U.S. taxpayers, Israel has high-tech missiles that shoot down Hamas rockets while still in the air. Hamas has no such defense, in fact, no defense at all.

The late radical Rabbi Meir Kahane, wrote a book titled They Must Go. In it he contended that all Arabs must be removed from Palestine so an all-Jewish Eretz Israel, the dream of Zionism, can come into being. Eretz Israel consists of entirety of Palestine, including the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza, plus the Golan Heights, long a part of Syria, exactly the Arab territory Israel now controls.

All Arabs are not gone, but approaching two million are imprisoned in Gaza. Elsewhere in Occupied Palestine, 4.2 million Arabs are abused and denied basic liberties. Their property and livelihood are steadily being seized by Israel to provide illegal housing for Jews-only settlements. These Arabs are squeezed into an ever-shrinking part of their birthright. More than one-half of the Palestinian West Bank is now populated by more than 500,000 Israeli settlers. Zionist dreamers can boast they are more than halfway toward their dream.

Who is responsible for this tragic treatment of Palestinians? If you ponder that question, bear in mind that Israel could not possibly commit this criminal behavior without automatic, unqualified, U.S. government support year after year.

Pro-Israel lobby pressure controls all major news media. The U.S. Congress behaves like a committee of the Israeli parliament. No president since Dwight Eisenhower has had the courage to stand up to Israeli wrongdoing. Those who know the truth are afraid to speak out for fear of paying a heavy price – maybe loss of employment.

All citizens of the United States must face the truth: Our government is complicit in Israeli crimes against humanity. This is an election year. We should elect a Congress that will suspend all aid until Israel behaves.

The bloody standoff in Gaza will stop if Israel opens the gate to Egypt and keeps it open. When that happens, Arabs living there can “breathe free,” a precious right our Statue of Liberty proclaims for all humankind.

Paul Findley served as a member of United States House of Representatives for 22 years. His books include Deliberate Deceptions: Facing the Facts About the U.S.-Israeli Relationship.

After the U.S.-supported ouster of Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi in 2011, Libyan jihadist rebels swarmed through Libyan army weapons depots and helped themselves to Soviet-made portable shoulder-launched missiles and launchers, BUK missile batteries capable of bringing down aircraft flying over 30,000 feet, and other military equipment, including mortars and rocket-propelled grenades.

Some of the Libyan equipment ended up in the hands of Saharan-based insurgent groups such as Al Qaeda in the Maghreb (AQIM) and the Mali-based Ansar Dine. There is a real possibility that anti-aircraft weapons that fell into the hands of U.S.-supported Libyan guerrillas and were subsequently transferred to Saharan-based rebels were used to attack Air Algerie 5017, which was flying over Mali from Burkina Faso to Algeria in what the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration refers to as a «high-risk flight zone.»

Attacks on civilian aircraft using missiles procured from post-Qaddafi Libya were predicted by intelligence and defense specialists. It now appears that those predictions were well-founded with the crash of Air Algerie 5017.

The jihadist group Al-Mourabitoun, formed in 2013 after the merging of the Mulathameen brigade and the Movement for Unity and Jihad in West Africa (MUJWA), both AQIM affiliates, may be behind the crash of Air Algerie 5017. The Mulathameen Brigade was led by the one-eyed Al Qaeda terrorist Mokhtar Belmokhtar, a veteran of the CIA-led Afghan war against the Soviet Union, who claimed responsibility for a mid-July suicide bombing north of Gao that killed a French soldier. Belmokhtar said Al-Mourabitoun would be led by a younger generation of jihadists, who all swore allegiance to Al Qaeda’s leader Dr. Ayman Zawahiri.

With the crash near Gao, Mali of Air Algerie Flight 5017, with 110 passengers and crew of six Spanish nationals, and which was en route from Ougadougou, Burkina Faso, to Algiers, the possibility that BUK missiles from Libya were used in attacking the aircraft cannot be ruled out. Ansar Dine and AQIM have been found in possession of weapons seized from Libyan warehouses and armories to carry out attacks on Malian and Algerian targets, including the 2013 terrorist attack by AQIM on the Ain Amena natural gas plant in the Algerian Sahara. That attack was carried out by Belmokhtar’s forces. The jihadists killed 40 Western and Algerian hostages.

In May 2013, Belmokhtar’s forces attacked a Nigerien military barracks in Agadez and a uranium mine in Arlit in the Republic of Niger. A Belmokhtar ally, Seif Allah Ibn Hussein, alias «Abu Ayadh al-Tunis», used weapons stolen from Libya to attack Western targets in Tunisia. Abu Ayadh leads Ansar al Sharia – Tunisia – AAS-T, the Tunisian branch of the Benghazi-based Ansar al Sharia that was supported by the CIA and NATO during the Libyan uprising against Qaddafi.

Fifty one of the 110 passengers on board Air Algerie 5017 were French nationals. Also on the passengers’ manifest were 27 Burkinabe, 8 Lebanese, 6 Algerians, 2 Luxembourgers, 5 Canadians, 4 Germans, 1 Cameroonian, 1 Belgian, 1 Egyptian, 1 Ukrainian, 1 Swiss, 1 Nigerian and 1 Malian. Malians near the city of Kidal said they heard a loud explosion around the same time that contact with the MD-83 aircraft. The plane crashed in the foothills of the remote Adrar des Ifoghas Mountains that are known to be hideouts for Belmokhtar’s forces.

The MD-83 was owned by the Spanish company Swiftair but leased to Air Algerie.

Thirteen minutes after its 9:17 departure from Ouagadougou airport, the Air Algerie pilot requested permission from air traffic control in Niger to divert its course to avoid another “aircraft” in the area. The other “aircraft” may have been a ground-launched missile picked up by the MD-83′s weather radar. The United States operates a Top Secret program codenamed CREEK SAND from the military side of Ouagadougou Airport. From the airport, the U.S. Air Force and Central Intelligence Agency dispatches unmanned drones to fly over Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger. Visibility for Air Algerie 5017 was hampered by heavy rain clouds along the flight route. There was no contact with the aircraft some 50 minutes after it took off from Ouagadougou.

Obama’s and Hillary Clinton’s support for Ansar al-Sharia and other Libyan jihadist groups in the overthrow of Qaddafi led to the proliferation of Soviet-made and other weapons throughout the Sahara region. Sufian Ben Qhumu, alias Abu Faris, a former Guantanamo detainee, was released and then permitted by the CIA to form Ansar al-Sharia to battle against Qaddafi’s government. His fellow Guantanamo detainee is Abu Ayadh al-Tunis, the leader of Ansar al-Sharia-Tunisia.

Obama, Mrs. Clinton, and other members of the Obama administration bear full responsibility for the distribution of anti-aircraft weapons to radical groups like Ansar al Sharia, Ansar Dine, and in the Sahara region. These weapons include some 480 SA-24 “Grinch” shoulder-launched missiles, as well as the BUK missile system. On September 22, 2011, a senior intelligence official told The Daily Telegraph, “If the SA-24 missiles fall into the wrong hands then no civilian aircraft in the region will be safe from attack.”

Direct U.S. and NATO military support to Ansar al-Sharia turned the pan-Sahel region into a dangerous region for civilian aircraft. With the suspicious crash of Air Algerie 5017, the world must isolate and penalize the terrorist-supporting regime in Washington, DC. Governments around the world should issue visa bans against Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and other supporters of the Libyan terrorists. Assets of the Clinton Foundation held in foreign banks should be frozen and actions should be taken against U.S. defense companies, with asset freezes and travel bans issued against the corporate accounts and private accounts of officials of U.S. defense contractors involved in support for the Lockheed-Martin, Northrop-Grumman, Harris Corporation, Boeing, and other companies involved in operations in support of the rebellion against Qaddafi in Libya. Particularly effective sanctions should be imposed on the most well-known French supporter of Libyan terrorists, Bernard-Henri Levy.

After the imposition of a sharia law Islamic state in Benghazi in 2012, Western observers and diplomats, according to The New York Times, were stunned to see the advanced weaponry on display by Ansar al Sharia forces. Much of it had been stolen from Libyan armories and warehouses. SA-7 portable shoulder-launched missiles from Libyan warehouses were found by Algerian authorities to be in the hands of jihadist insurgents operating in the Sahara region. Libyan anti-aircraft missiles have also made their way to Syrian rebels under the watchful eye of NATO. On September 14, 2012, The Times of London reported «a Libyan ship carrying the largest consignment of weapons for Syria since the uprising began has docked in Turkey and most of its cargo is making its way to rebels on the front lines.» The cargo included «SAM-7 surface-to-air anti-aircraft missiles and rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs).»

Obama and the U.S. military-intelligence establishment must be taught a lesson that military equipment provided to terrorists that is subsequently used to attack civilian airliners, killing innocent passengers and crew members must be at a cost to those who allow terrorists and insurgents to be armed. The blood of innocent French, Burkinabe, Algerian, Canadian, German, and the citizens of other nations is now on Obama’s and Mrs. Clinton’s hands. They must be called to account before the courts of justice and world public opinion.

A source within the Ukrainian defense department claims that Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was accidentally shot down by Ukrainian troops during a military exercise near Donetsk which took place on July 17.

“On July 17 the commanding officer of 156th Anti-Aircraft Regiment was instructed to conduct a training exercise of ground troops stationed near Donetsk, which involved deploying the troops, and carrying out a routine tracking and destroying of targets with the Buk-M1 missile,” the source told RIA Novosti.

Although actual use of the rockets was not intended, they were accidentally fired off when two Sukhoi Su-25 combat aircraft flew parallel with but at a different altitude than the Boeing 777, claims the source. When the three aircraft merged and became a single dot on the missile ‘s radar system, the Buk-M1 automatically chose the larger target, leading to the demise of MH17.

It is worth noting that RIA Novosti is Russian state media, although the veracity of the story is no less credible than YouTube videos uploaded by the Ukrainian government, which have been relied upon by both Kiev and Washington as the main source of evidence for the contention that separatist rebels were responsible for downing the airliner.

In addition, the information correlates with what former AP and Newsweek investigative journalist Robert Parry was told by his intelligence source, which was that the U.S. is in possession of satellite imagery which shows men wearing Ukrainian army uniforms firing the missile system that brought down MH17.

Given that Parry won awards for his work exposing the Iran Contra scandal, one would imagine that he has built up some credible and influential sources over the past few decades.

Kiev has failed to release transcripts from air traffic control communications which were seized by Ukrainian security services immediately after the incident, although pilots on board an Air India Dreamliner which was flying just 90 seconds behind Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 say they heard Ukrainian air traffic control give the order for the doomed plane to change route minutes before MH17 was shot down by a missile.

Russia has presented radar evidence which it claims shows Ukrainian fighter jets in the vicinity of MH17 shortly before it was shot down.

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor at large of Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com.

Facebook @ https://www.facebook.com/paul.j.watson.71
FOLLOW Paul Joseph Watson @ https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet

In a provocative and reckless move, the Dutch and Australian governments are pressing for the stationing of police and soldiers at the Malaysian Airlines MH17 crash site in eastern Ukraine. Using the pretext of “securing” the site for investigators, an armed force hostile to the pro-Russian separatists who control the area is being planted in the midst of an active civil war close to the Russian border.

There is nothing benign about what Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott described yesterday as “a humanitarian mission” with “one purpose and one purpose only” which was to “bring our people home.” While declaring that he did not “want to get into the politics of Eastern Europe, Abbott continued to blame pro-Russian militia for downing MH17. The site, he said, “is controlled by armed men with a vested interest in the outcome of any investigation.”

The Abbott government has been in the forefront of the propaganda war being waged internationally by the US and its allies, which, without producing a shred of concrete evidence, has accused pro-Russian forces of shooting down the airliner. Australia played the key role in pushing through a resolution in the UN Security Council condemning the downing of MH17 and instructing “all parties” to facilitate a ceasefire and an “independent international investigation.”

Having pushed through the UN resolution, Abbott and Australian foreign minister Julie Bishop were the first to raise the demand for an international security force at the crash site, amid a deluge of crude propaganda accusing pro-Russian fighters of contaminating the site, removing evidence and desecrating the dead. In fact, the leader of a Dutch identification team, Peter van Vliet, on Monday had nothing but praise for the manner in which the recovery of bodies had taken place. “I think they did a hell of a job in a hell of a place,” he said.

Some 90 Australian Federal Police (AFP) personnel were dispatched to Britain and Netherlands earlier this week to prepare for deployment to Ukraine. Yesterday, Abbott announced that an additional 100 AFP officers would be sent. An unspecified number of the AFP personnel would be armed and accompanied by armed Australian soldiers.

Foreign Minister Bishop has been in Europe pressing for the dispatch of police and troops to the crash site. She met with Dutch officials in the Netherlands then flew with her Dutch counterpart Frans Timmermans to Kiev where the two signed a memorandum of understanding yesterday with Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko on the investigation of MH17. The Dutch government has announced a commitment of 40 military police to the security force, with Britain, Germany and Malaysia also discussing involvement.

Bishop has also reached an agreement with Ukraine foreign minister Pavlo Klimkin to legitimise an Australian police and military presence but it still requires formal approval by President Poroshenko and the Ukrainian parliament—under conditions in which the government has collapsed. Bishop and Timmermans are nevertheless pressing ahead with their plans, visiting the eastern Ukrainian city of Kharkiv yesterday. Also yesterday, Abbott spoke to Russian President Vladimir Putin to insist that the pro-Russian separatists allow the international forces access to the crash site.

The Australian and Dutch-led operation is not about conducting an “independent investigation” or “bringing our people home.” The bodies of most of the dead have already been repatriated to the Netherlands for identification. Both countries have been in the forefront of the US-led campaign of lies and distortions blaming Russia and pro-Russian separatists for the MH17 crash and certainly have a vested interest in excluding evidence that might point to other causes, including the involvement of the Ukrainian military.

The push for an international security force at the crash site takes place as the right-wing Ukrainian regime installed in a US-backed, fascist-led coup in February steps up its military operations in eastern Ukraine. The Netherlands has been actively campaigning for the European Union to impose tougher sanctions on Russia over its support for pro-Russian separatists.

In this context, the US, which yesterday accused Russia of supplying heavy weapons and being directly involved in the fighting in eastern Ukraine, has been particularly appreciative of the role of the Australian government. Already fully committed to Obama’s aggressive US military build-up in Asia against China, the Abbott government, with the complete backing of the entire Australian establishment, is functioning as point man for the US in its provocative moves against Russia in Ukraine. Yesterday, Obama rang Abbott to thank him personally for his leadership on the issue. In reality, Canberra’s aggressive campaign has taken place in the closest collaboration with Washington.

The most sinister aspect of the international security force being prepared for Ukraine is that it provides a stalking horse for a US-led military intervention. The contingent will undoubtedly contain intelligence and other operatives who can be relied on to instigate a provocation to provide the pretext for a much larger armed force.

In comments reported in the Sydney Morning Herald yesterday, Peter Jennings, executive director of the government-funded Australian Strategic Policy Institute, hinted at just such a scenario when he argued that any AFP contingent had to have military back-up. Whatever the make-up, he said, Australia would “have to be prepared to take casualties.” Of course, any casualties would immediately be exploited to mount a ferocious propaganda campaign demanding military action.

The US and its allies have already transformed Ukraine into a dangerous flashpoint for war with Russia. The dispatch of police and troops to the MH17 crash site provides one more potential trigger for just such a conflict.

Malaysian Airlines MH17: Who Stands to Gain?

July 27th, 2014 by Chandra Muzaffar

The Russian military has released military monitoring data which challenge allegations circulating in the media pertaining to the MH 17 crash in the Donetsk Region of Eastern Ukraine on July 17 2014. Questions have been raised about Kiev military jets tracking MH 17, Ukrainian air traffic controllers and the deployment of Buk missile systems. Kiev should also release military data on the circumstances leading to the crash. So should the Pentagon which reportedly has relevant intelligence and satellite data.

Since military data is hardcore information, Kiev and Washington should be persuaded to be transparent and accountable. The UN Secretary-General can play a role in this since there is a specialized agency within the UN, the ICAO, dedicated to international civil aviation. Military data from Moscow, Kiev and Washington should be scrutinized by the independent international panel that is supposed to probe the MH 17 catastrophe.

Such data carries much more weight than videos purportedly revealing the role of the pro-Russian rebels and the Russian government in the crash. One such video showing a Buk system being moved from Ukraine to Russia is a fabrication. The billboard in the background establishes that it was shot in a town — Krasnoarmeisk — that has been under the control of the Ukrainian military since May 11. Similarly, a You Tube video showing a Russian General and Ukrainian rebels discussing their role in mistakenly downing a civilian aircraft was, from various tell-tale signs, produced before the event.

The public should be wary of fabricated “evidence” of this sort, after what we have witnessed in the last so many years. Have we forgotten the monstrous lies and massive distortions that accompanied the reckless allegation that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) which led eventually to the invasion of that country in 2003 and the death of more than a million people? Iraq continues to bleed to this day. What about the Gulf of Tonkin episode of 1964 which again was a fabrication that paved the way for wanton US aggression against Vietnam that resulted in the death of more than 3 million Vietnamese? The “babies in incubators” incident in Kuwait in 1990 was yet another manufactured lie that aroused the anger of the people and served to justify the US assault on Iraq.  Just last year we saw how an attempt was  made by some parties to pin the blame for a sarin gas attack in Ghouta, Syria upon the Assad government when subsequent investigations have revealed that it was the work of some militant rebel group.

From Tonkin to Ghouta there is a discernible pattern when it comes to the fabrication of evidence to justify some nefarious agenda or other. As soon as the event occurs before any proper investigation has begun, blame is apportioned upon the targeted party. This is done wilfully to divert attention from the real culprit whose act of evil remains concealed and camouflaged. The colluding media then begins to spin the “correct” version with the help of its reporters and columnists who concoct “fact” out of fiction. Any other explanation or interpretation of the event is discredited and dismissed derisively to ensure that the “credibility” of the dominant narrative remains intact. As the narrative unfolds, the target often embodied in a certain personality is demonized to such a degree that he arouses the ire of the public and becomes an object of venom.

The pattern described here is typical of what is known as a “false flag” operation in which blame for some dastardly deed is consciously transferred to one’s adversary. It has happened right through history and many contemporary nation-states — and not just the United States — are guilty of flying false flags.

To protect ourselves from being deceived by such operations, the general public should always ask: who stands to gain from a particular episode? Cui Bono is in fact an important principle in the investigation of a crime. In the case of the MH 17 carnage, the pro-Russian rebels do not benefit in any way from downing a civilian airliner. Their goal is independence from the Kiev government which is why they are fighting Kiev through sometimes violent means including shooting down its military planes.  Massacring 298 passengers in a flight from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur does not serve their cause. Moscow which backs the rebels to an extent also gains nothing from involving itself in such a diabolical carnage.

10 days after the carnage, it is now clear who is trying to reap benefits from that terrible tragedy in the skies. The demonization of the Russian President, Vladimir Putin, orchestrated from various Western capitals, including Kiev, after Crimea voted to join the Russian Federation, thus thwarting one of the primary strategic goals of NATO’s eastward expansion, has now reached its pinnacle. After MH 17, it has become a lot easier to convince people— even without an iota of evidence — that Putin is a “mass murderer”.  The tarnishing of Putin’s image is crucial for those in the West who want to curb Russia’s political re-assertion so that the US and its allies can perpetuate their global dominance without hindrance.

MH 17 has helped the elite in Washington in yet another sense. It has strengthened its push for tougher sanctions against Russia which began after the Crimea vote. Given their extensive economic ties with Russia, many European countries such as Germany, France, Netherlands and Italy have been somewhat lukewarm about widening and deepening sanctions. But will that change now? Will an outraged European public, incensed by the MH 17 massacre, demand that their governments punish Moscow?

It is obvious that those who seek to punish Russia and the pro-Russian rebels, namely, the elite in Washington and Kiev, are poised to gain the most from the MH 17 episode. Does it imply that they would have had a role in the episode itself? Only a truly independent and impartial international inquiry would be able to provide the answer.

In this regard, we must admit that while elites in Kiev and Washington may stand to gain from MH 17, those who actually pulled the trigger may be some other group or individual with links to the powerful in the two capitals. It is quite conceivable that a certain well-heeled individual equipped with the appropriate military apparatus and with access to air-control authorities in the region may have executed the act of evil itself.

Because of who he is, and where his loyalties lie, that individual may have also decided to target Malaysia. Was he giving vent to his anger over our principled stand on the question of justice for the Palestinians? Was he also attempting to divert public attention from Israel’s ground offensive against Gaza which time-wise coincided with the downing of the Malaysian airliner?

As we explore MH 17 from this angle, would we be able to connect the dots between MH 17 and MH 370, between July 17 and March 8, 2014?

We should not rest till the whole truth is known and the evil behind these two colossal catastrophes punished severely.

We owe this to every soul who perished on those fateful flights.

This article is dedicated to the cherished memory of all those on MH 17 — especially the 80 children who were on board.

Dr. Chandra Muzaffar is a prominent Malaysian scholar and author, President of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST).

RT’s article, “90% of aircraft destroyed at Tripoli airport, Libya may seek international assistance,” reported that: 

Libya is considering a deployment of international force to re-establish security amid a flare-up of violence in Tripoli which saw dozens of rockets destroy most of the civilian aircraft fleet at its international airport.

“The government is looking into the possibility of making an appeal for international forces on the ground to re-establish security and help the government impose its authority,” a government spokesman, Ahmed Lamine said in a statement.

The “democratic tomorrow” promised by NATO in 2011 has been realized – that is – in the form of predictably fraudulent elections accepted by no one, leaving a power vacuum apparently to be settled through increasingly violent armed conflict. Perhaps most ironic of all is that these conflicts are being waged between NATO’s various armed proxies it used to carry out the ground war while it bombarded Libya from the air over the majority of 2011.

NATO’s Proxies Cannibalize Each Other  

In May 2014, fighting in the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi has left scores dead, many more injured, and residents fleeing for their lives as what the Western media called a “renegade general,” waged war on “Islamist militants” within the city. Reuters in its article, “Families evacuate Benghazi as renegade general vows more attacks,” claimed:

The self-declared Libyan National Army led by a renegade general told civilians on Saturday to leave parts of Benghazi before it launched a fresh attack on Islamist militants, a day after dozens were killed in the worst clashes in the city for months.

The renegade general is Khalifa Haftar (sometimes spelled Hifter), who lived in the United States – outside of Langley Virginia – for years allegedly being groomed by the CIA until his eventual return to Libya in 2011 to lead ground forces in NATO’s proxy invasion. The Business Insider would report in its 2011 article, “Is General Khalifa Hifter The CIA’s Man In Libya?,” that:

Since coming to the United States in the early 1990s, Hifter lived in suburban Virginia outside Washington, D.C. Badr said he was unsure exactly what Hifter did to support himself, and that Hifter primarily focused on helping his large family.

So a former Qaddafi general who switches sides is admitted to the United States, puts down roots in Virginia outside Washington, D.C. and then somehow supports his family in a manner that mystifies a fellow who has known Hifter his whole life. Hmm.

The likelihood that Hifter was brought in to be some kind of asset is pretty high. Just as figures like Ahmed Chalabi were cultivated for a post-Saddam Iraq, Hifter may have played a similar role as American intelligence prepared for a chance in Libya.

The irony is that many of the sectarian militants Hafter was fighting in Benghazi were the same militants Muammar Qaddafi was fighting for decades as leader of Libya, and the same militants that NATO armed and abetted alongside Hafter in the overthrow of Qaddafi in 2011.

Regarding his campaign in Benghazi, Hafter claimed that it would continue until “Benghazi is purged of terrorists,” and that, “we’ve started this battle and will continue it until we have reached our goals. The street and the Libyan people are with us.” Hafter’s sentiments echo those of Muammar Qaddafi in 2011, only then, the Western media denied the existence of terrorists that had been based in Benghazi for decades and portrayed Tripoli’s operations there as a “massacre” of “peaceful pro-democracy protesters.”

NATO Destroyed Libya 

The very atrocities cited by NATO to begin their “humanitarian intervention” in Libya in the first place, immediately began unfolding in reality at the hands of NATO and its proxy forces themselves. Entire cities were encircled, starved out, and bombarded by air until they capitulated. In other towns, entire populations were either exterminated, evicted and eventually driven beyond Libya’s borders. The city of Tawarga, home to some 10,000 Libyans, was so utterly uprooted, it was referred to by the London Telegraph as a “ghost town.”

Since the fall of Tripoli, Sirte, and other Libyan cities that resisted NATO’s proxy invasion, little in the way of basic stability, let alone the “democratic revolution” promised by NATO and its collaborators, has returned to Libya. The government in Tripoli remains in chaos, its security forces divided amongst themselves, and now a “rogue” CIA asset is conducting a full-scale military operation against Benghazi, including the use military aircraft, apparently without Tripoli’s approval.

Years after the “revolution’s” conclusion, Libya remains a hobbled nation sliding backwards. The many achievements of Muammar Qaddafi’s government have long since been undone, and it is unlikely they will be restored let alone surpassed in the foreseeable future. NATO has effectively upturned and destroyed an entire nation, leaving it to not only burn while Western corporations pillage its resources, but to use as a template for future extraterritorial adventures in Syria, Egypt, Ukraine, and now Iraq.

The Libyan Model: Egypt, Syria, Ukraine Beware

Just as in Libya, “revolutions” have tried to take root in Egypt, Syria, and Ukraine. The same narratives, verbatim, crafted by Western policy think tanks and media spin doctors for Libya are now being reused in Egypt, Syria, and Ukraine. The very same non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are being used to fund, equip, and otherwise support opposition groups in each respective country. Terms such as “democracy,” “progress,” “freedom,” and fighting against “dictatorship” are familiar themes. The protests were and are each accompanied by heavily armed militants also fully backed by the West.

In Syria, the pretense of protests has been dropped as has the notion of “freedom fighters.” The Western media now spends much of its time spinning and justifying why NATO and its regional partners are funding and arming sectarian militants, including Al Qaeda, in the overthrow of the Syrian government.

In Egypt, there is still some ambiguity, as there was in 2011 regarding Syria, as to who the protesters really are, what they really want, and on which side of the increasingly violent conflict playing out there the West falls.Careful analysis reveals that just as the Muslim Brotherhood was used in Syria to set the stage for the now devastating war raging there, the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood is doing likewise against Cairo.

Finally, in Ukraine, the “pro-democracy” “pro-European Union” “Euromaidan” protesters have been revealed as Neo-Nazis, ultra-right, and nationalists who regularly resort to violence and political intimidation. Just as in Syria in 2011, and in Egypt now, low intensity armed clashes are increasing in frequency and intensity toward what may end up as a proxy war between NATO and Russia in Eastern Europe.

But for these three nations, and the participants on all sides, Libya’s current state must be examined. These “revolutions” have but one logical and predictable conclusion – the plundering, division, and destruction of each respective nation, before it is folded into Wall Street and London’s growing supranational order to be exploited indefinitely as much of the US, UK, and EU already are today. For those wondering what will become of Egypt, Syria, or Ukraine, should NATO succeed, one needs only to look at Libya. And for those that supported the “revolution” in Libya, they must ask themselves if they are they satisfied with its final outcome. Do they wish this outcome upon Egypt, Syria, and Ukraine as well? Do they imagine that NATO’s plans for each of these countries will end any differently? Why?

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

 The European Court of Human Rights yesterday ruled against Poland, charging our ally with human rights violations for helping the CIA operate an ‘extraordinary rendition’ program in which two persons suspected of terrorism were delivered to a “black site” in 2002-2003, for detention, interrogation and torture — in the attempt to extract bogus confessions.

Court documents provide insight into the CIA’s “enhanced interrogation techniques”: Hooding, handcuffing, chambering a bullet, putting the gun to the suspect’s head while cocking the trigger; threatening a hooded, naked suspect with a power drill; threatening to apprehend the suspect’s mother or female relative, bring them before him to be sexually assaulted; various stress positions which could force dislocation of limbs; using a stiff brush on a suspect’s naked body to induce pain; suspending the suspect on a bar or a hook for two to three days at a time; water boarding; electric shock; threatening to sodomize the suspect and to infect the suspect with the HIV virus.

The torture program has resulted in deaths of prisoners in Afghanistan and Iraq. One Guantanamo inmate who was tortured will soon go on trial before a US military tribunal. No one at the CIA has been prosecuted for torturing suspects. But one CIA agent who blew the whistle on an agency practitioner of torture was sentenced to two years in federal prison.

This year America will observe the thirteenth anniversary of 9/11, a tragedy that should never have been appropriated to advance a foreign policy agenda that included war against innocent people, torture and murder of terror “suspects” abroad, and the destruction of dearly held US Constitutional values here at home.

It is time to take truth off the torture rack. America needs a full accounting of those dark days through a process of Truth and Reconciliation.

Follow Dennis J. Kucinich on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Dennis_Kucinich

Opposing Israeli Policy Does Not Make One a “Self-Hating Jew”

A huge anti-war protest is being held tonight by Israeli Jews in Tel Aviv:

 

Embedded image permalink

(Jews and Palestinians have been holding anti-war protests throughout Israel, but the mainstream media has refused to cover them.)

Jews also protested the Gaza war in New York City yesterday:

Not in Our Name: New Yorkers rally against Israeli war in Gaza in lower Manhattan.

Anti-war protests have also been held in other cities throughout the world.

Indeed, many Jews oppose Israeli treatment of the Palestinians:

Postscript: Many devoutly religious Jews oppose Zionism.  So opposing an Israeli policy does not make anti-Semitic … or a “self-hating Jew“.

And we salute Israelis protesting against the war, especially since dissent may subject them to death threats.

La «soluzione» per Gaza

July 26th, 2014 by Manlio Dinucci

Il segretario-generale dell’Onu Ban Ki-moon, all’ombra del segretario di stato Usa John Kerry di cui apprezza il «dinamico impegno», sta cercando a Gerusalemme il modo di «porre fine alla crisi di Gaza». Sembra però ignorare che qualcuno l’ha già trovato. Il vicepresidente della Knesset, Moshe Feiglin, ha infatti presentato il piano per «una soluzione a Gaza».

Esso si articola in sette fasi. 1) L’ultimatum, dato alla «popolazione nemica», cui viene intimato di abbandonare le aree in cui si trovano i combattenti di Hamas, «trasferendosi nel Sinai non lontano da Gaza». 2) L’attacco, sferrato dalle forze armate israeliane «attraverso tutta Gaza con la massima forza (e non con una sua minuscola frazione)», colpendo tutti gli obiettivi militari e infrastrutturali «senza alcuna considerazione per gli scudi umani e i danni ambientali». 3)  L’assedio, simultaneo all’attacco, così che «niente possa entrare a Gaza o uscire da Gaza». 4)  La difesa, per «colpire con la piena forza e senza considerazione per gli scudi umani» qualsiasi luogo da cui sia partito un attacco a Israele o alle sue forze armate. 5) La conquista, attuata dalle forze armate israeliane che, dopo aver «ammorbidito» gli obiettivi con la loro potenza di fuoco, «conquisteranno l’intera Gaza, usando tutti i mezzi necessari per minimizzare qualsiasi danno ai nostri soldati, senza alcun’altra considerazione». 6) L’eliminazione, attuata dalle forze armate israeliane, che «annienteranno a Gaza tutti i nemici armati» e «tratteranno in accordo col diritto internazionale la popolazione nemica che non ha commesso malefatti e si è separata dai terroristi armati, alla quale sarà permesso di lasciare Gaza». 7) La sovranità su Gaza, «che diverrà per sempre parte di Israele e sarà popolata da ebrei», contribuendo ad «alleviare la crisi abitativa in Israele». Agli abitanti arabi, che «secondo i sondaggi desiderano per la maggior parte lasciare Gaza», sarà offerto «un generoso aiuto per l’emigrazione internazionale», che verrà però concesso solo a «quelli non coinvolti in attività anti-israeliane». Gli arabi che sceglieranno di restare a Gaza riceveranno un permesso di soggiorno in Israele e, dopo un certo numero di anni, «coloro che accettano il dominio, le regole e il modo di vita dello Stato ebraico sulla propria terra» potranno divenire cittadini israeliani.

Questo piano non è frutto della mente di un singolo fanatico, ma di un uomo politico che sta raccogliendo crescenti consensi in Israele. Moshe Feiglin è il capo della Manhigut Yehudit (Leadership ebraica), la maggiore fazione all’interno del Comitato centrale del Likud, ossia del partito di governo. Nell’elezione della leadership del Likud nel 2012, ha corso contro Netanyahu, ottenendo il 23% dei voti. Da allora la sua ascesa è continuata, tanto che in luglio ha aggiunto alla carica di vicepresidente della Knesset quella di membro della influente Commissione affari esteri e difesa.

Esaminando il piano che Feiglin  sta attivamente promovendo, sia in Israele che all’estero (soprattutto negli Stati uniti e in Canada), si vede che l’attuale operazione militare israeliana contro Gaza comprende quasi per intero le prime quattro delle sette fasi previste. Sotto questa luce, si capisce che la rimozione dei coloni israeliani da Gaza nel 2005 aveva lo scopo di lasciare alle forze armate mano libera nell’operazione «Piombo fuso» del 2008/2009. Si capisce che l’attuale operazione «Margine difensivo» non è contingente ma, come le altre, parte organica di un preciso piano (sostenuto per lo meno da una consistente parte del Likud) per occupare permanentemente e colonizzare Gaza, espellendo la popolazione palestinese. E sicuramente Feiglin ha già pronto anche il piano per «una soluzione in Cisgiordania ».

Manlio Dinucci

Of relevance to today’s unfolding World crisis is an article written a few days after the September 11, 2001 attacks by Edward S. Herman, Professor Emeritus of Finance, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania. The article was published  by GR on 15 September 2001. 

One of the most durable features of the U.S. culture is the inability or refusal to recognize U.S. crimes. The media have long been calling for the Japanese and Germans to admit guilt, apologize, and pay reparations. But the idea that this country has committed huge crimes, and that current events such as the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks may be rooted in responses to those crimes, is close to inadmissible. Editorializing on the recent attacks (“The National Defense,” Sept. 12 [2001]), the New York Times does give a bit of weight to the end of the Cold War and consequent “resurgent of ethnic hatreds,” but that the United States and other NATO powers contributed to that resurgence by their own actions (e.g., helping dismantle the Soviet Union and pressing Russian “reform”; positively encouraging Slovenian and Croatian exit from Yugoslavia and the breakup of that state, and without dealing with the problem of stranded minorities, etc.) is completely unrecognized.

The Times then goes on to blame terrorism on “religious fanaticism…the anger among those left behind by globalization,” and the “distaste of Western civilization and cultural values” among the global dispossessed. The blinders and self-deception in such a statement are truly mind-boggling. As if corporate globalization, pushed by the U.S. government and its closest allies, with the help of the World Trade Organization, World Bank and IMF, had not unleashed a tremendous immiseration process on the Third World, with budget cuts and import devastation of artisans and small farmers. Many of these hundreds of millions of losers are quite aware of the role of the United States in this process. It is the U.S. public who by and large have been kept in the dark.

Vast numbers have also suffered from U.S. policies of supporting rightwing rule and state terrorism, in the interest of combating “nationalistic regimes maintained in large part by appeals to the masses” and threatening to respond to “an increasing popular demand for immediate improvement in the low living standards of the masses,” as fearfully expressed in a 1954 National Security Council report, whose contents were never found to be “news fit to print.” In connection with such policies, in the U.S. sphere of influence a dozen National Security States came into existence in the 1960s and 1970s, and as Noam Chomsky and I reported back in 1979, of 35 countries using torture on an administrative basis in the late 1970s, 26 were clients of the United States. The idea that many of those torture victims and their families, and the families of the thousands of “disappeared” in Latin America in the 1960s through the 1980s, may have harbored some ill-feelings toward the United States remains unthinkable to U.S. commentators.

During the Vietnam war the United States used its enormous military power to try to install in South Vietnam a minority government of U.S. choice, with its military operations based on the knowledge that the people there were the enemy. This country killed millions and left Vietnam (and the rest of Indochina) devastated. A Wall Street Journal report in 1997 estimated that perhaps 500,000 children in Vietnam suffer from serious birth defects resulting from the U.S. use of chemical weapons there. Here again there could be a great many people with well-grounded hostile feelings toward the United States.

The same is true of millions in southern Africa, where the United States supported Savimbi in Angola and carried out a policy of “constructive engagement” with apartheid South Africa as it carried out a huge cross-border terroristic operation against the frontline states in the 1970s and 1980s, with enormous casualties. U.S. support of “our kind of guy” Suharto as he killed and stole at home and in East Timor, and its long warm relation with Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos, also may have generated a great deal of hostility toward this country among the numerous victims.

Iranians may remember that the United States installed the Shah as an amenable dictator in 1953, trained his secret services in “methods of interrogation,” and lauded him as he ran his regime of torture; and they surely remember that the United States supported Saddam Hussein all through the 1980s as he carried out his war with them, and turned a blind eye to his use of chemical weapons against the enemy state. Their civilian airliner 655 that was destroyed in 1988, killing 290 people, was downed by a U.S. warship engaged in helping Saddam Hussein fight his war with Iran. Many Iranians may know that the commander of that ship was given a Legion of Merit award in 1990 for his “outstanding service” (but readers of the New York Times would not know this as the paper has never mentioned this high level commendation).

The Iraqis then had their turn. Saddam moved from valued ally in the 1980s, whose use of “weapons of mass destruction” against Iran and the Iraqi Kurds caused no problem at all with his U.S. and British friends, to “another Hitler” upon his invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Suddenly his possession of “weapons of mass destruction” became an extremely urgent matter as the man had demonstrated an inability to follow orders. The war and “sanctions of mass destruction” that followed have killed more than a million Iraqis, and in the well-know words of Madeleine Albright, questioned on whether the death of 500,000 Iraqi children was justified by the U.S. policy ends, replied, “it is worth it.” No doubt, but an objective observer would recognize that there may be many Iraqis who feel with some justification that the United States is an evil force.

The unbending U.S. backing for Israel as that country has carried out a long-term policy of expropriating Palestinian land in a major ethnic cleansing process, has produced two intifadas– uprisings reflecting the desperation of an oppressed people. But these uprisings and this fight for elementary rights have had no constructive consequences because the United States gives the ethnic cleanser arms, diplomatic protection, and carte blanche as regards policy.

All of these victims may well have a distaste for “Western civilization and cultural values,” but that is because they recognize that these include the ruthless imposition of a neoliberal regime that serves Western transnational corporate interests, along with a willingness to use unlimited force to achieve Western ends. This is genuine imperialism, sometimes using economic coercion alone, sometimes supplementing it with violence, but with many millions–perhaps even billions–of people “unworthy victims.” The Times editors do not recognize this, or at least do not admit it, because they are spokespersons for an imperialism that is riding high and whose principals are prepared to change its policies. This bodes ill for the future. But it is of great importance right now to stress the fact that imperial terrorism inevitably produces retail terrorist responses; that the urgent need is the curbing of the causal force, which is the rampaging empire.

MH17: Sacrificed Airliner. “The New Cold War”

July 26th, 2014 by Andre Vltchek

The special train carrying refrigerated corpses from the MH17 catastrophe has left the station of Torez, just a few miles from the crash site. People, who died a terrible death onboard the Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777-200, will soon be reunited with their grieving families. They will receive a proper funeral, and will be laid to rest in the Netherlands, Malaysia and several other countries. They are on their way home, at last.

The Ukrainian rebels handed over the black boxes to international authorities. The investigation can begin. It hopefully will begin, unobstructed by political maneuvering.

Will the Empire allow the investigation to follow its course? The Western propaganda machine is in full gear. The twisting of facts, obscuring of evidence, and maneuvering public opinion all over the world: all this is being done with determination and routinely applied precision.

So much is at stake! Increasing cooperation between Russia, Latin America and China could mean the end of Western neo-colonial control of the world. The creation of alternatives to the World Bank can free billions of human beings from market feudalism and its slavery. Powerful news organizations broadcasting from Russia (RT), Venezuela (TeleSur) and Iran (Press TV) are consistently breaking the depressing and nihilistic monopoly of Western propaganda and control of people’s brains all over the world.

The more liberating these trends and waves are for the world, the more panic there is in Washington, London and Paris, but also on Wall Street and in the City, as well as in the newsrooms of the corporate media.

The West is terrified. Its ‘exceptionalism’, tremendous profits from controlling everything that moves on this planet, the kick of being in charge and holding the whip, all this can disappear if these waves of resistance are not reversed!

And the villains are damned Russia and Putin, who is refusing to yield. Putin is despicable, and a real nuisance in the eyes of the Empire, because he is unwilling to sacrifice, or to destroy his own country as Yeltsin had done two decades earlier. The villains are also those bloody Chinese, because they are sticking to their ideals, to socialism the Chinese way, while lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. The other villains are those bastards from Latin America, with their big dreams and humanism, their revolutions and sudden refusal to sacrifice their own people for the wellbeing of the Western elites.

And all of them – these three disobedient parts of the world, three cohorts – are now getting closer and closer together, forging an as yet undefined alliance, but an alliance nevertheless, increasing cooperation, signing treaties, creating alternative organizations, and saying “No!” to the world order. And more countries are looking at all this with hope; more are joining the club of the free. Not absolutely free, but free from Western colonial terror, which is now perhaps the worst kind of terror that exists on this planet (including those horrid derivates of the regime, implanted all over the planet).

To fight these dissident nations openly, to do it on ideological or moral grounds, is impossible. They would most certainly not lose! By now it should be too obvious, it should be too clear who is on the ‘right and wrong sides of history’.

Therefore, the “smear” is the only way for the Empire to advance its destructive cause. Or at least it is the most effective way. The good old way of discrediting one’s enemy, was by dragging him through filth, by turning his achievements into failures, his heroic resistance into hideous crimes. The Brits perfected this, ruling their colonies for centuries, by deceit and perverse philosophical concepts. The German Nazis were fairly effective as well.

The way it stands, there is nothing good that Russia can do. There is nothing decent about China (it is Communist when it suits Western propaganda or ‘more capitalist than traditionally capitalist countries are’, when it fits the bill). Venezuela with its direct democracy is dictatorial. And so on.

And now the plane… The second Malaysian Boeing 777 lost in one single year… Both belonged to one of the best airlines on earth, with a great maintenance record for its equipment! Strange, very strange… But Russia is certainly to blame. Because the President of the United States said so, because the British PM said so… No proof is needed. The Western public is extremely obedient.

Now the bodies are going! From a small Torez station, they are going home, wrapped in bags.

They are victims of something that many decent people all over the world are even afraid to formulate in their minds.

The area of Eastern Ukraine that they – the corpses – are now leaving, is full of local victims, too – those civilian victims of ethnic cleansing, whose only fault is that their maternal tongue happened to be Russian, or that they do not or cannot live in a country run by the pro-Western fascist dictatorship of the ‘Chocolate King’, Poroshenko, and his gangsters.

Now civilians are dying, every day. That does not bother the Western regime. Killing the rebels, their families and neighbors, is encouraged. Burning people in Odessa, burning them alive, is not even criticized in the lackey corporate media. The entire debate and coverage of events has become grotesque and sick.

More then 100,000 people have recently crossed into Russia, seeking refuge from Ukrainian bombers and rockets, or perhaps more, most likely much more.

Russian lives do not count. Asian lives do not count. African lives do not count. Middle Eastern lives do not count. The lives of Latin Americans do not count. That is why the West so freely and without hesitation has murdered tens of millions of ‘unpeople’, for decades and centuries.

The formula is simple: Dutch tourists do count. Ukrainian villagers don’t. It was quite similar during Nazi control of Europe.

***

Right after the tragedy, the legendary thinker and Chief Editor of “The Greanville Post”, Patrice Greanville, summarized the events and predicted what is coming. He did it with deadly accuracy:

The US TV networks —the West’s Ministry of Truth organs—and other media have been blabbering almost nonstop for the past few hours about the Malaysian airliner down in Ukraine.

In the early reports on CBS, ABC, etc., I perceive a marked tendency to suggest “Russia or her proxies did it”, in this case also involving the “Pro-Russia separatists” in East Ukraine, who supposedly “have been shooting at planes” (the implication is indiscriminately) in their struggle against Kiev’s all-out military offensive.

As you probably agree, this is either an outright blatant provocation by the West, or a direct result of Washington’s criminal policies in Ukraine.

It’s easy to determine several scenarios in varying degrees of plausibility and culpability. While it’s plausible the plane was shot down by Eastern Ukraine separatists, it’s also obvious they (and Russia) have little to gain from such an act. So at worst, it can be argued it was simply an error on their part.

Indeed, if the plane was shot down by a missile, it could have been fired accidentally by the East Ukraine rebels—perfectly understandable given the horrible pounding they’ve been taking by Kiev’s air force, etc.

The second type of suspect involves not error but direct intention and therefore complete culpability. Here the lineup is clear, as the shot could have come from Kievan forces in the region, seeking to heighten tensions as per script, or a third party working for the West…

As usual, the larger context, that the US is the principal and very real meta-cause of this tragedy, will be lost to most in America

Welcome to the new, even higher stakes Cold War, courtesy of the usual bastards in Washington, and their accomplices around the world.

The problem for us now is how to counter the inevitable propaganda wave sure to follow. Brace yourselves for the barrage of hypocrisy and sanctimonious accusations to pour out of Washington’s mouthpieces.”

All this was happening while I was working in Cambodia, trying to counter another fully perverse narrative manufactured by the West in this tortured country, several decades ago.

I met my friend, a fellow war correspondent, Andrew Marshall, and asked him, theoretically, about the coverage of similar events. Andrew is the former head of Reuters in Iraq, who later resigned from the agency because it refused to publish his critical findings about the Thai establishment and its ‘elites’ (I will be soon publishing my full interview with him). He offered his thoughts on the issue of the downed passenger jet. The point he was making: whatever the answer to ‘The question’ is (who is responsible for the act itself?), it does not change the wider geopolitical and ethical issue:

There is a tendency in the 21st century World of 24-hour rolling news coverage to overemphasize and dramatize individual incidents in a conflict, subjecting them to intense coverage, while at the same time failing to analyze the underlying causes and patterns of conflict. The task of analyses is to focus on the “signal”, not the “noise”, but most modern media do the opposite. It’s also clearly true that powerful global interests seek to control the narrative by staging events to drown out the signal with noise. Some opponents of this strategy seek to create their own “noise”, trying to undermine the dominant narrative. In many instances it is justified, but a focus on the noise rather than signal can be counterproductive.

For example, I believe the overwhelming evidence of what happened on 9/11 is that men associated with Al Qaeda flew planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. This was then exploited by the United States to justify a disastrous “war on terror” in the Muslim world.

The modern news media seize on incidents such as MH17, or 9/11, to exemplify a wider struggle. But in fact, in conflict, all sides tend to commit atrocities sometimes, and all sides make mistakes. In any conflict, innocents on all sides, and innocents unconnected with any side, routinely suffer. This is tragic. But sensible analysts need to avoid conflating the horror and blame of specific incidents within a conflict with the overall moral calculus of the conflict. The two are totally unconnected.”

***

Soon, things began to crystalize. As Western propaganda howling reached a crescendo, I contacted another trusted source, Sergei Kirichuk, the leader of the ‘Borodba’ movement, an influential left-wing organization in Ukraine, which is fully opposed to the Kiev junta, but at the same time maintains its independence, and cannot be defined as fully ‘pro-Russian’. He replied at length, and I have translated most of his quote for this essay:

Without any doubt, the tragedy of the Malaysian airliner has become the most significant political event of the last few years. The tragic death of innocent people shook public opinion in Ukraine and in the entire world. Unfortunately, the circumstances of the tragedy and the information related to it, offers more questions than answers. First, and the most important question, is how did a passenger airliner happen to be in the epicenter of the military conflict? In all those days leading to the tragedy, the mass media was carrying stories about attempts by the insurgents (both successful and unsuccessful attempts) to down airplanes belonging to the Ukrainian military. Earlier it was announced that the airspace was declared closed for civilian aviation. Besides, MH17 deviated significantly from its usual flight path; routinely it was flying more to the south. Answers to these questions should be given through an international investigation.

The second important question is based on the claim by the Ukrainian security services, related to some “intercepted communication of the terrorists”, that the ‘terrorists’ were the ones who downed the plane. This communication appears to be a clear fabrication, fake, but were it to be genuine, it would provoke even more questions towards the Ukrainian security services: would it mean that they were able to monitor the communications of their adversaries, were familiar with their plans, but did nothing to prevent the tragedy?

The most terrible thing is that the tragedy of innocent people who lost their lives is being used by Ukrainian mass media as some sort of justification for the loss of lives of the civilian population in Donbas. The onslaught of the Government forces began with renewed zeal, not caring at all, anymore, about the losses among the armed forces or civilian population.

Besides that, pro-NATO elements now believe that there is solid justification for the invasion of Ukraine by Western forces…”

***

But a leading international lawyer, Christopher Black (he has investigated genocides and crimes against humanity all over the world), based in Toronto, Canada, went even further, and declared in a letter to me:

The downing of the Malaysian airliner was either an accident by the Kiev forces or the anti-fascist forces of the Donetsk Republic, in each instance targeting the plane because they thought that it was a military and therefore a legitimate target, or it was a deliberate attack on a known civilian aircraft.  If it was deliberate then it is a case of mass murder and a war crime since it took place in the midst of hostilities. I wouldn’t call it an act of terrorism as some have said as an act of terrorism is designed to create fear and panic in a population. Clearly those who downed the plane had other motives than creating fear and panic among civilians.

Many writers over the past few days have commented that neither the DPR forces nor Russia had either the equipment in place to hit neither the plane nor the motive to deliberately shoot it down. But there is strong circumstantial evidence that the forces of the Kiev regime had the means, the opportunity and the motive. They had the equipment and engaged in very suspicious actions; they had BUK anti-aircraft systems in place for unknown reasons since the DPR forces have no aircraft, the Ukraine Air Traffic Control ordered the plane’s crew to divert from the regular more southerly route to go north over the combat zone, a Ukraine jet fighter was recorded by Russian radar climbing rapidly towards it just before it went down, and, within minutes of the crash, it was the Kiev regime and its masters in Washington and London who cried loudly that it was the DPR and Russians who were to blame without a shred of evidence to support the claim. And now we know that the Ukraine SBU immediately seized the ATC radar tapes and do not appear to have handed them over to international investigators.

Kiev and Washington also had the motive: to smear Russia and the anti-fascist forces and to provoke the EU to abandon its political and economic relations with Russia. It does not take a Hercule Poirot or Sherlock Holmes to conclude the most likely suspects are in Kiev and Washington not in Donetsk and Moscow.

President Putin has insisted on an objective international investigation since the news broke while President Obama and his minions in Kiev have done nothing but call for the head of Putin.  History shows that President Putin has insisted on adherence to international law and civilized behavior consistently throughout his terms in office. His integrity is unquestioned, whereas President Obama has been consistent in his calls for war, war and more war in every region of the globe and insists that the Americans are “exceptional” and above the law and judgment.

It may be that the results of an independent investigation of this tragic and terrible event will have consequences for the United States that are beyond its imaginings and that will erase any remaining influence or credit that it may still have in the world. They have committed many crimes. This may be the one crime too many.”

***

The presentation of logical arguments and proof, by Moscow, by the rebels, and even by some dissidents inside the Western regime, has not changed the dogged and extremist position of the Empire. But why should it, really, if the entire scenario had been, most likely, manufactured (or at least manipulated) by the neo-con mafia in Washington and by their counterparts in European capitals?

At some point, The Wall Street Journal reported in its article, “Russia Presents Its Account of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 Crash,” and it was refreshing that at least some quotes ‘from the other side’ were able to make it into the mainstream Western media:

Russia’s Defense Ministry on Monday presented its first detailed account of the final moments of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, saying Russian radar had spotted a second aircraft in the vicinity shortly before the crash and that satellite imagery showed Ukraine had moved missile systems into the area before the incident.

At a news conference, air force chief Igor Makushev didn’t say who the ministry thought had fired the missile that apparently brought down the airliner on Thursday.

In an elaborate presentation displaying radar and satellite imagery, Mr. Makushev said it was likely that the second airplane was a Ukrainian fighter jet. He also showed satellite photos allegedly portraying several Buk ground-to-air missile systems in the area close to where the plane crashed. The systems, he said, could only belong to the Ukrainian military. Ukraine has accused Russia of giving the rebels a Buk system, with which they then shot down the passenger jet.

Mr. Makushev said the airplane deviated from its course by 14 kilometers, but then attempted to return to its course, before crashing shortly after.

He said Russia is prepared to hand all of the information it has to European authorities, which included satellite imagery and data from its own radars.”

***

But there was much more to it – proof after proof painstakingly put together by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation. And one is only left to wonder how many ‘objective’ and ‘well-informed’ European and US citizens ever read these accounts.

It is becoming clear and obvious, that even at the height of the so called Cold-War, citizens of the Soviet Union, even countries like Romania, were much better informed and knew more about the lines of thought of their adversaries, than the arrogant and thoroughly brainwashed Westerners now know about the points made by the people in the countries designated as their enemies.

But back to the Russian response:

The Wall Street Journal was referring to what occurred on July 21, 2014, at a Special Briefing by the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation on the crash of the Malaysian Boeing 777 in Ukrainian air space, the speech was given by the Deputy Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, Lieutenant-General A.V. Kartapolov. For those who are interested in what Russia has to say, these briefings are indispensable.

I worked for several hours, on improving the original translation, while trying to keep the original tone in which this was presented.

General Kartapolov argued that:

After the Malaysia Airlines Boeing-777 accident on July 17, studying the international flight-plan for, Amsterdam – Kuala Lumpur, we can find a quantity of conflicting information. In this case, the Russian Federation Ministry of

Defense considers it necessary to submit the information which is at the General Staff’s disposal. On the scheme you can see the international flight-path. The

Boeing-777 was supposed to fly on this flight-path. Draw your attention to the fact that the aircraft was flying inside the specified air corridor to Donetsk, but then it deviated north from the route. Meanwhile the maximum distance from the left border of the air corridor was 14 kilometers.

Then we can see that the Boeing-777 turned back to the borders of the specified air corridor. Nevertheless, the Malaysian aircrew didn’t perform the maneuver successfully. At 17.20 the aircraft began registering a rate reduction, at 17.23 the aircraft’s point blinked off on the radar. Why did the aircraft cross the border of the air corridor? Was it a navigation mistake, or the aircrew following the Dnepropetrovsk ground control orders? We will find out the answers after the decoding of the “black boxes” and communications. According to our information on the day of the accident, the Ukrainian Armed Forces deployed 3 to 4 artillery batteries of Buk-M1 missile systems not far from Donetsk. The system can hit targets at a distance of up to 35 kilometers, and at an altitude, up to 22 kilometers. Why did the Ukrainian Armed Forces deploy these air defense units in the Donetsk region? As we know militants don’t have any aircraft.

On the scheme we can see that both the projected impact point and the flight-path are inside the air defense battle zone of the Ukrainian Armed Forces’ Buk-M1 missile system. We have satellite photos of the Ukrainian Air Defense systems deployed in the Southeast of the country.”

Then the photos of the Buk are shown, near Luhansk and Donetsk. The first three photos are dated July 14, 2014. There are photos from that day to the day of the accident: launchers, radar, all belonging to the Ukrainian military.

After the painstaking photo presentation, the General continued:

I want to expose the airspace situation in the Donetsk area that day. In the picture you can see the information of the objective air traffic control between 17.10 to 17.30 Moscow time.

During that period, there were 3 civilian aircraft:

Flight from Copenhagen to Singapore at 17.17;

Flight from Paris to Taipei at 17.24

Flight from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur… Beside it, the Russian system for air traffic control detected a Ukrainian Air Force aircraft, supposedly a Su-25, moving upwards towards the Malaysian Boeing-777. The distance between two aircraft was 3-5 kilometers.

The Su-25 can gain an altitude of 10,000 meters in a short time. It is armed with an air-to-air missile R-60, which is able to lock-on and destroy a target at a distance of 12 kilometers, and destroy it definitely at a distance of 5 kilometers. What was the mission of the combat aircraft, in the flight-path of civilian aircraft, almost at the same time and same altitude with the civilian craft? We want to have this question answered.

The video of the Rostov Aerial Center of the Joint Air Traffic Management

System can provide the information. The Chief of Staff of the Air

Force, Lieutenant-General Igor Makushev, will comment on the video.”

Then the Chief of Staff of the Air Force of the Russian Federation, Lieutenant-General I.Y. Makushev presents his arguments:

Today the aircraft Air Traffic Control has acquired some objective control materials from the Rostov Aerial Center of the Joint Air Traffic

Management System. The video presents the air control information on the airspace situation in the region of Donetsk in the period from 17.19 P.M. to 17.25P.M., Moscow time, on July 17, 2014. In the upper left corner there is a

Boeing-772 mark, as it was following the route from Copenhagen to Singapore. Under this dot, there is another aircraft – it is marked as Boeing-777, which is on its way from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur. And on its right there is a Boeing-778 mark making its way from Delhi to Birmingham. All these three aircraft have been steadily monitored by the three radar stations of the air traffic control of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation. The Boeing-777 is moving towards the Russian Federation state boundary, and is to cross it at the point of «TONAK». An air traffic control officer has been controlling the aircraft flight and keeps on enquiring for its flight variables to compare them with the given ones. At 17.20 P.M. at a distance of 51 kilometers from the Russian Federation state boundary and the azimuth of 3000 (degrees), the aircraft started to lose its speed inexplicably, which is to be seen quite distinctively on the table of the aircraft characteristics. At 17.21.35 (seconds) P.M. with the aircraft at a speed of 200 km/h, at the point of the Boeing crash, there is a new mark of an aircraft to be seen. The radar stations of Ust-Donetsk and Butirinskoe, during the 4 minute period, steadily monitored the aircraft. The Air Traffic Control officer, having enquired for the characteristics of newly appeared aircraft but couldn’t possibly get them, because it is in all likelihood that the aircraft had no secondary deduction system mounted on it, which is typical of military aircraft. The early detection of this aircraft appeared to be quite impossible because those radars work in a standby mode and usually perform the air situation control. Detection possibilities at the given distance are over 5000 m altitude.

The detection of the aircraft turned out to be possible as soon as the aircraft ascended.

The further aircraft flight variables changed. It was now flying in the area of the Boeing crash and was monitoring the situation. Earlier the Ukrainian officials reported that on the day of the Boeing-777 accident, there were no military aircraft flying in the region. So, as you can see, it does not appear to be true.

…We also have some questions for our US partners. According to the statement of the US representatives, they have some pictures from space supporting that the militants launched the missile. But nobody has seen these pictures.

According to our records from 17:06 till 17:21 Moscow time on the July 17 over the Southeastern territory of Ukraine, a US space satellite flew overhead. This is a special device of the experimental space system designed to detect and track various missile launches. If the US party has photos made by the satellite, please let us ask them to show them to world community for further investigation.

Is it a coincidence or not? However, the time of the Malaysian Boeing-777 accident and the time of the observation done by the satellite over the Ukrainian territory are the same. In conclusion, I would like to mention that all the concrete information is based on the objective and reliable data of the different Russian equipment, in contrast to the accusations of the US against us, made without any evidence. A good example of such facts is that some mass media showed the transportation of a Buk-M1 missile system from Ukrainian to Russian territory. We can clearly see that it is a frame-up. These pictures were taken in the city of Krasnoarmeisk, which is confirmed by a banner situated close to the road. This banner has an address of the car shop situated at No. 34, Dnepropetrovskaya Street. Since May 11th, the Krasnoarmeysk city has been under the control of the Ukrainian Armed Forces. That is why we have some questions. What kind of launching system is it? Where is it being transported? Where is it now? Why is it completely unloaded? What was the last time it launched missiles? To end my speech I would like to emphasize that the Russian Federation did not deliver any Buk-M1 missiles systems to the militants, and any other such equipment. All the data compiled by the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation will be transmitted today to the experts of the European countries and Malaysia…

The Ministry of Defense will continue to inform you about the newly revealed facts connected with the air disaster of Malaysian Boeing-777.

***

Now why on earth should we not believe this presentation, backed by facts, images and concrete analyses?

Western and Ukrainian lies are piling up: wobbly explanations or no explanations at all for change of 777’s course, lowering altitude, ‘bad weather’, and revealing testimony of the Spanish traffic controller working in Ukraine…

And why should we believe people like the current President of the United States, who openly bragged about US ‘exceptionalism’, at the military academy, which has been responsible for producing countless mass murderers?

And for the sake of objectivity, why would we not listen to the Russians, before imposing sanctions on them, for something that we are, most likely, responsible for, ourselves?

And although it is most likely that the pro-Western Ukrainian military shot down the plane, even if it were to be the other side that did it, the entire conflict began with the EU and the US destabilizing Ukraine, overthrowing the legitimate government, and igniting the war.

Angry Dutch families of the victims should stop pointing fingers at Russia. Instead they should go to Brussels and Washington to express their wrath and to demand justice.

***

And what about Malaysia and Indonesia? Indonesia lost 12 people on that ill-fated flight.

Most of the Southeast Asian countries are historically “client” states of the West, with hardly any independent, non-corporate media. Indonesia has been exactly that since the 1965 ‘events’. Malaysia, pushing for an independent course under Dr. Mahathir’s rule, is presently being lured by the US, which is trying to establish military bases there, or to at least gain access to existing Malaysian ones.

Suddenly, a great amount of US funding has been unleashed, to win over Malaysian intellectuals, some of the most shamefully subservient in the region. Several have already began departing for conferences, cultural exchanges and writer’s retreats, to destinations all over the United States, all expenses paid.

In Kuala Lumpur, there was deadly silence after the downing of MH17. Not one writer or filmmaker that I know and contacted wanted to go on record. One mistaken word and the entire rosy dream of Western ‘funding’ would go up in flames.

Only the official anti-Russian narrative was available.

Two filmmakers spoke, but off the record:

To be honest, Malaysians are completely out of touch with what’s happening or even with the political consequences of the ‘deal’ that our Prime Minister had made to bring the bodies back. No one has even questioned what the deal was. There is no discussion whatsoever, even in the educated circles as it’s taboo to even start talking about anything other than the people who died. All Malaysians care about is that it’s tragedy and that we should feel sad. But largely, Russia and Putin are the villains in the mind of Malaysians.”

In Indonesia, theories vary. Some are far, remote from the war in Ukraine.

Mr. Agus Suhartono, a former aeronautical engineer at PT. Dirgantara Indonesia, thinks that Malaysia has been punished for creating an alternative banking system for the Muslim world:

I think it is bit strange. How could a plane at an altitude of more than 30,000 ft be a mistaken missile target? At that altitude, the plane identification should be very clear. Whoever fired knew perfectly well what he was doing. The question should be why MAS (Malaysia Airlines) again? Did they rub somebody the wrong way? Why was Malaysia the target twice in a row? I think maybe because the financial turnover of the Arab world is centered in Kuala Lumpur. Malaysia is the gate. The sharia gate of the Arab financial world.”

New sanctions are being leveled against Russia. “Cold Warriors” in Canada, Australia, UK and US are back in their saddles, like Major Kong in the unforgettable film, “Dr. Strangelove, or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb”, they are ready to cover their skulls with cowboy hats, and stick A-bombs between their legs. Time to ‘go and bomb the Russkies’.

Arabs are not tough enough adversaries, and most of the Muslim world is now in ruins anyway, thanks to the ‘War on… ehm… terror’.

Russia and China are again blocking the West from fully controlling the world. ‘How dare they?’

The most frightening thing is the state of the self-righteousness and self-deception of the Western public. One wants to scream: Don’t they see? Do they refuse to see? Is it more comfortable not to see? How long are they going to pretend that they are blind? Or maybe they are blind…

After the MH17 tragedy and after the way it has been handled by the Western mass media, there is no doubt that we are back to the Cold War again. It is not just a war against Russia. The war is reflected in the arms race that is being accelerated by the US in Asia, from the revolting, racist anti-Chinese propaganda, and from the attempts to overthrow our socialist governments in Latin America.

We should never forget that Western imperialism murdered tens of millions of innocent people all over the world, after the Nagasaki ‘A-bomb’ and the official end of the WWII: all those crimes and horror to satisfy its unbridled obsession with controlling the world.

Tens of millions of lives already lost.

Why should they spare some 298 of those on MH17?

Andre Vltchek is a novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. The result is his latest book: Fighting Against Western Imperialism‘Pluto’ published his discussion with Noam Chomsky: On Western Terrorism. His critically acclaimed political novel Point of No Return is re-edited and available. Oceania is his book on Western imperialism in the South Pacific. His provocative book about post-Suharto Indonesia and the market-fundamentalist model is called “Indonesia – The Archipelago of Fear”. His feature documentary, “Rwanda Gambit” is about Rwandan history and the plunder of DR Congo. After living for many years in Latin America and Oceania, Vltchek presently resides and works in East Asia and Africa. He can be reached through his website or his Twitter.

In establishing who was behind the shooting down of MH17,  there are a number of central issues as well as factual evidence which cannot be overlooked:

.

.

1. Malaysian Airlines confirmed that the pilot was instructed to fly at a lower altitude by the Kiev air traffic control tower upon its entry into Ukraine airspace. (Malaysian Airlines MH17 Was Ordered to Fly over the East Ukraine Warzone)

2. The flight path was changed. We still don’t know who ordered it, but we know it was not Eurocontrol:

MH17 was diverted from the normal South Easterly route over the sea of Azov to a path over the Donetsk. Oblast. (The Flight Path of MH17 Was Changed. July 17 Plane Route was over the Ukraine Warzone)

According to Malaysian Airlines “The usual flight route [across the sea of Azov] was earlier declared safe by the International Civil Aviation Organisation. The International Air Transportation Association has stated that the airspace the aircraft was traversing was not subject to restrictions.”

The regular flight path of MH17 (and other international flights) over a period of ten days prior to July 17th ( day of the disaster), crossing Eastern Ukraine in a Southeasterly direction is across the Sea of Azov (click on the article link below to see the map). While the audio records of the MH17 flight have been confiscated by the Kiev government, the order to change the flight path did not come from Eurocontrol. Did this order to change the flight path come from the Ukrainian authorities? Was the pilot instructed to change course? (Malaysian Airlines MH17 Was Ordered to Fly over the East Ukraine Warzone)

3.  The presence of the Ukrainian military jet was confirmed by Spanish air traffic controller “Carlos” at Kiev Borispol airport shortly after the plane was shot down, as well as eyewitnesses in Donetsk. (How American Propaganda Works: “Guilt By Insinuation”, Spanish Air Controller @ Kiev Borispol Airport: Ukraine Military Shot Down Boeing MH#17

The Spanish air traffic controller documented the event on Twitter as it happened. He claimed it was not an accident, that the Ukrainian authorities shot down MH17 and were trying to “make it look like an attack by pro-Russians” . His Twitter account was closed down shortly after the tragedy. Although his account has yet to be fully corroborated, some of his claims have been confirmed by Malaysian Airlines and the Russian authorities.

There have been some reports to the effect the Spanish Air controller is fake and that the twitter message were sent out of London. Upon further investigation, the Spanish Air Controller conducted several media interviews in the last 2-3 months, see his interview with RT (Spanish Air Controller @ Kiev Borispol Airport: Ukraine Military Shot Down Boeing MH#17)

4. Russia has made available public radar and satellite imagery as evidence. Its images suggest the following:

a) Kiev’s regime deployed anti-air missile systems in Donetsk in and around the area where flight MH17 crashed.

b) An Ukrainian warplane SU-25 trailing flight MH17

c) the report pointed to the possibility of an air-to-air attack on MH17

d) the report also pointed to inconsistencies pertaining to the reports of the Ukrainian air traffic control

The Russian authorities did not come to any conclusion regarding who was to blame for shooting down the plane. (MH17 Show & Tell: It’s the West’s Turn – Russian Satellites and Radars Contradict West’s Baseless Claims)

5. The U.S., despite its global spying apparatus, has not shown any radar or satellite imagery to back its claim that Russia and the Eastern-Ukrainian opposition are responsible for the downing of MH17. The evidence it has presented so far is weak and based on pro-Kiev documents consisting of YouTube videos and various social media – “all of which are admittedly unverifiable and some of which is veritably fabricated.”:

Is US intelligence simply reading blogs? Or are the blogs somehow a clearinghouse of US intelligence? Or are the blogs fabrications by US intelligence in an attempt to frame Russia? One in particular, “Ukraine at War,” is a definitive collection of fabrications, biased propaganda, and dubious claims that appear to precede “US intelligence” claims. (Assigning Blame to East Ukraine Rebels: US Appeals to “Law of the Jungle” in MH17 Case)

6. “The Russian Defense Ministry pointed out that at the moment of destruction of MH-17 an American satellite was flying over the area”:

The Russian government urges Washington to make available the photos and data captured by the satellite.(How American Propaganda Works: “Guilt By Insinuation”)

7. A U.S. intelligence source claimed the “U.S. intelligence agencies do have detailed satellite images of the likely missile battery that launched the fateful missile, but the battery appears to have been under the control of Ukrainian government troops dressed in what look like Ukrainian uniforms”. These images could confirm the evidence presented by Russia to the effect that Kiev’s regime deployed anti-air missile systems in Donetsk in and around the area where flight MH17 crashed. (Fact number 4, Whistleblower: U.S. Satellite Images Show Ukrainian Troops Shooting Down MH17)

8. Russia called for an expert independent investigation:

President Putin has repeatedly stressed that the investigation of MH-17 requires “a fully representative group of experts to be working at the site under the guidance of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).”  Putin’s call for an independent expert examination by ICAO does not sound like a person with anything to hide. (How American Propaganda Works: “Guilt By Insinuation”)

9. The U.S. claimed, without evidence, but “with confidence” that Russia was involved:

[On  July 20, the US Secretary of State, John Kerry confirmed that pro-Russian separatists were involved in the downing of the Malaysian airliner and said that it was “pretty clear” that Russia was involved. Here are Kerry’s words:  “It’s pretty clear that this is a system that was transferred from Russia into the hands of separatists. We know with confidence, with confidence, that the Ukrainians did not have such a system anywhere near the vicinity at that point and time, so it obviously points a very clear finger at the separatists.” (Ibid.)

10. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry's statement above regarding Russian involvement is contradicted by the Russian satellite photos and numerous eye witnesses on the ground. (Ibid.)

11. US intelligence officials said there is no evidence of the Russian government’s involvement, also contradicting John Kerry's statement above. (US Intelligence on Malaysian Flight MH17: Russia Didn’t Do It. “US Satellite Photos do not Support Obama’s Lies”, The author refers to this news item by the Associated Press: US INTELLIGENCE: No 'Direct' Russian Involvement In Downing Of MH17)

12. A few hours after the crash, Kiev authorities presented a video in which the opposition admitted shooting down the plane. Experts who studied the video concluded that it was a fabrication:

“The tape’s second fragment consists of three pieces but was presented as a single audio recording. However, a spectral and time analysis has showed that the dialog was cut into pieces and then assembled. Short pauses in the tape are very indicative: the audio file has preserved time marks which show that the dialog was assembled from various episodes.” (Ibid.)

 The encoding of the video file shows it was created on July 16, the day before the plane was shot down. This information remains to be confirmed, but if it is accurate, it would mean that the Ukrainian authorities shot the plane down and fabricated evidence to frame the opposition (Did Ukraine Fabricate Evidence to Frame Russia for MH17 Shoot Down?, How American Propaganda Works: “Guilt By Insinuation”)

13. John Kerry “referred to a video that the Ukrainians have made public showing an SA-11 unit heading back to Russia after the downing of the plane with 'a missing missile or so.'” The video was “posted on the Facebook account of the Ukrainian Interior Minister.”According to numerous sources the video was “taken in or near Krasnoarmeisk”, a town under Kiev's control since May and located “ 120 kilometers from the Russian border and 80 kilometers from where the Malaysian Boeing 777 crashed”:

At least one other clip of the “Russian Buk” that has been made available also suggests that the Ukrainians are showing their own equipment. I’m still working on researching that one for you. (Key Piece of Video “Evidence” for Russian Responsibility for Malaysian Plane Shootdown Debunked)

14. Ukrainian Prosecutor-General Vitaly Yarema said the Ukrainian opposition did not possess a Buk missile system:

“Ukrainian Interior Minister Anton Gerashchenko said on July 17 that the Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 airliner had been downed by the Buk missile system...Ukrainian Prosecutor-General Vitaly Yarema told Ukrainian Pravda newspaper on Friday: 'After the passenger airliner was downed, the military reported to the president that terrorists do not have our air defense missile systems Buk and S-300... These weapons were not seized'” (Militias Do Not Have Ukrainian Buk Missile System — Ukraine General Prosecutor)

15. The MH17 incident is used to wage economic war against Russia. Sanctions imposed in the wake of the event, without any evidence of Russian implication, are used to weaken the ruble and destabilize the Russian Monetary system. (The Malaysian Airlines MH17 Crash: Financial Warfare --against Russia, Multibillion Dollar Bonanza for Wall Street)

16. In 1962, the U.S. Joint Chief of Staff planned Operation Northwoods, a secret "false flag operation" (declassified) in which a civilian airliner was to be shot down and blamed on the Cuban government. The objective was to manufacture a pretext to wage war on Cuba. (The Implementation of Operations Northwoods was turned down by President John F. Kennedy).

The downing of MH17 and the reaction of the US authorities and media bear strong similarities with the scenario depicted in Operation Northwoods, according to author R. Teichmann:

"Among other things the document proposed the following. I [Teichman] have inserted in bold (in parenthesis) my comments to illustrate why the MH-17 incident could be a re-run of the proposed Operation Northwoods:

It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft  (a BuK Anti-Aircraft missile system supplied by Russia to the ‘Separatists” in eastern Ukraine) has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner (Malaysian Airlines MH-17) en route from the United States (Amsterdam, Schipol airport) to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama, or Venezuela (Kuala Lumpur) .

It is possible to create an incident which will make it appear that Communist Cuban MIGs (Eastern Ukraine ‘Separatists’) have destroyed a USAF aircraft (Malaysian passenger aircraft) over international waters (their territory) in an unprovoked attack. (Framing Russia? Fabricating a Pretext to Wage War: Flight MH-17 and “Operation Northwoods”)

On July 21 the Russian Ministry of Defense held a briefing and displayed the data to prove the fact that a number of Ukrainian Buk-M1 air defense systems were deployed in the vicinity of Donetsk at the time of Malaysian aircraft disaster. The 9С18 «Kupol» radar activities were especially intensive.

It became known that a Ukrainian Su-25 was scrambled to accompany the airliner.  The Russian system of air control detected the Ukrainian Air Force aircraft, supposedly the Su-25, ascending to the level of Malaysian Boeing-777. The distance between the aircraft was 3-5 kilometers. The Su-25 specifications allow it to fly at the altitude of 10000 meters for a short period of time. The plane is armed with air-to-air missile R-60 with a range of 12 kilometers, the operational range to make a sure hit is 5 kilometers. Why did the combat aircraft have to get up and fly along the civilian aviation route – that is the question to make clear.

Kiev has nothing to say. Of course, Poroshenko said it was not true, there were no Ukrainian military planes scrambled at the time. He could not say anything substantial and in detail. The Ukrainian military makes no comment. It is becoming more evident that Kiev obstructs the investigation.

Washington dodged the discussion. Marie Harf, Deputy Spokesperson for State Department, said, 

“Well, a couple points. You saw the Secretary yesterday speak very clearly about our assessment that this was an SA-11 fired from Russian-backed, separatist-controlled territory; that we know – we saw in social media afterwards, we saw videos, we saw photos of the pro-Russian separatists bragging about shooting down an aircraft that then they then – they then – they then – excuse me – took down once it became clear that it may have been a passenger airline. There is a preponderance of evidence at this point both sort of out there in the public domain and also from our information that points to the fact that there was a SA-11 launched from separatist-controlled territory. We assess, of course, that the Russian-backed separatists have this system, and one of the main reasons we have called for a full investigation is so we can get all the facts out there. So what I encourage the Russians to do at this point is to push the separatists that are backed by their government to allow access, to allow investigators who are in Ukraine waiting to go into that area right now, and that’s what I would call on Russia to do at this point.”

What evidence is the Unites States talking about and why it’s not made public – that’s what’s hard to explain? The Russian Ministry of Defense has offered the US Defense Department to exchange the available data related to the accident.

The Chief of the Main Operations Directorate – the Deputy Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation Lieutenant-General A. Kartapolov said that, according to Russian estimates, an American satellite crossed the south-eastern Ukraine at the time of the tragedy. He said it was flying right over the crash zone at the time of the disaster, so it should made the images available to substantiate or refute the accusations that the missile that allegedly downed the plane was fired from the militia-controlled area. “According to our estimates, a US spacecraft, part of an experimental space system intended to detect and track launches of various types of rockets, was flying above southeastern Ukraine from 5:06 p.m. to 5:21 p.m. [Moscow time, from 13:06 to 13:21 GMT] on July 17,»Kartapolov said. «Accidentally or not, the time of the Boeing crash and the period of satellite surveillance of the territory of Ukraine coincide», he pointed out. «If the US has images made by this satellite, we ask to hand them over to the international community for a detailed study», the Russian military official said.

There is only one explanation. The information provided by Russian Ministry of Defense proves that the Ukrainian military could have shot the airliner. Moscow knows Washington has data which testifies to it.

Making public the fact that a US satellite with the operational capabilities enabling it to provide the needed imagery was hovering over the place of the crash has driven Washington to the wall. At the same time Moscow displayed its technical capability to trace the space objects checking the US affirmations about the evidence produced in relation to the disaster.

Some US journalists who are dry behind the ears start to ask the State Department awkward questions. For instance, Robert Parry reasonably asks why the US satellite imagery obtained while flying over Ukraine has not been made public? «Why hasn’t this question of U.S. spy-in-the-sky photos – and what they reveal – been pressed by the major U.S. news media?» he asks. Quoting the US reporters he notes that the verbs they use never means they are really definite about what they say. As Parry puts it, «We do believe they were trying to move back into Russia at least three Buk [missile launch] systems, the official said. U.S. intelligence was ‘starting to get «indications … a little more than a week ago’ that the Russian launchers had been moved into Ukraine, said the official» whose identity was withheld by the Post so the official would discuss intelligence matters. But catch the curious vagueness of the official’s wording: «we do believe»; «starting to get indications.» Are we supposed to believe – and perhaps more relevant, do the Washington Post writers actually believe – that the U.S. government with the world’s premier intelligence services can’t track three lumbering trucks each carrying large mid-range missiles?»

On July 22 the US intelligence officials failed to confirm whatever they had said about the reasons, the chain of events and the perpetrators. Instead of producing imagery or any other evidence the U.S. intelligence officials, who included experts on Russia’s military and its relationship with separatists in Ukraine, said they do not know the identities or even the nationalities — whether Russian or possibly defectors from Ukraine’s military — of those who launched the missile from an SA-11 surface-to-air battery. Nor have U.S. spy agencies reached any conclusions on the motive for the attack, except to say that the reaction among separatists recorded on social media indicates they believed they were targeting a Ukrainian military transport plane.

They say there is no evidence Russia had any relation to what happened, no proof there was Russian military personnel at the place of air defense systems’ location, there is no evidence to corroborate the fact that Russia trained the self-defense forces’ personnel to handle the Buk surface-to-air system. The US intelligence had not detected any movement of Buk systems across the Russia-Ukrainian border before the downing of the aircraft.

It means whatever Deputy Spokesperson Marie Harf Mary had said about a«preponderance of evidence» pointing to the fact that militia in eastern Ukraine downed flight MH17 was zilch. On July 21 Harf said the US government’s suspicions were based on information gathered from social media sites. «We saw in social media afterwards, we saw videos, we saw photos of the pro-Russian separatists bragging about shooting down an aircraft», she told assembled press.

If Americans believe they can let the situation slide and sweep it all under the rug, they are wrong. The international community wants an independent and impartial investigation conducted by a respected international commission – it must be done to make clear what exactly happened and how the death of 300 people became possible. Americans are prone to accuse of slander and propaganda everyone who opposes their version of events and hinders their plans. They feel awkward when caught brazenly lying. Even if Washington will not convince Europeans to conduct a thorough and detailed investigation, Russia and other interested parties will go the whole hog and finally make head or tail of it. To name the perpetrators and make them face responsibility is a matter of vital importance for the whole world.

We all must know exactly what happened with the MH17.

U.S. intelligence officials suggest that the person who fired the missile that downed Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 may have been “a defector” from the Ukrainian army, an apparent attempt to explain why some CIA analysts thought satellite images revealed men in Ukrainian army uniforms manning the missile battery.

As the U.S. government seeks to build its case blaming eastern Ukrainian rebels and Russia for the shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, the evidence seems to be getting twisted to fit the preordained conclusion, including a curious explanation for why the troops suspected of firing the fateful missile may have been wearing Ukrainian army uniforms.

On Tuesday, mainstream journalists, including from the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post, were given a briefing about the U.S. intelligence information that supposedly points the finger of blame at the rebels and Russia. While much of this circumstantial case was derived from postings on “social media,” the briefings also addressed the key issue of who fired the Buk anti-aircraft missile that is believed to have downed the airliner killing all 298 people onboard.

After last Thursday’s shoot-down, I was told that U.S. intelligence analysts were examining satellite imagery that showed the crew manning the suspected missile battery wearing what looked like Ukrainian army uniforms, but my source said the analysts were still struggling with whether that essentially destroyed the U.S. government’s case blaming the rebels.

The Los Angeles Times article on Tuesday’s briefing seemed to address the same information this way: “U.S. intelligence agencies have so far been unable to determine the nationalities or identities of the crew that launched the missile. U.S. officials said it was possible the SA-11 [anti-aircraft missile] was launched by a defector from the Ukrainian military who was trained to use similar missile systems.”

That statement about a possible “defector” might explain why some analysts thought they saw soldiers in Ukrainian army uniforms tending to the missile battery in eastern Ukraine. But there is another obvious explanation that the U.S. intelligence community seems unwilling to accept: that the missile may have been launched by someone working for the Ukrainian military.

In other words, we may be seeing another case of the U.S. government “fixing the intelligence” around a desired policy outcome, as occurred in the run-up to war with Iraq.

The Los Angeles Times also reported:

“U.S. officials have not released evidence proving that Russia’s military played a direct role in the downing of the jet or in training separatists to use the SA-11 missile system. But they said Tuesday that the Russian military has been training Ukrainian separatists to operate antiaircraft batteries at a base in southwestern Russia.”

Though that last charge also has lacked verifiable proof – and could refer to training on less powerful anti-aircraft weapons like so-called Manpads – the key question is whether the Russian government trained the rebels in handling a sophisticated anti-aircraft system, like the SA-11, and then was reckless enough to supply one or more of those missile batteries to the rebels — knowing that these rockets could reach above 30,000 feet where passenger airlines travel.

The Russian government has denied doing anything that dangerous, if not crazy, and the eastern Ukrainian rebels also deny ever possessing such a missile battery. But the question that needs answering is: Are the Russians and the rebels lying?

That requires a serious and impartial investigation, but what the Obama administration and most of the mainstream U.S. news media have delivered so far is another example of “information warfare,” assembling a case to make an adversary look bad regardless of the actual evidence — and then marginalizing any dissents to the desired conclusion.

That was exactly the “group think” that led the United States into the disastrous invasion of Iraq – and it appears that few if any lesson were learned.

[For more on this topic of prejudging who’s to blame for the Malaysia Airlines tragedy, see Consortiumnews.com’s “Kerry’s Latest Reckless Rush to Judgment.”]

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his new book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon andbarnesandnoble.com). For a limited time, 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.

Natural gas is falsely promoted by the Obama Administration and energy corporations as a “bridge fuel” that will allow American society to continue to use fossil energy over the coming decades while emitting fewer greenhouse gases than from using other fossil fuels such as coal and oil.

On this basis, President Obama is providing total support to a massive expansion of hydraulic fracturing (fracking) for natural gas within the U.S. He seeks sufficient quantities to last for many decades, allowing the U.S. to export liquefied natural gas and oil throughout the world.

Counting on lower greenhouse pollution from the use of natural gas, Obama has also instituted a major campaign to greatly increase the amount of crude oil extracted from within the U.S., in good part from fracking. In mid-July the AP reported: “The Obama administration is reopening the Eastern Seaboard to offshore oil and gas exploration, approving seismic surveys using sonic cannons that can pinpoint energy deposits deep beneath the ocean floor.”

Here’s the catch: A new scientific study  — “A Bridge to Nowhere: Methane Emissions and the Greenhouse Gas Footprint of Natural Gas” —argues that both shale gas and conventional natural gas have a larger greenhouse gas footprint than do coal or oil, especially for the primary uses of residential and commercial heating.

The author, Dr. Robert Howarth, a professor of ecology and environmental biology at Cornell University, came to this conclusion after assessing the best available data and analyzing greenhouse gas footprints for both methane (including shale gas and conventional gas) and carbon dioxide over a timescale of 20-years following emissions.

“We have to control methane immediately, and natural gas is the largest methane pollution source in the United States,” said Howarth, who explains that Earth may reach the point of no return if average global temperatures rise by 1.5 to 2 degrees Celsius in future decades. “If we hit a climate-system tipping point because of methane, our carbon dioxide problem is immaterial. We have to get a handle on methane, or increasingly risk global catastrophe.”….

“While emissions of carbon dioxide are less from natural gas than from coal and oil, methane emissions are far greater. Methane is such a potent greenhouse gas that these emissions make natural gas a dangerous fuel from the standpoint of global warming over the next several decades. Society should wean ourselves from all fossil fuels and not rely on the myth that natural gas is an acceptable bridge fuel to a sustainable future.”

Obama’s permission for oil companies to explore the Eastern Seaboard from the outer continental shelf from Delaware to Florida will produce trillions in profits as well as heavily contribute to global warming. AP reports that “Oil lobbyists say drilling for the estimated 4.72 billion barrels of recoverable oil and 37.51 trillion cubic feet of natural gas that lies beneath federal waters from Florida to Maine could generate $195 billion in investment and spending between 2017 and 2035, contributing $23.5 billion per year to the economy.” (At this stage the northern limit is Delaware, but it well may be extended in time.)

Incidentally, the use of sonic cannons to detect energy deposits create noise pollution in waters shared by whales, dolphins and turtles, sending sound waves many times louder than a jet engine reverberating through the deep every 10 seconds for weeks at a time. Seeking to head off presidential approval for East Coast exploration, some environmental groups pointed out that endangered species could be seriously harmed by the noise. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management said this was true, but moved ahead.

The U.S. government’s heavy concentration on producing and using such “bridge” fuels as natural gas, “clean” coal, oil and nuclear power, with only token attention to renewable resources such as wind and solar energy, will significantly increase global warming. But as with sonic cannons and sea creatures, trillions in quick profits for the capitalist economic system trump the needs of unimaginable numbers of human beings who will suffer the consequences.

 This article is based on two recent reports on methane from Science Daily and from Dr. Howarth’s scientific paper published in Energy Science & Engineering. His technical article is at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ese3.35/full.

The Malaysian passenger plane MH17 may have been shot down July 17 by a Ukrainian anti-aircraft unit during an exercise, according to Russia’s Ria Novosti, which cited an anonymous source in the Ukrainian security apparatus. The new and detailed allegations in the Russian media come amid mounting US and European Union charges that Russia is responsible for the shooting down of the jetliner.

According to the report, the chief of the 156th Air Defence Rocket Regiment was ordered on July 17 to provide cover for ground troops near Donetsk. The unit was tasked with monitoring and destroying targets “with a rocket of type Buk-M1 in training mode.”

Two SU-25 fighter jets from the airbase of the 229th Brigade of the Kulbakino tactical force in Nikolayev reportedly served as control targets. One of these aircraft had been recorded near Sarostschenskoje by a Buk anti-aircraft missile system.

“The tragic accident could have led to the flight route of the Malaysian Boeing and the SU-25, which were at different altitudes, crossing and appearing on the radar display as one large point, which was fatal for the civilian plane, because the targeting system would automatically choose the larger target,” the source told Ria Novosti.

A rocket launch was reportedly not scheduled. Why a rocket was nevertheless fired, the source could not explain. “This is the question facing Ukrainian Security Service staff, who picked up the battery commander and crew at about half past nine in the evening,” he said.

The Ukrainian side immediately rejected this information as false. “This information that the Boeing was shot during an air defence exercise is absolute nonsense,” a Ukrainian defence ministry spokesman said.

The information from the Ria Novosti source cannot be verified, just like US government claims that pro-Russian separatists shot down the aircraft. Washington has not provided a single piece of evidence so far for this scenario, citing only “information from the secret services.”

The Russian defence ministry already provided precise information on Monday, however, including about the presence of a Ukrainian SU-25 fighter jet in the vicinity of the Malaysian Boeing jet at the time of the crash.

At the press conference, Lieutenant General Andrei Kartopolov said the SU-25 would have been in a position to destroy the Malaysian Boeing with a missile. He also showed satellite images of Ukrainian Buk batteries, which were located in the vicinity of the disputed region, and of increased electronic activity reported by radar stations at the time of the crash, transmitting target information to the Buk batteries. The Ria Novosti report supports this claim.

Although it remains completely unclear who shot down the Malaysian passenger aircraft, and evidence pointing to Ukrainian involvement is mounting, Washington, Berlin and the European Union are systematically exploiting the air disaster to intensify their reckless offensive against Russia.

Harsher sanctions threaten to plunge the Russian, European and world economy into a new crisis. The dispatch of armed units into the area of the catastrophe, as the Dutch and Australians are seeking with a UN resolution, carries the risk of military escalation that could culminate in a nuclear confrontation with Russia.

The Western powers are relying on an unpredictable right-wing regime in Kiev, which regards an escalation of the war as the only way to cling to power. This became clear on Thursday when Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk resigned from office.

Yatsenyuk resigned after several economic laws had failed to pass in parliament. These included a law enabling the partial sale of the country’s gas transportation system to foreign investors, providing urgently needed money for the state coffers. Beforehand, the Udar party of the Kiev mayor and former professional boxer Vitali Klitschko, as well as the fascist Svoboda party, left the governing coalition with Yatsenyuk’s Fatherland Party.

Yatsenyuk condemned this as a “moral and ethical crime,” with “dramatic consequences for our country.” In an angry parliamentary speech, he accused his former allies of “irresponsibly placing individual political interests above the fate of the country.” The government’s work would now be blocked for months, he said. “There are no answers to questions like: How will we pay wages tomorrow, where will the fuel for the tanks come from, how will we finance our army?”

The real target of Yatsenyuk’s angry tirade was President Petro Poroshenko, who had obviously arranged the collapse of the coalition, which he welcomed, in order to bring about early elections. “This proves that at least a section of the members of parliament are not stuck to their seats and feel obliged to face the will of the voters,” he declared. “All opinion polls show that society wants a complete renewal of its leadership.”

Following Yatsenyuk’s resignation, Poroshenko named a close confidante as acting prime minister, the 36 year-old Vladimir Groisman.

Yatsenyuk, a banker who for a time headed the Ukrainian National Bank, fears state bankruptcy if the government’s work is blocked by elections. The Ukrainian economy is in free fall. This year it will shrink by between five and seven percent.

Company order books are empty, international investors are pulling out, and Russia stopped gas deliveries in June. Among other things, Yatsenyuk had planned to bring in €2.3 billion through tax hikes and cuts in subsidies, in order to finance the military intervention in eastern Ukraine.

The billionaire oligarch Poroshenko hopes, however, that he can expand his power base in parliamentary elections that will take place in the exceptional situation of a civil war and a sharp confrontation with Russia. For this reason, he is pushing through a brutal offensive against the cities of Donetsk and Luhansk, which he did not interrupt after the crash of the Malaysian passenger plane to allow the recovery of the bodies and securing of the crash site.

Largely unreported by the Western media, the Ukrainian army has been bombarding densely populated areas with artillery and aircraft. On Thursday, Human Rights Watch published a report documenting four cases between July 12 and 21 in which the Ukrainian military attacked civilians with Grad rockets.

These rockets—known as Stalin’s Organs in the Second World War—are uncontrolled and cause enormous damage when deployed against residential areas. At least 16 people have died in the cases documented. Human Rights Watch accused the Ukrainian military of breaching international human rights, which could be treated as a war crime.

The fascists of Svoboda have taken on the job of intimidating internal political opponents of Poroshenko. They justify their support for new elections—which they had previously opposed, fearing a loss of votes—saying that a parliament in which “state criminals” and “agents of Moscow” sit should no longer exist. By “criminals” and “agents” they mean the Party of the Regions of ousted President Viktor Yanukovych and the Communist Party, which received 30 and 13 percent of the vote respectively in the last parliamentary election, held two years ago.

The chairman of the Communist Party was beaten up by a Svoboda parliamentary deputy after he demanded an end to the military operation in eastern Ukraine. He was subsequently ejected from the chamber by the parliamentary president. The party’s parliamentary faction status was then removed, and there are demands that it be banned.

The new parliamentary elections, set for October 2, recall the Reichstag election under Hitler in March 1933 and the Egyptian presidential election in May 2014—held under conditions of emergency rule and the suppression of the opposition.

Joseph Rudolph Wood was put to death by the state of Arizona on Wednesday. The 55-year-old’s execution was the third in the space of six months in which the condemned was subjected to a prolonged, agonizing lethal injection procedure. The previous atrocities occurred in Ohio and Oklahoma. In Wood’s case, the gruesome ordeal spanned nearly two hours.

The US Supreme Court gave the go-ahead for the execution on Tuesday, lifting a stay put in place by the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The condemned man’s attorneys had argued that he had a First Amendment right to information about the untested lethal injection protocol Arizona would utilize to kill him. But the US high court justices rejected this argument despite the very real possibility that Wood would be subjected to a torturous death.

Joseph Wood was put to death using an experimental combination of midazolam and hydromorphone, the same drug cocktail that in January had subjected Dennis McGuire to 25 minutes of torture before he died in an Ohio death chamber. As in other states, Arizona has been improvising its lethal injection protocol in the wake of a European ban on the export to the US of lethal chemicals used in executions.

The Arizona Republic’s Michael Kiefer wrote of Wood’s execution: “He gulped like a fish on land. The movement was like a piston: The mouth opened, the chest rose, the stomach convulsed… It was death by apnea. And it went on for an hour and a half.”

The execution of Joseph Wood is not a barbaric aberration in an otherwise humane and civilized society. It exemplifies in concentrated form the violence and brutality meted out on a regular basis by the ruling establishment in 21st century America.

Across the country on a nearly daily basis, police beatings and shootings are captured on video and posted on the Internet for all to see. Last week, the New York City Police Department choked Staten Island resident Eric Garner to death. On July 1, a California Highway Patrol officer tackled a great grandmother on a freeway onramp and struck her repeatedly on the head. Over the July 4th weekend, police in Chicago shot five people, two of whom died.

This year alone, lethal police shootings have taken place in a large majority of US states, with multiple shooting deaths in California, Washington, Utah, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Texas, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Kentucky, Virginia, New York and New Jersey.

The US military is arming paramilitary police squads in communities throughout the county, while SWAT teams are being deployed to carry out raids on homes in the dead of night. The police department in Albuquerque, New Mexico, which has killed 26 people since 2010, recently agreed to purchase at least 350 additional AR-15 assault rifles.

Capital punishment is only the vilest excrescence of a prison system in which more than 2 million people are locked up in horrifying conditions. A recent review by the New York Times of the Rikers Island complex revealed that over an 11-month period, 128 inmates were beaten so severely by prison guards that their injuries “were beyond the capacity of doctors at the jail’s clinics to treat.”

Immigrant children crossing the border, fleeing violence and poverty in Central America, are housed in prison-like conditions, without access to proper food or sanitation, while the authorities debate the best way to deport them.

In Detroit, an unelected emergency manager and a bankruptcy judge preside over the destruction of workers’ pensions and health benefits and the shutoff of water for tens of thousands of households.

These realities expose the lie behind Washington’s posturing as a “beacon of democracy” to the world. The brutality of the American state, the build-up of its repressive powers, the indignities it inflicts on a daily basis on large parts of the American population reflect a society riven by social contradictions for which the ruling class has no solution—other than more repression, leading to dictatorship.

The homicidal violence of local police and the institutionalized murder carried out in execution chambers are responses to a massive growth of social inequality, which has produced a society so unequal that it cannot maintain the forms of democratic rule.

At one pole stands a financial aristocracy that flaunts its obscene wealth before a population increasingly driven into unemployment and poverty. The plutocrats stand above the law, while the social problems that beset the masses of people are treated as crimes, to be dealt with by means of bullets and prison cells.

The same financial elite—a parasitic and essentially criminal class—spearheads an eruption of lawlessness and war internationally, while the corporate-controlled media relentlessly promotes militarism. The entire operation is presided over by a president, Barack Obama, who asserts the right to order the murder of US citizens, and acknowledges having done so.

Eight decades ago, the ruling elite responded to the breakdown of capitalism in the Great Depression—and the growth of mass working class resistance—by instituting social reforms such as Social Security. Today, under conditions of the greatest crisis of US and world capitalism since the 1930s, the ruling class has no reforms to offer. It responds with an assault on all of the past reforms and social gains of the working class—including Medicare and Social Security.

US Ninth Circuit Court Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, declaring his disagreement with the ruling of a three-judge panel of his court to stay the execution of Joseph Wood, called for replacing lethal injection with the guillotine or firing squad. Executions are “brutal, savage events,” he said, and the public had just as well get used to them.

These are not mere excrescences. They are the noxious expressions of a social system in terminal crisis. The capitalist system itself is the root cause of inequality, poverty and repression.

“Corporations as the dominant institution shaped by capitalist patriarchy thrive on eco-apartheid. They thrive on the Cartesian legacy of dualism which puts nature against humans. It defines nature as female and passively subjugated. Corporatocentrism is thus also androcentric – a patriarchal construction. The false universalism of man as conqueror and owner of the Earth has led to the technological hubris of geo-engineering, genetic engineering, and nuclear energy. It has led to the ethical outrage of owning life forms through patents, water through privatization, the air through carbon trading. It is leading to appropriation of the biodiversity that serves the poor.” Vandana Shiva[1]

The protection of biodiversity involves maintaining the ability of organisms to develop under their evolved dispositions and naturally established restrictions and to participate in further evolutionary processes.

We seek to protect organisms and ecosystems from persistent chemical substances. We should also protect them from the uncontrolled spread of synthetic and genetically engineered organisms because these organisms have a capacity to self-replicate, evolve and interact with other organisms in unpredictable ways and thereby represent a threat to ecological systems and their resilience [2].

 GMO maize, rice, cotton and oilseed rape have uncontrollably spread in regions and countries such as the US and Canada, Central America, Japan, China, Australia and Europe. In many cases, GMOs have escaped far beyond the fields into the environment and have even moved into populations of wild relatives [3].

Commercial cultivation and experimental field trials are responsible for much of this contamination. However, losses from the import and transport of grains for food and feed production are also an important source of uncontrolled dispersal.

German-based independent watchdog/research body Testbiotech is accusing the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) of deliberately downplaying the risks of an uncontrolled spread of genetically modified oilseed rape. The accusation stems from Monsanto having filed an application for the import into the EU of viable transgenic oilseed rape MON88302 kernels, which are to be processed to oil and feed in Europe. Similar rape plants have already spread far beyond the fields in various regions of the world, for example along transport routes.

 The EFSA is actually assuming that seeds will be lost during transport within the EU and that the genetically engineered plants will grow in the environment. Despite this assumption, it has concluded that the risk of transgenes spreading into the environment is low. Christoph Then of Testbiotech says:

“Experience from importing countries such as Japan shows that EFSA´s assumption is wrong. Even though officially no genetically engineered oilseed rape is grown in Japan, it can be found everywhere alongside the roads, ports and factories, where it is transported or processed. Once the transgenic plants become feral, they might propagate in the environment without detection for many years. If these plants cause economic or environmental damage, it may be too late for counter-measures if it becomes impossible to withdraw them from the environment.”

Testbiotech notes that Europe is a centre of biological diversity for oilseed rape and related species and argues that transgenic oilseed rape will be able to spread genetic material by crossing with wild relatives. Plant pollen can be carried over many kilometers by wind or insects. Seeds can be transported via the faeces of deer without losing the ability to germinate.

 Although Monsanto presented specific data on the viability of pollen and seeds of MON88302, these were rejected by EFSA because the methodology used in the investigations was seriously flawed. The authority failed to ask for further assessments.

Testbiotech is not only accusing EFSA of declaring oilseed rape MON88302 to be safe, even though there is no data to prove this claim, but is also accusing it of serious errors in the assessment of health risks. According to Monsanto, MON88302 was especially designed to withstand even higher dosages and even more frequent applications of glyphosate herbicides (brands such as Roundup). But the EFSA neither took into account the level of residues in the crop, nor were any feeding studies required.

 Christoph Then:

“EFSA’s don´t-look-don´t-find approach is nothing more than a system to avoid a more detailed risk assessment of products derived from genetically engineered plants. By claiming that the Monsanto oilseed rape is safe in spite of the absence of reliable data, the authority is putting human and animal health as well as the integrity of the environment at risk.”

 It wouldn’t be the first time. Regulatory bodies have been too willing to give the nod to biotech companies and their products without seeking to independently verify industry claims or adopt a precautionary approach.

Last year, the EFSA was found to be riddled with serious conflicts of interests, with over half of the 209 scientists sitting on its panels having direct or indirect links to the industries they are meant to regulate [4]. It’s most glaring failure involves the EU-wide release of glyphosate onto the commercial market back in 2002, with ordinary people now paying the cost for such negligence in terms of them being slowly but steadily poisoned [5].

 Testbiotech calls on the EU Commission and the German Government to reject EFSA’s risk assessment and prevent the import of viable oilseed rape kernels into the EU.

 Notes

 [1] http://www.spaziofilosofico.it/numero-07/2959/economy-revisited-will-green-be-the-colour-of-money-or-life/

[2] http://www.stop-the-spread-of-transgenes.org/?q=node/2

[3] http://www.testbiotech.org/en/node/948

[4]http://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/attachments/unhappy_meal_report_23_10_2013.pdf

[5] http://www.globalresearch.ca/monsantos-roundup-herbicide-and-regulators-with-something-to-hide/5389977


Economy and ecology are both derived from oikos, which is the Greek word for “home” or “household.” Ecology is the science of the household, both local and at the level of Gaia, our planetary home. Economy is supposed to be the management of the household. Aristotle referred to oikonomia as the art of living. He differentiated it from Chrematistics, the art of money making.

Today, economy has been reduced to the art of money making through the domination of a single indicator called “growth,” measured as a single number GDP or Gross Domestic Product, also referred to as Gross Domestic Problem, in the context of the multiple crises it has engendered.

Ordinary households are being robbed of their homes, lives, and livelihoods under the rule of money and money making. Our planetary household is being plundered and eroded.

And now the economy that has been reduced to money making, would like to make more money for big economic interests by commodifying all of nature in the name of the “green economy.”

In 1992, the citizens and governments of the world gathered in Rio for the Earth Summit. In 2012, the world community gathered again in Rio. On 24 December 2009, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted a resolution (A/RES/64/236) to hold a conference twenty years after the Earth Summit. Member States agreed that the Rio+20 Summit would focus on “Green Economy within the context of sustainable development and poverty” and “Institutional framework for sustainable development.”

But what is the “green economy” and what is the “institutional framework for sustainable development”? If one stays with the answers offered in the old paradigm of market driven solutions, which have failed to protect the Earth, “green economy” will mean more of the same. It will mean more carbon trading which has failed to reduce emissions. It will mean more commodification of food and water, land and biodiversity, which has failed to reduce hunger and thirst, poverty and ecological degradation, and has instead increased them.

If the “institutional framework” creates a World Environment Organization like a World Trade Organization, based on commodification and trade in nature’s gifts, and trade wars as global environment management, we will further impoverish the Earth and local communities, and further destroy democracy.

On the other hand, if the answers offered are in the context of the emerging paradigm of harmony with nature and the rights of Mother Earth, then the green economy is Gaia’s economy, and the institutional framework is Earth democracy—democracy from the bottom up, democracy rooted in the Earth. The world order built on the economic fundamentalism of greed, commodification of all life, and limitless growth, and the technological fundamentalist belief that there is a technological fix for every social and environmental ill are clearly collapsing.

The collapse of Wall Street in September 2008 and the continuing financial crisis signal the end of the paradigm that puts fictitious finance above real wealth created by nature and humans, and puts profits above people and corporations above citizens. This paradigm can only be kept afloat with limitless bailouts that direct public wealth to private rescue instead of using it to rejuvenate nature and economic livelihoods for people. It can only be kept afloat with increasing violence to the Earth and people. It can only be kept alive as an economic dictatorship. This is clear in India’s heartland, as the limitless appetite for steel and aluminum for the global consumer economy, and the limitless appetite for profits for the steel and aluminum corporations are clashing head on with the rights of the tribals to their land and homes, their forests and rivers, their cultures and ways of life. The tribals are saying a loud and clear “no” to their forced uprooting. The only way to get to the minerals and coal that feed the “limitless growth” model in the face of democratic resistance is the use of militarized violence against the tribals—operation “Green Hunt” has been launched in the tribal areas of India with precisely this purpose, even though the proclaimed objective is to clear out the “Maoists.” Under operation Green Hunt, more than 40,000 armed paramilitary forces have been placed in the tribal areas, which are rich in minerals and where tribal unrest is growing. Operation Green Hunt shows clearly that the current economic paradigm can only unfold through increased militarization and the undermining of democratic and human rights.

VandanaShivaThe technological fundamentalism that has externalized costs, both ecological and social, and blinded us to ecological destruction has also reached a dead end. Climate chaos, the externality of technologies based on the use of fossil fuels, is a wakeup call that we cannot continue on the fossil fuel path. The high costs of industrial farming are running up against limits, both in terms of the ecological destruction of the natural capital of soil, water, biodiversity, and air, and in terms of the creation of malnutrition, with a billion people denied food and another two billion denied health because of obesity, diabetes, and other food related diseases.

The green economy agenda for Rio+20 will either deepen the privatization of the Earth, and with it the crisis of ecology and poverty, or it can be used to re-embed economies in the ecology of the Earth.

Green economics needs to be an authentic green. It cannot be the brown of desertification and deforestation. It cannot be the red of violence against nature and people, or the unnecessary conflicts over natural resources—the land and water, seeds and food. As Gandhi said, “the Earth has enough for everyone’s needs, but not for some people’s greed.”

To be Green, economics needs to return to its home, to oikos. Both ecology and economics are derived from “Oikos” which means “home”. Ecology is the science of the household, economics is supposed to be the management of the household. When economics works against the science of ecology, it results in the mismanagement of the Earth, our home. The climate crisis, the water crisis, the biodiversity crisis, the food crisis are different symptoms of this crisis of mismanagement of the Earth and her resources.

We mismanage the Earth when we do not recognize nature’s capital as the real capital and everything else as derived. If we have no land, we have no economy. When we contribute to growth of nature’s capital, we build green economies. And the richer nature’s capital is, the richer human society is.

A nature, women centered perspective take us down a road which is sustainable and equitable. The Earth Summit in 1992 produced two legally binding treaties—the Convention on Biological Diversity and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate change. A Women’s Action Agenda 21 through WEDO (Women’s Environment and Development Organization), which I co-founded with Bella Abzug and Marilyn Waring, was also produced.

The multidimensional ecological crises are the consequences of the war against the Earth. To address the ecological crisis, we must stop this war, not take it to deeper levels through further commodification of nature and her services as is being proposed in some versions of the green economy. According to UNEP (United Nations Environment Program), “in a green economy, growth in income and employment should be driven by private and public investments that reduce carbon emission and pollution, enhance energy and resource efficiency, and prevent the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services.” This is the old paradigm in green clothes. It has no place for people, no place for Gaia’s laws. It is still driven by the flawed laws of financial markets.

Will green be the color of money or life? Will green be shaped by women’s skills, knowledge, values, or by the continued greed of capitalist patriarchy? Will we in Asia be able to tap into the roots of ecological civilization that lie buried under the garbage of greed, violence, and pollution? This is our task, to create a livable future for ourselves and the planet.

We need to go beyond growth towards economies of care, well-being, and happiness. Growth in incomes and employment should be based on conservation of natural resources and equitable sharing of our natural wealth for sustainable livelihoods that reduce carbon emissions and pollution, enhance energy and resource efficiency, and prevent the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services.

There are two different paradigms for and approaches to the green economy. One is the corporate centered green economy. For corporations which are now integrating access sectors, the green economy means:

(a)     Greenwashing—one just has to look at the achievements of Shell and Chevron on how they are “green.”

(b)    Bringing nature into markets and the world of commodification. This includes privatization of the Earth’s resources, e.g., patents and seeds, biodiversity and life forms, privatization and commodification of nature. It also includes trade in ecological services, e.g., trade in carbon emissions which is in effect trade in the atmosphere’s capacity to recycle carbon. The corporate centered green economy is based on maximization of profits and centered over natural resources. It is based on concentration of wealth and concentration of control over the Earth’s resources.

The UNEP initiative on The Economics of Eco-systems and Biodiversity (TEEB) can serve as a caution to stop ecological and ecosystem degradation and destruction. For example, according to TEEB, the loss of ecological services from the degradation of forests alone comes to between $2 – 4.5 trillion a year (TEEB quoted in David Hallowes, Toxic Futures [Scottsville: University of KwaZulu-Natal Press, 2011], p. 40).

As David Hallowes says, “In the act of costing the loss, however, ecological systems are framed within the market. Ecoservices are monetized, so making them available for sale” (Toxic Futures, p. 40). An example is a private equity firm that bought the rights to the environmental services generated by a 370,000 ha rainforest reserve in Guyana recognizing that such services—water storage, biodiversity maintenance, and rainfall regulation—will eventually be worth something in international markets (TEEB, 2008, p. 11).

The commodification and tradability of natural resources and ecological services has been deepening progressively over the last few decades. The trade metaphor promoting commodification is also guiding much of the work of environmental economics, making it indifferent to women’s sustenance economy and nature’s economy. For example, the World Bank policy paper on trade liberalization for India’s agricultural sector recommends the creation of “markets in tradable water rights,” and argues “if rights to the delivery of water can be freely bought and sold, farmers with new crops or in new areas will be able to obtain water provided they are willing to pay more than its value to existing users, and established users will take account of its sale value in deciding on what and how much to produce.”

The institution of tradable water rights will guarantee the diversion of water from small farmers to large corporate “super farms.” Tradable water rights will lead to water monopolies. In the logic of the market, tradable rights have a tendency to be sold to the highest bidder. Hence the wealthier one is the more power one will have over one’s access to water. It will also lead to over-exploitation and misuse of water – since those who deplete water resources do not have to suffer the consequences of water scarcity as they can always buy water rights from other farmers and other regions.

Besides aggravating the already severe ecological crisis in water resources, tradable water rights will destroy the social fabric of rural communities, creating discord, and disintegration. The social breakdown in Somalia can be traced, in part, to the privatization of water rights according to the World Bank policy. Tradable water rights are based on the assumption that no ecological or social limits should be placed on water use. Such limitless use will lead to abuse. The World Bank proposals on tradable water rights are in fact a prescription for social and ecological disaster.

The introduction of tradable land and water rights is often justified on environmental grounds. For example, a World Bank study by Pearce and Warford argues “in the absence of rights to sell or transfer land, the land owner may be unable to realize the value of any improvements and thus has little incentive to invest in long term measures such as soil conservation.” This assumption is evidently false, since the best examples of soil conservation—the hill terraces of the Himalayas—are based on precisely the opposite reasons. Communities not threatened with the possibility of losing their resources and benefits have a long term interest in conserving resources.

In 2004 we stopped the World Bank driven privatization of water. However, privatization is back on the agenda. The commodification and privatization of land and water resources are based and promoted on the flawed belief that price equals value. However, all those working for justice in land and water rights, and working to prevent the ecological abuse of land and water, are asking for the opposite—the inalienable rights to resources—and where the resource is a common property resource, like water, the inalienability of common rights.

Commodification contributes to economic growth, but it undermines the rights of local communities. It undermines local economies. It erodes local cultures. And it undermines ecosystems in their diversity and integrity. As forests become valued only for carbon sequestration, or only for biomass production, rich diverse forest ecosystems are replaced with commercial monocultures.

The second paradigm of the green economy is Earth centered and people centered. The Earth centered green economy begins with the recognition of the rights of Mother Earth and with this the rights of all species of the Earth, including the human species. The green economy recognizes nature’s economy as its foundation. The green economy recognizes the sustenance economy through which human needs—material, emotional, psychological, cultural, and spiritual—are provided for. The corporate centered green economy ignores both nature’s economy and people’s sustenance economy, and thus undermines both creating the ecological crisis and the crisis of dispossession and poverty.

In the Earth centered green economy the resources of the Earth vital to life—biodiversity, water, air—are commons for the common good for all. While the corporate green economy is based on privatization and commodification of the Earth’s resources, the Earth centered green economy is based on recovery of the commons and the intrinsic value of the Earth and all her species. Whereas the corporate green economy caters to corporate profits, it fails in providing for people’s needs and defending their rights. It is based on resource intensive, pollution intensive production and consumption with low human benefits.

The Earth centered economy is based on treading lightly on the Earth while maximizing well-being and welfare for all. This is increasingly evident in the way we meet our most basic need—food. The industrial-corporate system of food production uses ten times more units of energy as inputs than it produces as food. It wastes fifty percent of the food produced. It contributes to the structural problem of hunger of one billion and food related diseases of obesity, diabetes, etc. of two billion. It uses and pollutes 70% of water on the planet. It has destroyed 75% of the biodiversity in agriculture. And it contributes 40% of the greenhouse gases that are destabilizing the climate and further threatening food security. Earth centered agriculture, on the other hand, produces two times more food than the inputs it uses. It produces healthy and nutritious food. It conserves biodiversity, water, and soil. It mitigates and adapts to climate change. It protects the earth, farmers, and public health.

An Earth centered, people centered green economy would put nature’s ecological cycles as the drivers and shapers of the economy, it would put people first, not investors. It would build on women’s core contributions to create economies of sustenance and care that enhance the well-being of all.

Karl Polanyi warns us against commodification and reduction of nature and society to the market: “A market economy must comprise all elements of industry, including labor, land, and money. But labor and land are no other than the human beings themselves of which every society consists and the natural surroundings in which they are and exist. To include them in the market mechanism means to subordinate the substance of society itself to the laws of the market” (The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Times [Boston: Beacon Press, 2001], p. 75).

To this we would add “to include nature and nature’s resources and processes in the market mechanism means to subordinate the substance of the Earth’s living processes to the laws of the market.”

The laws of Gaia are the basis of life of Earth. They precede production, they precede exchange, and they precede the market. The market depends on Gaia; Gaia does not depend on the market. Both the Earth and society come first. They are sovereign and autonomous. They cannot be commodified and reduced to the market.

Nature has been subjugated to the market as a mere supplier of industrial raw material and dumping ground for waste and pollution.

It is falsely claimed that exploiting the Earth creates economic value and economic growth, and this improves human welfare. While human welfare is invoked to separate humans from the Earth and justify her limitless exploitation, all of humanity does not benefit. In fact most lose. Pitting humans against nature is not merely anthropocentric, it is corporatocentric. The Earth community has been reduced to humans, and humans have been further reduced to corporations as legal persons. Corporations then reshape part of humanity as consumers of their products and part of humanity as disposable. Consumers lose their identity as Earth citizens, as co-creators and co-producers with nature. Those rendered disposable lose their very lives and livelihoods.

Corporations as the dominant institution shaped by capitalist patriarchy thrive on eco-apartheid. They thrive on the Cartesian legacy of dualism which puts nature against humans. It defines nature as female and passively subjugated. Corporatocentrism is thus also androcentric—a patriarchal construction.

The false universalism of man as conqueror and owner of the Earth has led to the technological hubris of geo-engineering, genetic engineering, and nuclear energy. It has led to the ethical outrage of owning life forms through patents, water through privatization, the air through carbon trading. It is leading to appropriation of the biodiversity that serves the poor. And now alienated man and corporations he has created would like to “own” and trade in nature’s services through the green economy. The Chipko Movement saved Himalayan forests by putting the life of the forest above human life. Today the ecological services of the forests are a tradable commodity. As Pablo Salon, the Bolivian Ambassador to the UN stated at the General Assembly session on Harmony with Nature (20 April 2011): “The green economy considers it necessary, in the struggle to preserve biodiversity, to put a price on the free services that plants, animals and ecosystems offer humanity, the purification of water, the pollination of plants by bees, the protection of coral reefs and climate regulation. According to the green economy, we have to identify the specific functions of ecosystem and biodiversity that can be made subject to a monetary value, evaluate their current state, define the limits of those services, and set out in economic terms the cost of their conservation to develop a market for environmental services… in other words, the transfusion of the rules of the market will save nature.”

The climate crisis is a result of putting pollutants into the atmosphere beyond the recycling capacity of the planet. To continue to add pollutants, while letting polluters make money through carbon trading is a deepening of the war against the atmospheric commons. The crisis of species extinction is a result of destruction of the habitat of species and a direct attack on them through the arsenal of toxic chemicals. As Michael Huesemann and Joyce Huesemann report, “the present rate of species extinction is alarming according to various estimates, ranging from best to worst-case scenarios between 1,000 to 100,000 plant and animal species disappear each year, which translates into 2.7 to 270 irreversible extinctions everyday” (Techno-Fix: Why Technology Won’t Save Us or the Environment [New Society Publishers, 2011])

According to the UN, species are disappearing at a thousand times the natural rate of wildlife loss. More than one-fifth of the world’s plant species are threatened with extinction.

The UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon cautioned that “we are bankrupting our natural economy. Maintaining and restoring our natural infrastructure can provide economic growth worth trillions of dollars each year. Allowing it to decline is like throwing money out of the window” (http://www.un.org/News/Press/ docs/2010/sgsm13127.doc.htm).

However, biodiversity is conserved when we love it, we revere it, and we recognize its vital role in maintaining life. Protecting biodiversity is an imperative not just because it helps make money. It is important because it makes life.

The UNEP report “Dead Planet, Living Planet: Biodiversity and Ecosystem Restoration for Sustainable Development” (http://www.unep.org/pdf/ RRAecosystems_screen.pdf) shows how nature is far more efficient than humanmade systems. For example, forested wastelands treat more waste water per unit of energy and have a 6-22 fold higher benefit cost ratio than traditional sand filtration in treatment plants. In New York, a filtration plant would have cost US $ 6-8 billion plus US $ 300-500 million per year as operating costs. Conserving the Catskills watershed at a cost of US $ 1-1.5 was a far more effective way to provide clean water.

Conserving biodiversity produces more food than chemical monocultures. Working with nature is also good for human welfare. If we destroy biodiversity and soil fertility with industrial monocultures in agriculture we have less food, not more. We might have more commodities, but not more food. Commodities are non-food, in fact anti-food. I have analyzed how the industrialized globalized system of food production creates hunger and how redesigning the food system in nature’s ways is vital for food security and food sovereignty.

The illusion of progress and growth measures the increased production and trade in commodities as growth, but fails to measure the death, destruction, and decay of our rivers and aquifers, our land and soil, our atmosphere and climate maintaining process, our forests and biodiversity. Since it is the poor, the marginal, the disenfranchised who bear the highest costs of ecological destruction and resource grab, but their deprivation does not count in the calculus of economic growth, poverty grows hand in hand with the ecological crisis.

Ignoring the Earth’s living and life-giving processes is at the heart of both non-sustainability and poverty. Non-sustainability is a result of disharmony with nature; it is a result of market laws having not just diverged dangerously from Gaia’s laws and nature’s laws, but actually becoming antagonistic to them. Nature has limits. The illusion of limitless growth based on limitless resource exploitation ignores ecological limits, and by ignoring limits creates scarcity.

Mathis Wackernagel calculates the ecological footprint of human production and consumption. The ecological footprint of an individual is a measure of the amount of land required to provide for all their resource requirements plus the amount of vegetated land to absorb all their carbondioxide emissions. In 1961, the human demand for resources was 70% of the Earth’s ability to regenerate. By the 1980’s, it was equal to the annual supply of resources and since the 1990’s, it has exceeded the Earth’s capacity by 20%. “It takes the biosphere, therefore, at least a year and three months to renew what humanity uses in a single year so that humanity is now eating its capital, Earth’s natural capital” (“Tracking the Ecological Overshoot of the Human Economy,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 99, no. 14 [2002]).

The ecological footprint of all humans of course is not the same. In fact, not only is corporate driven consumerism eating into the Earth’s capital, it is eating into the share of the poor to the Earth’s capital for sustenance and survival. This is at the root of resource conflicts across the Third World. The equitable ecological footprint is 1.7 ha/person. The average for the United States is 10.3 ha of land to provide for their consumption and absorb their waste. For the U.K, it is 5.2 ha, for Japan 4.3 ha, for Germany 5.3 ha, for China 1.2 h, for India 0.8 ha. (Mathis Wackernagel, “Ecological Footprints of Nations: How much nature do they use? How much nature do they have?” www.ucl.ac.uk/dpu-projects/drivers_urb_change/urb_environment/ pdf_Sustainability/CES_footprint_of_nations.pdf).

When seeds, the source of life, are deliberately made non-renewable through technological interventions like hybridization or genetic engineering to create sterile seed, the abundance of life shrinks, growth is interrupted in evolution and farmers’ fields, but growth of the profits of corporations like Monsanto increases. I have shown how farmers’ suicides in India are linked to seed-monopolies. This is why in Navdanya we defend seed sovereignty and farmers’ seed freedom.

If we dam rivers, and stop their life-giving flow, we do not have more water, but less. More water goes to cities and commercial farms, but there is less water for rural communities for drinking and irrigation, there is less water in rivers for keeping the river alive. This is why we have been compelled to start the Save the Ganga Movement to stop large dams and diversions on the Ganges which are killing the river.

Humanity stands at a cross road. One road continues on the path of eco-apartheid and eco-imperialism, of commodification of the Earth, her resources, and processes. And this path must intensify violence against the Earth and against people.

Ecology movements are resisting the expansion of the market and the commodification of their land, their minerals, their forest, and biodiversity. That is why the path of eco-apartheid must become a path based on war against people. We witness this in India, today, which is growing at 9% but where violence has become the means for resource appropriation and land grab of forests and biodiversity to fuel that growth. The unjust conviction with life imprisonment of a friend and colleague, Dr. Binayak Sen, is an example of how resource greed and resource grab must convert democratic and peaceful societies into violent police states, even move them towards fascism.

The second road is the path of making peace with the earth, beginning with the recognition of the rights of Mother Earth. This is the path of Earth democracy. It is a path based on living within the Earth’s ecological limits and sharing her gifts equitably. It is a path based on deepening and widening democracy to include all life on Earth and include all humans who are being excluded by the so called “free market democracy” based on corporate rule and corporate greed. The path of Earth democracy is the path of caring and sharing. It is the path to freedom.

Recall what we said earlier today: the proxy Ukraine war just like that in Syria preceding it, “is all about energy.”

Recall also the following chart showing Ukraine’s shale gas deposits, keeping in mind that the Dnieper-Donets basin which lies in the hotly contested eastern part of the nation and where as everyone knows by now a bloody civil war is raging, is the major oil and gas producing region of Ukraine accounting for approximately 90 per cent of Ukrainian production and according to EIA may have 42 tcf of shale gas resources technically recoverable from 197 tcf of risked shale gas in place.

Finally, recall our story from May that Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, just joined the board of the largest Ukraine gas producer Burisma Holdings. From the press release:

 R. Hunter Biden will be in charge of the Holdings’ legal unit and will provide support for the Company among international organizations. On his new appointment, he commented: “Burisma’s track record of innovations and industry leadership in the field of natural gas means that it can be a strong driver of a strong economy in Ukraine. As a new member of the Board, I believe that my assistance in consulting the Company on matters of transparency, corporate governance and responsibility, international expansion and other priorities will contribute to the economy and benefit the people of Ukraine.”

R. Hunter Biden is also a well-known public figure. He is chairman of the Board of the World Food Programme U.S.A., together with the world’s largest humanitarian organization, the United Nations World Food Programme. In this capacity he offers assistance to the poor in developing countries, fighting hunger and poverty, and helping to provide food and education to 300 million malnourished children around the world.

Company Background:

Burisma Holdings is a privately owned oil and gas company with assets in Ukraine and operating in the energy market since 2002. To date, the company holds a portfolio with permits to develop fields in the Dnieper-Donets, the Carpathian and the Azov-Kuban basins. In 2013, the daily gas production grew steadily and at year-end amounted to 11.6 thousand BOE (barrels of oil equivalent – incl. gas, condensate and crude oil), or 1.8 million m3 of natural gas. The company sells these volumes in the domestic market through traders, as well as directly to final consumers.

Now put it all together and what happens next should be rather clear.

* * *

Still confused? It’s very simple, really.

In a nutshell Ukraine (or rather its puppetmasters) has decided to let no crisis (staged or otherwise) or rather civil war, go to waste, and while the fighting rages all around, Ukrainian troopers are helping to install shale gas production equipment near the east Ukrainian town of Slavyansk, which was bombed and shelled for the three preceding months, according to local residents cited by Itar Tass. The reason for the scramble?

Under peacetime, the process was expected to take many years, during which Europe would be under the energy dictatorship of Putin. But throw in some civil war and few will notice let alone care that a process which was expected to take nearly a decade if not longer while dealing with broad popular objections to fracking, may instead be completed in months!

Civilians protected by Ukrainian army are getting ready to install drilling rigs. More equipment is being brought in,” they said, adding that the military are encircling the future extraction area.

The people of Slavyansk, which is located in the heart of the Yzovka shale gas field, staged numerous protest actions in the past against its development. They even wanted to call in a referendum on that subject. Environmentalists are particularly concerned with the consequences of hydrofracing, a method used for shale gas extraction, because it implies the use of extremely toxic chemical agents which can poison not only subsoil waters but also the atmosphere. Experts claim that not a single country in the world has invented a method of utilization of harmful toxic agents in the process of development of shale gas deposits.

Countries like the Czech Republic, the Netherlands and France have given up plans to develop shale gas deposits in their territories.

Not only them but also all-important Germany, which two weeks ago announced it would halt shale-gas drilling for the next seven years over groundwater pollution concerns.

Which clearly makes Ukraine, potentially the last place with massive shale gas deposits and no drilling ban, quite valuable to those who want to develop a major source of shale gas, one which reduces Europe’s reliance on Russian gas even more, yet one whose future depends on one simple question: who controls East Ukraine?

Because what better way to accelerate “next steps” than to start drilling for gas in the middle of the Donetsk republic as a civil war is waging in all directions, and where public mood has shifted decidedly against the local “separatists” in the aftermath of the MH-17 tragedy.

The punchline: who will develop the gas field in conjunction with Shell (jointly owned by the Netherlands and the UK: the two countries that loathe Putin the most in the aftermath of the MH-17 disaster) which in May 2012 announced a tender for the right to develop the Yuzovka shale gas deposit?

Burisma, Ukraine’s oil and gas production holdings, also has the right to develop the shale gas fields in the Dnieper-Donetsk basin of Eastern Ukraine. The same Burisma where R. Hunter Biden, Joseph’s son, was appointed a director two months ago.

Q.E.D.

Two senior Palestinian officials have filed a complaint against Israel at the International Criminal Court (ICC) at The Hague.

Palestinian Justice Minister Saleem al-Saqqa and Gaza court prosecutor Ismail Jabr have accused Israel of war crimes in the lawsuit.

The Israeli regime, under the ICC statutes, was accused of crime of apartheid, attacks against civilians, excessive loss of human life and crime of colonization.

The Palestinian officials started legal proceedings against the Israeli regime through a Paris-based lawyer over the past few days as the war on the Gaza Strip raged on.

French lawyer Gilles Devers has confirmed the move, saying the complaint covers war crimes committed by the Israeli military in Gaza in June and July 2014. 

“Israel, the occupying power, is carrying out a military operation which in principle and form violates the basis of international law,” Devers told a press conference in Paris.

“Every day new crimes are committed and over 80 percent of the victims are civilians. Children, women, hospitals, UN schools… the Israeli soldiers respect nothing. This is a military attack against the Palestinian population,” Devers stated.

The complaint came as the Palestinian death toll from the Israeli aerial and ground assaults has passed 880, with more than 5,700 Gazans injured. While Israel confirms 37 Israelis have been killed in the war, Hamas sources put the number at about 90.

Israeli warplanes have been carrying out incessant airstrikes on Gaza since July 8. Thousands of Israeli soldiers launched a ground invasion into the densely-populated strip on July 17.

The UN says over 80 percent of the fatalities have been civilians, including more than 200 children.

This text was first published by GR in November 2013. In the light of recent events, it is important to review the record of Israel’s crimes against humanity.

The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission (KLWCC) versus the State of Israel

The proceedings directed against the State of Israel were led by the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission (KLWCC)

Members of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission (KLWCC) are:

Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad (Chairman), Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, Dr. Denis Halliday, Mr. Musa Ismail, Dr. Zulaiha Ismail, Dr. Yaacob Merican, Dr. Hans von Sponeck.

Working in liaison with their Malaysian counterparts,  commissioners Dr. Denis Halliday, former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations and Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization were present in Kuala Lumpur throughout the proceedings.

This important judicial process has received very little coverage in the Western media.  Global Research has published several reports following this historic  judgment against the State of Israel.

“The perpetrators [State of Israel] had committed acts against the Palestinians, with intent to kill, cause serious bodily or mental harms and deliberately inflict conditions of life calculated to bring about the physical destruction of the Palestinians as a whole or in part.”

“The Tribunal recommends to the War Crimes Commission to give the widest international publicity to this conviction and grant of reparations, as these are universal crimes for which there is a responsibility upon nations to institute prosecutions.

The Tribunal deplores the failure of international institutions to punish the State of Israel for its crimes and its total lack of respect of International Law and the institutions of the United Nations.” 


THE KUALA LUMPUR WAR CRIMES TRIBUNAL
20 – 25 NOVEMBER 2013
Case No. 3 – CHG – 2013

The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission
Against
Amos Yaron
Case No. 4 – CHG – 2013

The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission
Against
The State of Israel

..

The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal (Tribunal) reconvened on 20 November 2013 to hear two charges against Amos Yaron (first Defendant) and the State of Israel (second Defendant). The first Defendant was charged with war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, whilst the second Defendant was charged with the crime of genocide and war crimes.

The charge against the first Defendant is as follows –

“The Defendant Amos Yaron perpetrated War Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity, and Genocide in his capacity as the Commanding Israeli General in military control of the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Israeli occupied Lebanon in September of 1982 when he knowingly facilitated and permitted the large-scale Massacre of the Residents of those two camps in violation of the Hague Regulations on Land Warfare of 1907; the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949; the 1948 Genocide Convention; the Nuremberg Charter (1945), the Nuremberg Judgment (1946), and the Nuremberg Principles (1950); customary international law, jus cogens, the Laws of War, and International Humanitarian Law”

The charge against the second Defendant [State of Israel] is as follows –

“From 1948 and continuing to date the State of Israel (hereafter ‘the Defendant’) carried out against the Palestinian people a series of acts namely killing, causing serious bodily harm and deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction.

The conduct of the Defendant was carried out with the intention of destroying in whole or in part the Palestinian people. These acts were carried out as part of a manifest pattern of similar conduct against the Palestinian people.

These acts were carried out by the Defendant through the instrumentality of its representatives and agents including those listed in Appendices 1 and 2.

Such conduct constitutes the Crime of Genocide under international law including the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide 1948 (‘the Genocide Convention’) in particular Article II and punishable under Article III of the said Convention.

It also constitutes the crime of genocide as stipulated in Article 10 of the Charter of the Kuala Lumpur Foundation to Criminalise War.

Such conduct by the Defendant as an occupying power also violates customary international law as embodied in the Hague Convention of 1907 Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, and the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949.

Such conduct also constitutes War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity under international law.”

The charges (together with the particulars of the charges) had been duly served on the Defendants, and were read in open court by the Registrar as these proceedings commenced.

Neither Defendant was present in these proceedings, but both were represented by the Amicus Curiae-Defence Team.

Read Complete Judgment (pdf)

Selected Excerpts

2 Prosecution’s Case

The Prosecution’s case against the first Defendant is that the first Defendant had committed War Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity, and Genocide in his capacity as the Commanding Israeli General in military control of the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Israeli-occupied Lebanon in September of 1982 when he knowingly facilitated and permitted the large-scale Massacre of the Residents of those two camps. These crimes were in violation of, inter alia, the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, the 1948 Genocide Convention, jus cogens, International Humanitarian Law; and Articles 9, 10, and 11 of the Charter of the Kuala Lumpur Foundation to Criminalise War.

The Prosecution’s case against the second Defendant is that from 1948 and continuing to date the State of Israel had systematically carried out against the Palestinian people a series of acts namely killing, causing serious bodily harm and deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction – with the intention of destroying in whole or in part the Palestinian people.

These acts constitute the Crime of Genocide under international law including the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide 1948 (‘the Genocide Convention’) in particular Article II and punishable under Article III of the said Convention. It also constitutes the crime of genocide as stipulated in Article 10 of the Charter of the Kuala Lumpur Foundation to Criminalise War.

In his opening statement, the Chief Prosecutor Prof Gurdial Singh said that the Prosecution will adduce evidence to prove the counts in the indictment through oral and written testimonies of victims, witnesses, historical records, narrative in books and authoritative commentaries, resolutions of the United Nations and reports of international bodies.

6. The Defence case

Mr. Jason Kay Kit Leon of the Amicus Curiae-Defence Team submitted that in the charges against the two Defendants, the Prosecution had listed war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against peace. Apparently the Prosecution had abandoned these charges, concentrating only on genocide.

He said that the offence of genocide is defined in Article 2 of the Genocide Convention 1948, whilst the OED defines it simply as “the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular nation or ethnic group”.

He submitted that the charge of genocide is unique; it means that you don’t like a group, you kill them; you kill them in a grand manner. Genocide means that at the end of the act, you have a lesser number of victims than before the genocide started.

He further submitted that when one talks of “massive killing”, it is many hundreds of thousands to millions of people. To suggest that an isolated event, the unfortunate murder of 3,000 people (Sabra and Shatila) is the same as massive killing is almost disrespectful of the true horror of massive killing (as in Rwanda, where 800,000 people were killed in 100 days).

With regard to the Kahan Report, the Amicus Curiae-Defence Team said that it also identified other people as being responsible, with two other names other than Yaron still alive. The question is why only Yaron was charged? Why was Defence Minister Ariel Sharon spared?

He also submitted that the PLO had repeatedly violated the July 1981 cease-fire agreement. By June 1982, when the IDF went into Lebanon, the PLO had made life in northern Israel intolerable through its repeated shelling of Israeli towns.

On Cast Lead, the Amicus Curiae-Defence Team submitted that the IDF had come out with two reports. The point is if you are going to kill people nilly willy, you do not report it.

On the issue of the wall, the Amicus Curiae-Defence Team submitted that the primary consideration is one of security of the Israeli settlers. The State of Israel has a duty to defend their lives, safety and well-being.

On the issue of checkpoints, the Amicus Curiae-Defence Team said countries have a right to immigration laws. With regard to Plan Dalet, the Amicus Curiae-Defence Team said that it is subject to divergent opinions, with historians on one side asserting that it was entirely defensive, while other historians assert that the plan aimed at an ethnic cleansing.

4. Prosecution’s closing submission

In his closing submission, the Chief Prosecutor said that he had called 11 witnesses (some of whom had testified through Skype), tendered 15 exhibits and furnished several documents and reports to the Tribunal during the course of the proceedings.

He urged the Tribunal to bear in mind that this is a Tribunal of Conscience and the case before it is an extraordinary case, which Winston Churchill used to call as a “crime without a name”.

He said that the Prosecution had provided evidence of facts which, examined as a whole, will show that the perpetrators had committed acts against the Palestinians, with intent to kill, cause serious bodily or mental harms and deliberately inflict conditions of life calculated to bring about the physical destruction of the Palestinians as a whole or in part.

From the testimony of Prof Pappe (PW8) the Prosecution had shown that before 1948, before UN Resolution 47, there was already a plan in place to take over the Palestinian territory, and this plan would be activated the moment the British relinquished its mandate over the territory.

At that point in time, the Palestinians were on 94% of the land, with the Jewish population settling over a mere 6% of the land. Under the UN partition plan, more than 50% of the land was to be given to the Jews.

Plan Dalet might not legally be genocidal in form at its inception, but as it took shape the ethnic cleansing metamorphised into killing, massacre and creating impossible conditions for life for the Palestinians – either they leave or they die. The Prosecution submits this is genocide within the meaning of Article 2 of the Genocide Convention.

On Sabra and Shatila, prosecution witnesses (PW1 and PW6) had testified that the Palestinian refugees in those camps had been killed by the Phalangists, aided and abetted by the Israelis who were in complete control of the two camps.

According to the Kahan Report, all of Beirut was under Israeli control, and there was clear symbiotic relationship between Israel and the Christian forces (the Lebanese Maronite Christian militia or the Phalangists or Keta’ib).

On Operation Cast Lead in 2008, the Chief Prosecutor said that the Israeli Defence Force had used all kinds of weapons, including white phosphorus – which is an incendiary weapon. The use of incendiary weapons is prohibited under Protocal III on the Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons.

As a result of the Israeli occupation of Gaza, nowhere in Gaza is safe for civilians. 1.5 million Palestinians are now trapped in despair, their fragile economy ruined. Under the Dahiya Doctrine (October 2008), the complete destruction of Gaza is the ultimate objective, the whole place must be flattened.

The Prosecution submits that the cumulative effect of the actions taken by the Israeli government, as shown by the Prosecution witnesses and the several documents tendered to the Tribunal, have shown beyond reasonable doubt that Israel is guilty of the crime of genocide under the Genocide Convention and the Charter of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission (The Charter).

Co-Prosecutor Tan Sri Abdul Aziz, submitting on the first charge against Amos Yaron, said that Amos Yaron was the commanding officer in charge of the Israeli Defence Force, in charge of the area of Beirut, and camps Sabra and Shatila. He said there were two issues which he has to deal with – first, whether or not there was a large scale massacre of the 10 residents of the two camps, and second, whether or not Amos Yaron facilitated and permitted such massacre, in violation of international law and Articles 9, 10 and 11 of the Charter?

On the first issue, he submitted there was a large scale massacre, as testified by PW1. She was there, and she saw the massacre with her own eyes. There was corrobating testimony by PW6, and further acknowledged in the Kahan Report.

On the second issue, Amos Yaron was in charge, to ensure that there would be peace and law and order. The Kahan Report itself concluded that anybody who knew about Lebanon would know that by releasing the Phalangists into Beirut, there would be massacre. Surely, Amos Yaron, the General in charge, must have known that by allowing the Phalangists to go into the two camps, the massacre would take place. But he decided to do nothing.

He received the reports of the killing of women and children, but he did not check the report. He did not pass the report to his superiors. The co-prosecutor submits that by ignoring all this despite knowing the circumstances, he himself had the intention of causing the death of the people in the two camps.

10.3 Commission’s Register of War Criminals

Further, under Article 35 of the same Chapter, this Tribunal recommends to the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission that the names of the two convicted parties herein be entered and included in the Commission’s Register of War Criminals and be publicised accordingly.

10.4 The Tribunal recommends to the War Crimes Commission to give the widest international publicity to this conviction and grant of reparations, as these are universal crimes for which there is a responsibility upon nations to institute prosecutions.

10.5 The Tribunal deplores the failure of international institutions to punish the State of Israel for its crimes and its total lack of respect of International Law and the institutions of the United Nations. It urges the Commission to use all means to publicise this judgement and in particular with respect to the Parliaments and Legislative Assemblies of the major powers such as members of the G8 and to urge these countries to intervene and put an end to the colonialist and racist policies of the State of Israel and its supporters.

Read Complete Judgment (pdf)

Israel Drops White Phosphorus Bombs on Gazans

July 26th, 2014 by Press TV

Latest reports say Israeli aerial and ground forces are using white phosphorus bombs to pound several residential areas across the besieged Gaza Strip.

The lethal bombs violate all international conventions and are considered as banned weapons in civilian areas.

This comes as a Norwegian doctor in the besieged coastal enclave has recently criticized Israel for using cancer-inducing bombs against Palestinian civilians.

Medics say some Palestinians in the besieged enclave have been wounded by a new type of weapon that even doctors with previous experience in war zones do not recognize.

Israel also used depleted-uranium and white phosphorus shells in the besieged region during their previous assaults.

The latest revelation comes as Israeli tanks and warplanes keep pounding the besieged enclave. Sources say at 39 Palestinians were killed on Monday alone.

Sunday has been the bloodiest day of the two-week conflict. More than 100 Palestinians were killed in the Shejaiya neighborhood near Gaza City on Sunday. The majority of the victims were civilians including children, women and the elderly.

The latest casualties bring the Palestinian death toll to 510 from 14 days of Israeli attacks. Over 3000 Palestinians have also been injured in the onslaught.

Medical workers are now raising the alarm over a humanitarian crisis in Gaza where hospitals are running low on basic medical supplies.

The UN Security Council has expressed serious concern over the growing number of casualties in the Gaza Strip, calling for an immediate ceasefire between the conflicting parties.

Russia’s evidence that Kiev has used phosphorus bombs against civilians should force the international community to put pressure on the Ukrainian authorities and make them stop the punitive operation in the country’s east, Russian diplomat Konstantin Dolgov said Friday.

Evidence of Kiev Using Phosphorus Bombs Should Influence World Community – Diplomat

“This information should help prompt the world community to influence Kiev in putting an end to the punitive operation. The result is numerous casualties among the civilians,” the Russian Foreign Ministry’s Special Representative for Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law wrote on Twitter.

Dolgov commented on the recent reports by the Russian Defense Ministry that Ukrainian troops used phosphorus ammunition during the attacks against independence supporters.

Earlier on Friday, a representative of Russia’s General Staff in an interview with Rossiya 24 channel said that Moscow has “reliable confirmation that phosphorus ammunition” in the populated areas of Ukraine.

Chief Surgeon of the Armed Forces of Russia Nikolai Efimenko said that the use of phosphorous bombs may have irreversible consequences on people and may also have a negative impact on the environment. Phosphorous poisoning may cause serious illnesses and even lead to death.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.  — President Dwight D. Eisenhower

Let me see if I have this right, because it’s getting really hard to keep things straight these days.

So it is on record that the U.S. government/military-industrial complex has financially backed the ISIS rebels in Syria to the tune of tens of millions of dollars, and key members were trained by our CIA at a secret military base in Jordan back in 2012. (See here and here for starters.)

In fact, ISIS is reportedly a joint effort created by the intelligence agencies of the U.S., United Kingdom and Israel, as ISIS leader Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi reportedly received military training from those three agencies as per recent Edward Snowden revelations.

war_on_terror_uncle_sam_xlargeWorse, as reports uncovered by Tony Cartalucci showed, “the U.S., Israel, and Saudi Arabia had planned as far back as 2007 to specifically use sectarian extremists to overrun and overthrow Syria.” ISIS, by the way, is the same group who are now crucifying Christians in Iraq.

It is also on record that the U.S. government gave Bin Laden a $3 billion investment to create the terrorist network Al Qaeda — the same Al Qaeda we’re supposed to believe “did 9/11″ but also the same Al Qaeda the U.S. helped fund and put into power in Libya to overthrow Gaddafi and who ultimately killed our Ambassador and three other Americans there.

The U.S. government under the Bush Administration also gave a lump sum $43 million “grant” to Afghanistan’s Taliban government back in May 2001 right before 9/11 — that’s on top of previous financial aid already being doled out to Afghanistan at the time, and in addition to the untold billions they received back in the Soviet era when they were known as the Mujahideen. The CATO Institute puts that $43 million into context:

“Afghanistan’s estimated gross domestic product was a mere $2 billion. The equivalent financial impact on the U.S. economy would have required an infusion of $215 billion. In other words, $43 million was very serious money to Afghanistan’s theocratic masters.”

The U.S. government, along with Israel, also helped create Hamas as a counterweight to the secular nationalists of the Palestine Liberation Organization.

And currently the U.S. government is financially backing the Ukrainian soldiers who are “cleansing” the “parasites” the U.S. government and media refers to as “pro-Russian separatist terrorists” (which are really just people who don’t vote the way our government wants them to in more recent Ukrainian elections) after a military operation where the U.S. put a controlled billionaire globalist puppet into power in Ukraine.

As Washington’s Blog warned:

“If the American public doesn’t start investigating [the Ukrainian civil war] now, then the results for all of us will be far worse, especially because this one could end in a nuclear war. And here is a video exposing the lies of the Obama Administration and its stooge-regime in Kiev about the May 3rd massacre in Odessa that sparked Ukraine’s civil war — our ethnic cleansing of the people who live in Ukraine’s southeast.”

But we’re supposed to believe what our government says about Russia’s involvement in shooting down Malaysian flight MH17, right? Because they don’t have a vested interest in pointing the finger at Russia, right?

Oh, I almost forgot. The Obama Administration also handed out $1.5 billion to Egypt’s military (which all ultimately ends up in the coffers of U.S. defense contractors) a few years ago when the country was under the control of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Here’s even a story about how one of the biggest banks in the United States, Wachovia (now owned by Wells Fargo), helped launder hundreds of billions of dollars for the murderous Mexican drug cartel Sinaloa.

These are all terrorist organizations that commit horrific atrocities against humanity.

So I guess the question is: can anyone name one major influential terrorist group on the world stage today who aren’t ultimately paid foot soldiers of the Western military alliance for a carefully staged military-intelligence agenda?

Just one?

Anybody?

The Russian government has finally realized that it has no Western “partners,” and is complaining bitterly about the propagandistic lies and disinformation issued without any evidence whatsoever against the Russian government by Washington, its European vassals, and presstitute media.  

 Perhaps the Russian government thought that only Iraq, Libya, Syria, China, and Edward Snowden would be subjected to Washington’s lies and demonization.

It was obvious enough that Russia would be next.

The Russian government and Europe need to look beyond Washington’s propaganda, because the reality is much worst.

NATO commander General Breedlove and Senate bill 2277 clearly indicate that Washington is organizing itself and Europe for war against Russia (see my previously posted column).

Europe is reluctant to agree with Washington to put Ukraine in NATO.  Europeans understand that if Washington or its stooges in Kiev cause a war with Russia Europe will be the first casualty.  Washington finds its vassals’ noncompliance tiresome.  Remember Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland’s “f**ck the EU.”  And that is just what Washington is about to do.

The US Senate’s Russian Aggression Prevention Act, about which I reported in my previous column, does even more mischief than I reported.  If the bill passes, which it likely will, Washington becomes empowered to bypass NATO and to grant the status of “allied nation” to Ukraine independently of NATO membership. By so doing, Washington can send troops to Ukraine and thereby commit NATO to a war with Russia.

Notice how quickly Washington escalated the orchestrated Ukrainian “crisis” without any evidence into “Russian aggression.”  Overnight we have the NATO commander and US senators taking actions against “Russian aggression” of which no one has seen any evidence.

With Iraq, Libya, and Syria, Washington learned that Washington could act on the basis of baldfaced lies.  No one, not Great Britain, not France, not Germany, not Italy, not the Netherlands, not Canada, not Australia, not Mexico, not New Zealand, not Israel, nor Japan, nor S. Korea, nor Taiwan, nor (substitute your selection) stepped forward to hold Washington accountable for its blatant lies and war crimes. The UN even accepted the package of blatant and obviously transparent lies that Colin Powell delivered to the UN.

Everything Powell said had already been refuted by the UN’s own weapons inspectors.

Yet the UN pussies gave the go-ahead for a devastating war.

The only conclusion is that all the whores were paid off.  The whores can always count on Washington paying them off.  For money the whores are selling out civilization to Washington’s war, which likely will be nuclear and terminate life on earth.

It is hardly surprising that Washington now targets Russia.  The world has given Washington carte blanche to do as it pleases.  We have now had three administrations of US war criminals welcomed and honored wherever the war criminals go. The other governments in the world continue to desire invitations to the White House as indications of their worth. To be received by war criminals has become the highest honor.

Even the president of China comes to Washington to receive acceptance by the Evil Empire.

The world did not notice Washington’s war crimes against Serbia and didn’t puke when Washington then put the Serbian president, who had tried to prevent his country from being torn apart by Washington, on trial as a war criminal.

The world has made no effort to hold Washington responsible for its destruction of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and now Syria and Gaza.  The world has not demanded that Washington stop murdering people in Pakistan and Yemen, countries with which Washington is not at war. The world looks the other way as Washington creates the US Africa Command. The world looks the other way as Washington sends deadly weapons to Israel with which to murder women and children in the Gaza Ghetto and then passes Senate and House Resolutions cheering on the Israeli murder of Palestinians.

Washington is accustomed to its free pass, granted by the world, to murder and to lie, and now is using it against Russia.

Russian President Putin’s bet that by responding to Washington’s aggression in Ukraine in a unprovocative and reasonable manner would demonstrate to Europe that Russia was not the source of the problem has not payed off.  European countries are captive nations.  They are incapable of thinking and acting for themselves.  They bend to Washington’s will. Essentially, Europe is a nonentity that follows Washington’s orders.

If the Russian government hopes to prevent war with Washington, which is likely to be the final war for life on earth, the Russian government needs to act now and end the problem in Ukraine by accepting the separatist provinces’ request to be reunited with Russia.  Once S.2277 passes, Russia cannot retrieve the situation without confronting militarily the US, because Ukraine will have been declared an American ally.

Putin’s bet was reasonable and responsible, but Europe has failed him. If Putin does not use Russian power to bring an end to the problem with which Washington has presented him in Ukraine while he still can, Washington’s next step will be to unleash its hundreds of NGOs inside Russia to denounce Putin as a traitor for abandoning the Russian populations in the former Russian provinces that Soviet leaders thoughtlessly attached to Ukraine.

The problem with being a leader is that you inherit festering problems left by previous leaders.  Putin has the problems bequeathed by Yeltsin.  Yeltsin was a disaster for Russia. He was Washington’s puppet. It is not certain that Russia will survive Yeltsin’s mistakes.

If Washington has its way, Russia will survive only as an American puppet state.

In a previous column I described the article in Foreign Affairs, the journal of the Washington foreign policy community, that makes a case that the US has such strategic advantage over Russia at this time that a “window of opportunity” exists for the US to remove Russia as a restraint on US hegemony with a preemptive nuclear attack.

It is almost certain that Obama is being told that President John F. Kennedy had this window of opportunity and did not use it, and that Obama must not let the opportunity pass a second time.

As Stephen Starr explained in a guest column, there are no winners of nuclear war. Even if the US escapes retaliatory strikes, everyone will die regardless.

The view in Washington of the neoconservatives, who control the Obama regime, is that nuclear war is winnable. No expert opinion supports their assumption, but the neocons, not the experts, are in power,

The American people are out to lunch.  They have no comprehension of their likely fate.

If Europeans know, they have decided to live for the moment on Washington’s money.

What life is faced with is a drive for hegemony on the part of Washington and ignorant unconcern on the part of the rest of the world.

Americans, worked into a lather about Washington’s unfunded liabilities and the viability of their future Social Security pension, won’t be alive to collect it.

“The intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” Everyone remembers the Downing Street Memo, which unveiled the Bush/Blair “policy” in the run-up to the 2003 bombing/invasion/occupation of Iraq. The “policy” was to get rid of Saddam Hussein via a lightning war. The justification was “terrorism” and (non-existent) weapons of mass destruction (WMD), which had “disappeared”, mounted in trucks, deep into Syria. Forget about intelligence and facts.

The tragedy of MH17 – turned, incidentally, into a WMD – might be seen as a warped rerun of imperial policy in Iraq. No need for a memo this time. The “policy” of the Empire of Chaos is clear, and multi-pronged; diversify the “pivot to Asia” by establishing a beachhead in Ukraine to sabotage trade between Europe and Russia; expand the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to Ukraine; break the Russia-China strategic partnership; prevent by all means the trade/economic integration of Eurasia, from the Russia-Germany partnership to the New Silk Roads converging from China to the Ruhr; keep Europe under US hegemony.

The key reason why Russian President Vladimir Putin did not “invade” Eastern Ukraine – as much as he’s been enticed to by Washington/NATO – to stop a US military adviser-facilitated running slaughter of civilians is that he does not want to antagonize the European Union, Russia’s top trading partner.

Crucially, Washington’s intervention in Kosovo invoking R2P – Responsibility to Protect – was justified at the time for exactly the same reasons a Russian intervention in Donetsk and Luhansk could be totally justified now. Except that Moscow won’t do it – because the Kremlin is playing a very long game.

The MH17 tragedy may have been a horrendous mistake. But it may also have been a desperate gambit by the Kiev minions of the Empire of Chaos. By now, Russian intel may have already mastered the key facts. Washington’s predictable modus operandi was to shoot from the hip, igniting and in theory winning the spin war, and doubling down by releasing the proverbial army of “top officials” brimming with social media evidence. Moscow will take time to build a meticulous case, and only then lay it out in detail.

Hegemony lost

The Big Picture spells out the Empire of Chaos elites as extremely uneasy. Take Dr Zbigniew “The Grand Chessboard” Brzezinski, who as a former foreign policy mentor has the ears of the increasingly dejected White House paperboy. Dr Zbig was on CNN this Sunday challenging Europe’s leaders to “stand up to Putin”. He wonders if “Europe wants to become a satellite” and worries about “a moment of decisive significance for the future of the system – of the world system”.

And it’s all Putin’s fault, of course: “We’re not starting the Cold War. He [Putin] has started it. But he has gotten himself into a horrendous jam. I strongly suspect that a lot of people in Russia, even not far away from him who are worried that Russia’s status in the world is dramatically being undermined, that Russia’s economically beginning to fail, that Russia’s threatened by the prospect of becoming a satellite to China, that Russia’s becoming self-isolated and discredited.”

Obviously Dr Zbig is blissfully unaware of the finer points of the Russia-China strategic partnership, as well as their concerted voice inside the BRICS, the G-20 and myriad other mechanisms. His trademark Russophobia in the end always gets the better of him. And to think that in his latest book, Strategic Vision (2012), Dr Zbig was in favor of an enlarged “West” annexing Turkey and Russia, with the Empire of Chaos posing as “promoter” and “guarantor” of broader unity in the West, and a “balancer” and “conciliator” between the major powers in the East. A quick look at the record since 2012 – Libya, Syria, Ukraine, encirclement of China – reveals the Empire of Chaos only as fomenter of, what else, chaos.

Now compare a fearful Dr Zbig with Immanuel Wallerstein – who was a huge influence in my 2007 warped geopolitical travel book Globalistan. In this piece (in Spanish) Wallerstein argues that the Empire of Chaos simply can’t accept its geopolitical decadence – and that’s why it has become so dangerous. Restoring its hegemony in the world-system has become the supreme obsession; and that’s where the whole “policy” that is an essential background to the MH17 tragedy reveals Ukraine as the definitive do or die battleground.

In Europe, everything hinges on Germany. Especially after the National Security Agency scandal and its ramifications, the key debate raging in Berlin is how to position itself geopolitically bypassing the US. And the answer, as pressed by large swathes of German big business, lies in a strategic partnership with Russia.

Show me the missile

Slowly, with no hype and no spin, the Russian military are starting to deliver the goods. Here, courtesy of the Vineyard of The Saker blog, is their key presentation so far. As The Saker put it, Russia had – and has – a “20/20 radar vision”, or full spectrum surveillance, on everything going on in Ukraine. And so, arguably, does NATO. What the Russian Ministry of Defense is saying is as important as the clues it is laying out for experts to follow.

The damaged MH17 starboard jet engine suggests a shape charge from an air-to-air missile – and not a Buk; that’s consistent with the Russian Ministry of Defense presentation graphically highlighting an Ukrainian SU-25 shadowing MH17. Increasingly, the Buk scenario – hysterically peddled by the Empire of Chaos – is being discarded. Not to mention, again, that not a single eyewitness saw the very graphic, thick missile trace that would have been clearly visible had a Buk been used.

Way beyond the established fact of a Ukrainian SU-25 trailing MH17, plenty of unanswered questions remain, some involving a murky security procedure at Amsterdam’s Schiphol airport – where security is operated by ICTS, an Israeli company based in The Netherlands and founded by former officers from the Israeli Shin Bet intel agency. And then there is the unexplained presence of “foreign” advisors in Kiev’s control tower.

As much as Bashar al-Assad in Syria had absolutely no motive to “gas his own people” – as the hysterical narrative went at the time – the Eastern Ukraine federalists have no motive to down a civilian airliner. And as much as Washington doesn’t give a damn about the current civilian slaughter in Gaza, it doesn’t give a damn about the MH17 civilian deaths; the one and only obsession is to force Europeans to sanction Russia to death. Translation: break up Europe-Russia commercial and geopolitical integration.

One week before the MH17 tragedy, the Russian Institute of Strategic Studies was already sounding the alarm concerning the Empire of Chaos’s “policy” and its refusal to “adhere to the principles and norms of international law and the rules and spirit of the existing system of international relations”.

Moscow, in building its case on the MH17 tragedy, will bide its time to debunk Kiev’s claims and maximize its own credibility. The game now moves to the black boxes and the cockpit voice recorder. Still Ukraine will remain the do or die battlefield – a chessboard drenched in blood.

Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007), Red Zone Blues: a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge (Nimble Books, 2007), and Obama does Globalistan (Nimble Books, 2009).

He may be reached at [email protected].

“Am I Going to Die, Daddy?” The Child in Gaza Asked

July 26th, 2014 by Global Research News

by Jon Snow

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip — It is the saltwater coming out of the hotel tap that reminds you where you are, as you wake up in Gaza. And then you imagine your room besieged by honeybees. It is the constant whine of the drones that parade up and down Gaza, selecting targets.

On the street, wearing your compulsory and heavy body armor, only children play in small bunches. There seem to be no adults about. No fishermen in the sea. No one on the beach.

If the Israelis have proved anything, it is that there is no such thing as a forensic strike.

In this besieged strip of land, close to 2 million people live so densely packed that any strike — be it from the air, from the sea or on land — will kill someone more than the intended target. And that someone too often is a child.

As of now, 166 children have been killed and 1,310 have been injured, some of them severely.

I was in the Shifa hospital on the two floors packed with child casualties. Nema, 2½ years old, was hit by an F-16 missile and terribly injured. Her eyes were closed by the enormity of the damage to her skull and her nose. Two round red-black saturating bruises hid her eyes.

 Palestinian-kid

A child injured in an Israeli assault was taken to al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza City on Wednesday.

Image: Mohammad Asad/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images

Palestinian-girl-injured

Two-year-old Palestinian girl Naama Abu al-Foul sleeps after undergoing treatment at Gaza City’s al-Shifa hospital following an Israeli bombing next to her family’s home on Wednesday.

Image: MAHMUD HAMS/AFP/Getty Images

Seven died in that attack, eight others were injured. I don’t know how many of them were children. Seven-year-old Maha was hit by artillery fire and severely injured. In that assault, her mother told me, 45 people were injured, many of them children, and two were killed. And then there was 7-year-old Noradin, also badly injured.

Dr. Mads Gilbert from Norway, a professor of emergency medicine, says the Shiva hospital, the last one working properly in Gaza City, is suffering a chronic shortage of pain relievers. He told me the outlook for some of these children is very bleak indeed.

 

Shifa-Hospital

A Palestinian child at Gaza City’s al-Shifa hospital.

Image: MAHMUD HAMS/AFP/Getty Images

Can they really be the acceptable collateral of targeting militants?

Channel 4 http://bcove.me/hy0x03nm

Can they really be the acceptable collateral of targeting militants?

Even our own translator, cut off from his family, in the south of Gaza, has to listen on the phone as his children weep and his 6-year-old asks: “Am I going to die, daddy?”

He can hear the explosions in the background. There have been two assaults on his wife’s town in the last 24 hours. Some 40 Palestinians appear to have been killed — six of them children.

But you know, despite the bangs, the booms, the screeching jets and the humming drones, you can never lose sight of the consequences of the siege that has been set against this Palestinian entity for the last seven years or more.

Electricity is intermittent, water is compromised, gas, diesel and so much is else is in constant short supply.

I was amazed to find a small sachet of shampoo as I went to a cold shower tonight — salty again. Obviously, you cannot make bombs out of shampoo and so there is no embargo on it. But clearly you can make bombs from paint because there isn’t any. This is the most wretchedly unpainted urban place I have ever been.

And beyond it all, why won’t they talk? This cannot go on. It is the children, tomorrow’s Palestinians, who are paying the price.

Editors’ Note: Getty Images and the Anadolu Agency have verified that the photograph at the top of this article was taken at al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza City on Wednesday. We had temporarily removed the photograph while we investigated complaints about its authenticity that were sent to the author of this article.

Jon Snow has been the face of Channel 4 News since 1989. He joined ITN in 1976 and became Washington Correspondent in 1984. Since then, he has travelled the world to cover the news

http://bcove.me/hy0x03nm

Copyright Channel 4, UK, 2014

 

Think. What if it wasn’t #Palestine?

What if it was your home instead?

#GazaUnderAttack #غزة_تحت_القصف pic.twitter.com/zWZ1Ruq94C

Embedded image permalink

Recent events has enabled Western governments, Israel and the mainstream media (MSM) to launch a propaganda crusade against Russia and Palestine. They accused the Russian government and the Anti-Kiev militias in East Ukraine for its direct involvement in the downing of Malaysian Airlines MH-17 without any hard evidence to support their claim. US intelligence agencies did admit that Russia was not directly linked to the Malaysian Airlines incident, but they managed to blame Russia indirectly.

They claimed “that Russia was responsible for “creating the conditions” that led to the shooting down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, but they offered no evidence of direct Russian government involvement” according to ABC news. The accusations against Russia were baseless. What is important to the families of the Malaysian Airlines tragedy is for them to find out the truth about those responsible for the crimes. Blaming actors who are not responsible for the crime will not bring peace to the families.

The MSM has been actively defending Israeli actions against the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip declaring that it was Hamas that murdered the three Israeli teens, an accusation that was also never proven. Regardless of the facts on the tragic deaths of those teenagers, Israel had declared a “revenge” war on the Palestinians. The MSM is following Washington and Tel Aviv’s talking points. The bias reporting on the situation in Gaza is shameful. The death toll surpassed 800 for the Palestinians and for the Israeli’s it’s close to 40 casualties. The US and their Western partners along with their Israeli counterparts are working in conjunction against their political adversaries through its MSM Empire. They want war and they will do anything even have their media lie to the public in order to go what they want. What had occurred in the last couple of weeks concerning events in the Ukraine and Palestinians in the Gaza Strip are both tragic incidents, but the point I am making reflects on the MSM itself and their lack of journalistic principals.

The MSM has been a dominant force that has demonized many governments and its leaders in almost every region of the world since the Spanish-American War of 1898. It became what was to be known as “Yellow Journalism”. It was journalism at its worst because it was based on sensationalism, lies and what was to be described as “eye-catching headlines” to sell newspapers. Many stories were not based on facts but agendas. The MSM was always Washington’s mouthpiece for spreading “American Democracy” to all nations by way of propaganda. And with propaganda you can build public support for war. Relations between the US and Spain were already tense before the start of the war, but an incident took place in the Havana Harbor where the USS Maine was sent to protect US interests during a Cuban revolt against the Spanish government suddenly exploded. At that time, Joseph Pulitzer’s New York World and William Randolph Hearst’s New York Journal who were competing with each other to sell newspapers used the method of “Yellow Journalism” and of course without any proper investigation to what really happened to the USS Maine newspaper, published headlines that read “Remember the Maine, To Hell with Spain.”  Even before the start of the Spanish-American War the media was in competition against each other to sell newspapers. The US eventually went to war with Spain with the support of the majority of Americans since they built popular support to go to war. The media acted on behalf of Washington’s war mongers by blaming Spain.

Since the end of WWII, The US either overthrew or went to war with many governments who were not in line with their policies. For example, the democratically elected Haitian President Jean Bertrand Aristide who won the Presidency twice with the majority of the Haitians voting for him, but was soon demonized by the US government namely the CIA and the MSM. They initiated a smear campaign against Aristide by claiming he was mentally ill, unstable and corrupt. Aristide’s supporters were even accused of drug trafficking. Why? Aristide was an anti-imperialist leader who wanted to help the poor in his country. He believed that Haiti can become truly independent from Western powers that came to dominate them for more than two centuries. Washington and the MSM propaganda unfortunately won the propaganda war.

Russia was not Directly Involved, but they were Responsible for “Creating the Conditions”?

The media will continue to manufacture propaganda on behalf of Washington to blame Vladimir Putin and the Militias in East Ukraine for the Malaysian Airlines tragedy. For the US intelligence agencies to claim Russia “created the conditions” that lead to the tragedy in the first place is like the police blaming a victim of a crime who was just robbed at gunpoint for carrying his money.  The MSM purposely forgot that it was Washington’s destabilization campaign which began with a $5 billion investment to US Ambassador and wife of Neoconservative Robert Kagan, Victoria Nuland to build “democratic institutions”, but the intention was to overthrow the democratically elected government of Viktor Yanukovych.

Why would the Anti-Kiev Militias shoot down an airliner in the first place? Why would Russia back a move that would jeopardize their role in world affairs especially after they prevented Washington from starting a war against Syria? It would not serve any useful purpose even if it was to blame the Ukrainian government. Vladimir Putin and the Russian government are not madmen. The anti-Kiev resistance does not seek an open ended war with their compatriots. It is the Ukrainian coup government and its Washington puppet masters that seek war with Russia.

After all, it has been the United States government and its corporate oligarchy that has been instigating wars since its creation in 1776. From the American Indian holocaust to the present day, including Libya, Iraq and now the destabilization of the Ukraine, war was the agenda The US was created by war during its fight for independence from the British monarchy. It’s been a part of its culture since its founding. Washington will continue to blame the Putin government for the tragedy of Malaysian airline MH-17. One question you must ask is who was instigating that Russia was originally behind the anti-Kiev militia accused of shooting the passenger airliner. It is Washington and their MSM propagandists such as Judith Miller of the New York Times who claimed that Iraqi president Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass destruction (WMD) which began in 2001 right up to the 2003 US invasion. The New York Times and other news organizations follow Washington’s line. An opinion piece written by the editorial board of the New York Times called ‘An Outrage Compounded by Mystery: Putin’s Unconvincing Words on Flight 17 in Ukraine’ accused Russia of “callousness” in their introduction:

There are still innumerable questions about how Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was shot down over rebel-held areas of Ukraine on Thursday. But nobody contests that the 298 people so senselessly killed deserve far greater respect than they have been shown by the Russian-backed rebels who have controlled the incompetent searches of the fields on which the Boeing 777 came down. The callousness of the rebels and, by extension of their Russian sponsors, is outrageous

Calling the “rebels’ and the Russian government actions outrageous is labeling an adversary without any solid proof that they indeed committed this crime. They do admit that the facts have to be established, however, by their introduction, it seems that Russia and the rebels are already guilty. The New York Times states:

The facts about the shooting down of the plane must be established by trusted, international experts. The most likely finding, for which American and other Western officials say there is strong evidence, is that the jetliner was brought down by rockets fired from rebel-held territory in eastern Ukraine. That would require not only ground-to-air missiles but also the expertise and equipment to guide them, raising the possibility of assistance from Russia itself. Russia has denied any such role, and its military officials have pushed a competing scenario, inculpating Ukraine

The Malaysian Airlines tragedy is a crime and the truth will reveal itself because the alternative media will expose what really happened. But the point is about the truth in journalism; the standard procedure for the MSM is that they should provide evidence before placing the blame on the Russian government and the anti-Kiev militias. An accusation without clear evidence is not real journalism, its only unsubstantiated evidence that ultimately destroys their credibility.

Israel’s Survival and the Palestinians: How the Media distorts the War in Gaza

Gaza is under attack again by the Israeli government. More than 800 Palestinians have been killed by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). However the MSM would state that the Palestinians, namely Hamas wants to destroy the state of Israel. Why not? They claimed that the former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad suggested that Israel should be “wiped off the map” which was proved to be false by Arash Norouzi in an article published by Global Research in 2007 called ‘Wiped off the Map” – The Rumor of the Century.’ Norouzi translated what Ahmadinejad actually said which was that “The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time”. The MSM completely misquoted what he actually meant which was that the Zionist regime needed to be removed because it “was imposed on the Islamic world as a strategic bridgehead to ensure domination of the region and its assets.” The MSM obviously did not do their homework. Richard Cohen wrote an opinion piece for the Washington Post called ‘A Fight for Israel’s Existence.’ He said:

Since 1948, nation after nation has retired to the sidelines. Egypt and Jordan have made peace with Israel. Saudi Arabia, which stayed out of the first war, has little desire for any subsequent one. Lebanon has been battered too often by Israel to still have a taste for war. Iraq is coming apart at the seams and can fight no one. Syria, too, is a chaotic mess, no longer really a nation and now more of a geographic designation. With the exception of Hezbollah and Hamas, no one much wants to fight. Happy days should be here . . . again

He continued:

The nations that once went to war vowing to push Israel into the sea are unstable, rickety creations. They are under siege not from Israel but from their own religious zealots. Whatever emerges is going to be either less accepting of Israel or manically intent on annihilating it. Even Egypt, which is now under military dictatorship, could revert once again to a government of the Muslim Brotherhood, the ideological parent of Hamas, and deeply anti-Semitic. In time, Israel could be surrounded by states that would make Hamas seem the soul of moderation. It does not, after all, go in for beheadings and such

He concludes with Israel’s legal creation by the Western powers who they not the Palestinians declared it as legal right under the United Nations:

A deal is there to be made but the United States has to either make it or determine its outcome. The effort cannot be left to countries that are hostile to Israel — Turkey and Qatar come to mind — or the Middle East will once again wind up with a peace that is just a prelude to more war.

Israel is the legal creation of the United Nations. It has an absolute right not merely to exist but to do so safe from rockets or incursions by tunneling terrorists. In 1948, Harry Truman swiftly recognized Israel. The United States took the lead. It is time for it to do so again

Let’s be clear. Israel is an occupying force that has broken every UN resolution involving Israeli war crimes against the Palestinians. Both the UK and the US governments literally gave away Palestinian lands to the Zionist movement in 1948. Richard Cohen cannot even tell the truth in regards to the Palestinians right to exist because to him it’s Israel as the victim, not the Palestinians.

There has also been an ongoing debate on Israel’s policies towards Palestinian rights under an apartheid state but the propaganda headquarters in the West coast of the United States namely California, the home of Hollywood and the Los Angeles Times who has a writer named Seth M. Siegel. Online alternative news website mondoweiss.net published an excellent report titled ‘NY Times’ and ‘LA Times’ run op-eds by an AIPAC board member without telling readers’ on February 17th of this year. The story was based on Siegel’s connection to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). The introduction to the story sums up how US media operates:

Last month the LA Times ran a cute test on its op-ed page to show that Israel doesn’t practice apartheid, and that Palestinians are treated very well by Israel. Today the NY Times runs an op-ed saying that Israel gives Palestinians all the water they need, and as the region dries out, Palestinians are going to feel very lucky

A new CNN poll says “A majority of Americans say Israel’s military actions in Gaza are justified, with only four in 10 saying that Israel has used too much force, according to a new national poll.” The majority of Americans believe that Israel’s military incursion into the Gaza Strip against Hamas which is causing mass civilian deaths is justified. Maybe the articles written by Cohen which gives an inaccurate portrayal of Israeli-Palestinian conflict versus the reality on the ground contributes to the public’s ignorance on the matter:

According to the poll, 57% of the public said the Israeli actions against Hamas, the Palestinian organization that runs Gaza, are justified, with just over a third saying they are unjustified.

Forty-three percent of those questioned said Israel’s using about the right amount of force, with 12% saying they’re not using enough. Nearly four in 10 said Israel is using too much force in Gaza

With writers such as Richard Cohen and Seth M. Siegel who are employed by major news organizations, it is no wonder the American public supports Israel’s atrocities. Edward Bernays, one of the architects of modern day propaganda and the nephew of Sigmund Freud explained in his book ‘Propaganda’ how the public can be manipulated to support the interests of the ruling class:

The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. 

We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society

The Mainstream Media is on the Titanic

The propaganda out of the US, UK and Israel in recent days has been filled with accusations with no journalistic integrity against Russia and Palestine. An online website managed by the Pew Research Center called www.jounalism.com published the ‘Principles of Journalism’. It is an article those working for the mainstream media should read; however the first principle defines how “Truth” and “Journalism” is the only “Practical Solution”:

Journalism’s first obligation is to the truthDemocracy depends on citizens having reliable, accurate facts put in a meaningful context. Journalism does not pursue truth in an absolute or philosophical sense, but it can–and must–pursue it in a practical sense. This “journalistic truth” is a process that begins with the professional discipline of assembling and verifying facts. Then journalists try to convey a fair and reliable account of their meaning, valid for now, subject to further investigation. Journalists should be as transparent as possible about sources and methods so audiences can make their own assessment of the information. Even in a world of expanding voices, accuracy is the foundation upon which everything else is built–context, interpretation, comment, criticism, analysis and debate. The truth, over time, emerges from this forum. As citizens encounter an ever greater flow of data, they have more need–not less–for identifiable sources dedicated to verifying that information and putting it in context 

The New York Times did not verify facts about the Malaysian airlines incident, already insinuating that Putin and his government is most likely responsible for the crime saying “Western officials say there is strong evidence.” He says, she says is not a fact according to journalistic principles. Verifying facts before accusing someone of a crime is a normal procedure.

It’s obvious that not only the New York Times, or the Los Angeles Times but CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, BBC, the Washington Post, the Daily Beast, the Chicago Tribune, PBS, NPR and every other news media outlet has no journalistic principles. Perhaps, many of the journalists either forgot or purposely ignore the basic principles of journalism because they want to advance in their careers. Maybe some are simply told what to say or write by their producers and high-level management under Washington’s orders. In the real world, you should be innocent until proven guilty. Journalists should be guided by the desire to tell the truth by researching the facts.

The New York Times editorial board should revisit what real journalism should be, not accusing Russia and the people of East Ukraine (who are anti-Kiev militias fighting against a Fascist coup government, not pro-Russian rebels as the MSM would like to call them) of a crime without evidence. The bias reporting of Gaza is another issue since Israel is the victim according to the media. The mainstream media is in decline for a reason. Nobody in the US and in the world can possibly believe them anymore.

The game is over. They have no journalistic integrity nor does it believe in obtaining facts. It is a propaganda machine that does not serve the interests of the public but the interests of Washington, the Military-Industrial Complex, corporations and its top 1% of the wealthy elite. Maybe those who work in the media need to revisit their old text books from journalism school and learn what journalism is really about. Maybe they should turn to alternative media and take notes. Then we can see truth in media, but that will not happen anytime soon. The mainstream media is already at an all-time low when it comes to moral integrity when it comes to reporting the truth to the public. Earlier this year CNN lost 39% of its primetime viewers. In a Pew Research study in 2013 found that all major cable news outlets including MSNBC, CNN and Fox news lost prime-time viewership:

The combined median prime-time viewership of the three major news channels—CNN, Fox News and MSNBC—dropped 11% to about 3 million, the smallest it has been since 2007. The Nielsen Media Research data show that the biggest decline came at MSNBC, which lost nearly a quarter (24%) of its prime-time audience. CNN, under new management, ended its fourth year in third place, with a 13% decline in prime time. Fox, while down 6%, still drew more viewers (1.75 million) than its two competitors combined (619,500 at MSNBC and 543,000 at CNN). The daytime audience for cable news was more stable, holding flat at about 2 million viewers across the three news channels. CNN (up 12%) and Fox (up 2%) actually experienced growth here. That was counterbalanced by more deep loses at MSNBC (down 15.5%)

Maybe that is why they continue to use propaganda as news because they have nothing to lose at this point. Their ratings have already collapsed. They will lie as much as they can to appease Washington and its allies, why not? For them the ship has already sunk! What else can they lose their paychecks? Then again Washington would bail them out since they are too big to fail, especially during an ongoing battle against the alternative media. Times are changing, the truth is all that matters.

Russia and China are obstacles to the US and European world dominance.  The US in collaboration with the Ukrainian coup government attempted a false flag against Russia.  If the US had succeeded and won public opinion, then the US and NATO allies would advance its war preparations against the Putin government.  It would have opened an opportunity to marginalize Russia as the threat to world peace.  Make no mistake, the US wants war with Russia as Israel wants War with the Palestinians.

Israeli genocidal policies is what this new Gaza war was all about since the beginning of Operation Protective Edge.  The media was used to justify Israel’s war on the Palestinians in regards to the three Israeli teens as self defense.  The media  is a weapon, it always was.  They must build public support in order for Washington, London or Tel Aviv to launch their wars of aggression. Without it, they will only anger their own population because they will only say no to war.  That is one outcome those in power will try to avoid at all costs because once they lose credibility with their own citizens, their agenda automatically collapses.

One thing to be said for the women now heading the Federal Reserve and the IMF: compared to some of their predecessors, they are refreshingly honest. The Wall Street Journal reported on July 2nd:

Two of the world’s most powerful women of finance sat down for a lengthy discussion Wednesday on the future of monetary policy in a post-crisis world: U.S. Federal Reserve Chairwoman Janet Yellen and International Monetary Fund Managing Director Christine Lagarde. Before a veritable who’s-who in international economics packing the IMF’s largest conference hall, the two covered all the hottest topics in debate among the world’s central bankers, financiers and economists.

Among those hot topics was the runaway shadow banking system, defined by Investopedia as “The financial intermediaries involved in facilitating the creation of credit across the global financial system, but whose members are not subject to regulatory oversight. The shadow banking system also refers to unregulated activities by regulated institutions.” Examples given include hedge funds, derivatives and credit default swaps.

Conventional banks also engage in “shadow banking.” One way is by using their cash cushion as collateral in the repo market, where they can borrow to invest in the stock market and other speculative ventures. As explained by Bill Frezza in a January 2013 Huffington Post article titled “Too-Big-To-Fail Banks Gamble With Bernanke Bucks”:

If you think [the cash cushion from excess deposits] makes the banks less vulnerable to shock, think again. Much of this balance sheet cash has been hypothecated in the repo market, laundered through the off-the-books shadow banking system. This allows the proprietary trading desks at these “banks” to use that cash as collateral to take out loans to gamble with. In a process called hyper-hypothecation this pledged collateral gets pyramided, creating a ticking time bomb ready to go kablooey when the next panic comes around.

Addressing the ticking time bomb of the shadow banking system, here is what two of the world’s most powerful women had to say:

MS. LAGARDE: . . . You’ve beautifully demonstrated the efforts that have been undertaken . . . in terms of the universe that you have under your jurisdiction. But this universe . . . has generated the creation of parallel universes. And . . . with the toolbox with all the attributes that you have — what can you do about the shadow banking at large? . . .

MS. YELLEN: So I think you’re pointing to something that is an enormous challenge. And we simply have to expect that when we draw regulatory boundaries and supervise intensely within them, that there is the prospect that activities will move outside those boundaries and we won’t be able to detect them. And if we can, we won’t be — we won’t have adequate regulatory tools. And that is going to be a huge challenge to which I don’t have a great answer.

Limited to her tools, there probably is no great answer. All the king’s horses and all the king’s men could not rein in the growth of the shadow banking system, despite the 828-page Dodd-Frank Act. Instead, the derivatives pyramid has continued to explode under its watch, to a notional value now estimated to be as high as $2 quadrillion.

At one time, manipulating interest rates was the Fed’s stock in trade for managing the money supply; but that tool too has lost its cutting edge. Rates are now at zero, as low as they can go – unless they go negative, meaning the bank charges the depositor interest rather than the reverse. That desperate idea is actually being discussed. Meanwhile, rates are unlikely to be raised any time soon. On July 23rd, Bloomberg reported that the Fed could keep rates at zero through 2015.

One reason rates are unlikely to be raised is that they would make the interest tab on the burgeoning federal debt something taxpayers could not support. Higher rates could also implode the monster derivatives scheme. Michael Snyder observes that the biggest banks have written over $400 trillion in interest rate derivatives contracts, betting that interest rates will not shoot up. If they do, it will be the equivalent of an insurance company writing trillions of dollars in life insurance contracts and having all the insureds die at once. The banks would quickly become insolvent. Worse, our deposits would get confiscated to recapitalize them, under the new “bail in” scheme approved by Janet Yellen as one of the Fed’s more promising tools (called “resolution planning” in Fed-speak).

As Max Keiser observes, “You can’t taper a Ponzi scheme.” You can only turn off the tap and let it collapse, or watch the parasite consume its food source and perish of its own accord.

Collapse or Metamorphosis?

The question being hotly debated in the blogosphere is, “What then?”  Will economies collapse globally? Will life as we know it be a thing of the past?

Not likely, argues John Michael Greer in a March 2014 article called “American Delusionalism, or Why History Matters.” If history is any indication, governments will simply, once again, change the rules.

In fact, the rules of money and banking have changed every 20 or 30 years for the past three centuries, in an ongoing trial-and-error experiment in evolving a financial system, and an ongoing battle over whose interests it will serve. To present that timeline in full will take another article, but in a nutshell we have gone from precious metal coins, to government-issued paper scrip, to privately-issued banknotes, to checkbook money, to gold-backed Federal Reserve Notes, to unbacked Federal Reserve Notes, to the “near money” created by the shadow banking system. Money has evolved from being “stored” in the form of a physical commodity, to paper representations of value, to computer bits storing information about credits and debits.

The rules have been changed before and can be changed again. Depressions, credit crises and financial collapse are not acts of God but are induced by mechanical flaws or corruption in the financial system. Credit may stop flowing, but the workers, materials and markets are still there. The system just needs a reboot.

Hopefully the next program that gets run will last more than 20 or 30 years. Ideally, we might mimic the ancient Mesopotamians, the oldest and most long-lasting civilization in history, and devise an economic system that lasts for millennia. How they did it, along with some other promising models, will be the subject of another article. For more on this, see The Public Bank Solution.

About Those Derivatives

How to kill the derivatives cancer without killing the patient? Without presuming to have more insight into that question than the head of the Fed or the IMF, I will just list some promising suggestions from a variety of experts in the field (explored in more depth in my earlier article here):

  • Eliminate the superpriority granted to derivatives in the 2005 Bankruptcy Reform Act, the highly favorable protective legislation that has allowed the derivatives bubble to mushroom.
  • Restore the Glass-Steagall Act separating depository banking from investment banking.
  • Break up the giant derivatives banks.
  • Alternatively, nationalize the too-big-to-fail banks.
  • Make derivatives illegal and unwind them by netting them out, declaring them null and void.
  • Impose a financial transactions tax on Wall Street trading.
  • To protect the deposits of citizens and local governments, establish postal savings banks and state-owned banks on the model of the Bank of North Dakota, the only state to completely escape the 2008 banking crisis.

These alternatives are all viable possibilities. Our financial leaders, in conjunction with our political leaders, have continually re-created the web of money and credit that knits our economy together. But they have often taken only their own interests and those of the wealthiest citizens into account, not those of the general public. It is up to us to educate ourselves about money and banking, and to demand a system that is accountable to the people and serves our long-term interests.

Ellen Brown is an attorney, founder of the Public Banking Institute, and author of twelve books, including the best-selling Web of Debt. In The Public Bank Solution, her latest book, she explores successful public banking models historically and globally. Her 200+ blog articles are at EllenBrown.com.

Monsanto Roundup Herbicide Found in Deformed Piglets

July 25th, 2014 by Heather Callaghan

In April, a Danish farmer called for a ban on glyphosate. For three years he had used non-GMO soy feed for his pig herds, but when he ran out, he ordered two tons of GM soy feed. His herdsman immediately told the farmer of diarrhea in the piglets and lack of appetite in the sows. He had not told the herdsman of the feed switch.

Worse, he began noticing an absurd amount of deformed piglets and reproductive problems in the sows.  Roundup is used on GMO soy shortly before it is used as pig feed.

But that’s not all – he brought 38 malformed piglets to a laboratory. In a research project by German and Egypt Veterinarian doctors using ELISA testing, differing levels of glyphosate (aka Roundup herbicide, by Monsanto) concentrations were discovered in piglets born from sows eating genetically modified soy feed.

That research became “Detection of Glyphosate in Malformed Piglets,” published in April, by open access journal Environmental & Analytical Toxicology.

All organs and tissues of the euthanized one-day old piglets contained glyphosate. Highest concentrations of glyphosate were found in the lungs, followed by the hearts. Lowest concentrations were found in muscle tissues. They noticed that the rate of malformations increased to one out of every 260 piglets born of sow when feeds contained 0.87-1.13 ppm glyphosate during the first 40 days of pregnancy. If feed soy contained 0.25 ppm glyphosate, then one of 1,432 piglets was malformed.

They postulated that glyphosate was reaching the piglets through the placenta of their dams. They draw from a 2010 study citing glyphosate’s effects on embryonic and placental cells (in chickens), producing mitochondrial damage, necrosis and programmed cell death with doses far below those used in agricultural concentrations.

In their summary, they write:

The detection of such glyphosate concentrations in these malformed piglets could be an allusion to the cause of these congenital anomalies. Further investigations are urgently needed to prove or exclude the role of glyphosate in malformations in piglets and other animals.

Detected deformities in piglets from the picture in the study:

Spinal deformation, ear not formed, cranial deformation, cranium hole in head, born alive piglets with short legs and one eye not developed, one was born with one large eye and an elephant trunk with bone in it (!!!), elephant tongue, female piglet with testicles, piglet born with swollen stomach has disconnected fore gut and hind gut (intestines), and one malformed with swollen belly.

They conclude:

…glyphosate could reach the animals through food and feed and is able to pass the placental barriers. Further studies are warranty needed to confirm or exclude the role of glyphosate in malformation in piglets.

Check out the actual number amounts of glyphosate found in the piglet organs because they were averaged out. But high maximum numbers were apparent in the livers, kidneys and brains too. You might also appreciate the other studies listed in their references.

When sticking to non-GMO soy feed, the farmer reports that his herds average more piglets, less piglet diarrhea, fewer ulcers, no bloat and better milk and appetite. Previously, he did not experience the amount of malformations that prompted him to go to the lab. He does not blame the farmers, but the chemical companies and government agencies for not taking safety matters seriously. He no longer minds paying extra for non-GMO feed – about $0.04 (USD) more per pound – which adds up, but better preserves his herds.

Heather Callaghan is a natural health blogger and food freedom activist. You can see her work at NaturalBlaze.com and ActivistPost.com. Like at Facebook.

Until this past Monday, the downing of Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17 on July 17th, 2014, was a potential game changer for global geopolitics and the New Cold War. However, a funny thing happened on the way to the Kremlin…

In this report, we will lay out the facts based on a wide breadth of available information and data surrounding MH17. We will also present and give critique to Washington and Kiev’s “mountain of evidence” that has saturated US and European-based media coverage since the incident took place. 21WIRE has compiled this report with the help of many contributors and references from English-speaking media, as well as material translated from Russian and Ukrainian media sources, along with other historical references to provide context. Our objective is to get as close to the truth as possible. Although many revelations will appear to be self-evident, we still encourage the public to draw there own conclusions regarding this pivotal event.

There are other well-known anomalies surrounding this event which have been covered at 21WIRE, as well as connections to MH370, but for the purposes of this investigation we will focus on both factual and speculative evidence brought forth by the US, Ukraine and Russia.

The Brink of War

Last Monday morning was not a pleasant one for the US State Department. Russian officials surprised Washington and its NATO partners when it released all available satellite imagery and air traffic control data which was recorded in and around the final minutes of Flight MH17 – and presented it to the world media on live television. The data painted a very different picture, drawing contrasting conclusions to what Washington and Kiev officials had been disseminating via western media since July 17th. Following their presentation, Moscow handed its findings – air traffic data and time stamped satellite imagery – to European authorities. We will review those findings in detail later in this report. In stark contrast, US officials have been reluctant to do the same. Is Washington willing to share any object data or evidence to the public, or is it only interested in sharing that which somehow fits into the same predetermined narrative it stood by on July 17th, one which already assigned guilt to both rebel fighters in eastern Ukraine and Russia?

We hope that political leaders and media organizations in the US and Europe will take the time to consider all available information, rather than simply repeat and spin what is bouncing around the media echo chamber. It’s also crucial to understand the geopolitical context in which this incident has occurred in order to discover who really possessed the motive, and the means to destroy this passenger aircraft, and which parties stand to benefit most from such an international incident.

After reviewing the evidence, all indicators points to the downing of MH17 as a highly coordinated, but failed false flag event.

MH17: A Doomed Flight Path

A Malaysian Airlines spokesman has already confirmed that, for some unknown reason, Kiev-based Ukrainian Air Traffic Control (ATC) ordered MH17 off of its original flight path along the international air route, known as L980.

Most likely, this order was given to pilots while MH17 was still in Polish air space. L980 is one of the most popular and most congested air routes in the world, as well as a key link between major international hubs in Europe, like London Heathrow, Amsterdam Schiphol, and Frankfurt, and Asian destinations, like Singapore, Mumbai, Hong Kong and Kuala Lumpur.

MH-17-FLight-Path
As MH17 moved into Ukrainian air space, it was moved approximately 300 miles north of its usual route - putting it on a new course, flying directly over a war zone – a dangerous area that’s hosted a number of downed military craft over the previous 3 weeks.

Robert Mark, a commercial pilot and editor of Aviation International News Safety magazine, confirmed that most Malaysia Airlines flights from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur would normally travel along a route significantly further south than the route MH17 was diverted onto.  Indeed, previous days’ flight records see here confirm that MH17 from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur is always assigned routes much further south than the one it took that fateful day.

The fatal event occurred somewhere in the interval between 17:21:28 and 17:22:30 Moscow Time. The exact time of the crash is believed to be at 5:23pm. The last available geographic coordinates can be found here on Flight Radar24:

Weather and Visibility Factor

Kiev-based air traffic controllers not only led MH17 right over its alleged ‘target zone’ in Eastern Ukraine’s Donetsk region, but also helped make it visible. 

Although weather data online is all but unavailable for the area of Donetsk, Ukraine for July 17th, conditions are evident by numerous videos depicting the crash and crash site in the aftermath - it was cloudy and overcast, with more visibility above the cloud canopy. This factor is important because at the normal cruising altitude of 33,000 feet (10,000 meters), the airliner would not be visible from the ground in the rebel-held area where Washington is insisting a SAM missile was launched. Why did Kiev air traffic controllers order MH17 to suddenly drop its altitude, from 35,000 feet to 33,000 feet, just before the plane’s demise is unknown for sure, but it would have been near impossible for the alleged rebel gunman occupying this relatively small rebel-held patch of land to make a visual sighting of MH17 and acquire the target during the 1-2 minute window they would have had (assuming they were even in possession of the BUK missile system).

To date, Kiev has refused to acknowledge or explain why the plane was moved into position in this way. Moreover, Interfax news agency reported that Ukraine’s SBU security service confiscated recordings of conversations between Ukrainian air traffic control officers and the crew immediately after the incident.

The probability that this is all an ‘unfortunate coincidence’ reduces to near zero when one considers the air traffic data and Kiev’s denial of the close proximity of its Ukrainian SU-25 fighter jet in pursuit of MH17 minutes before the crash (see ‘Aircraft in the Vicinity’ below).

Small Rebel Target Window

Much has been made by the US and its media of MH17 being shot down and crashing in “the rebel-held area”, but few are aware of just how small the said area actually is. The Ukrainian military had already isolated the rebel area which Kiev and Washington insist a rebel-controlled BUK SAM missile battery had fired on the passenger jet. The actual size of this rebel-held patch is only 40-50 miles wide, with MH17 approaching on a southeastern route over Horlivka, the frontline of this rebel-held zone, towards Snezhnoye (Snizhne).

Cruising at 58o mph (933 kmph), MH17 would have only been visible for a very short time – just over 1 minute (if Kiev had not ordered MH17 to alter its course and altitude then it would not have been visible at all), from the vantage point of the alleged rebel firing position. According the Jane’s Defense, the alleged cluprit – an SA-11 (NATO code name) or ‘BUK’ missile system, requires 5 minutes set-up active targeting, followed by an additional 22 seconds ‘reaction time’ for target acquisition and firing. As the MH17 was only visible for 70 seconds above this rebel-held area surrounding Grabovo, unless the alleged rebel firing position was specifically tracking MH17 long before it entered the rebel-held airspace and could distinguish it from other military civilian aircraft also in the general vicinity, Washington’s theory and Kiev’s accusation – that rebels shot down this aircraft becomes even weaker.

Considering these factors, the probability increases greatly that targeting MH17 would have had to be premeditated far in advance of the 70 seconds it was visible above this particular rebel-held area.

Russian Satellite Data and Public Presentation

On Monday, the Russian government, with almost every major global media outlet in attendance, released all of its air traffic data and satellite imaging data (in fact, only part of it) – all verifiable, including time stamps and supporting data. The entire content of the presentation was also handed over to the European authorities. The conclusions to be drawn from this are stunning, to say the least. Despite the public release of this information, US and British media outlets did report back to its people on these findings. They are as follows:

Minutes before the downing of MH17, the plane made a mysterious ‘Left Turn’ as it flew over the Donetsk area at approximately 5:20pm Moscow time, making a sharp 14km deviation, before attempting to regain its previous course before dropping altitude disappearing from radar at 5:23pm. As we previously pointed out, air traffic controllers in Kiev had already diverted MH17 300 miles north into the target zone, so the question remains: was Kiev ATC also responsible for this final, fatal diversion, or is there another reason for this unusual turn (see ‘Mysterious Left Turn’, below)?

According to clear satellite images provided, on July 16th, the Ukrainian Army positioned 3-4 anti-aircraft BUK M1 SAM missile batteries close to Donetsk. These systems included full launching, loading and radio location units, located in the immediate vicinity of the MH17 crash site. One system was placed approximately 8km northwest of Lugansk. In addition, a radio location system for these Ukrainian Army missile batteries is situated 5km north of Donetsk. On July 17th, the day of the incident, these batteries were moved to a position 8km south of Shahktyorsk. In addition to this, two other radio location units are also identified in the immediate vicinity. These SAM systems had a range of 35km distance, and 25km altitude.

From July 18th, after the downing of MH17, Kiev’s BUK launchers were then moved away from the firing zone.

Unlike rebel fighters, the Ukrainian military is in possession of some 27 BUK missile systems capable of bringing down high-flying jets, and forensic satellite imagery places at least 3 of their launchers in the Donetsk region on the day of this tragedy. Yet, Washington and NATO will not inquire about the possibility that any of these system had targeted MH17.

This is a definitive smoking gun: why did the Ukrainian Army move these short-range anti-aircraft SAM missile batteries into position on July 16-17th – to an interior region of East Ukraine where it’s known that the rebel resistance possess no air crafts whatsoever? Not surprisingly, both the US and Kiev have not answered that difficult question, perhaps for obvious reasons.

In addition, the Ukrainian Army’s radio location traffic near Donetsk peaked on the 16th and 17th, including a total of 9 separate radio location systems active. On the 18th and 19th of July, radio location traffic from these stations dropped sharply, down to 4 stations. If, as Washington/Kiev claims, rebels fired a BUK missile at MH17, then the rebel radar location signals would be clearly noted and verifiable on the day; only, they are not.

MH17-MAP

All Aircraft in the Vicinity

Between 5pm-6pm Moscow Time on July 17th, the following aircraft have been identified in the general vicinity of MH17 on its course heading to its fatal destination of Grabovo:

1. Boeing 772 – traveling southeast from Copenhagen to Singapore at 5:17pm
2. Boeing 778 – traveling southeast from Paris to Taipei at 5:24pm
3. Boeing 778 – traveling northwest from Delhi to Berlin circa 5:20pm
4. Boeing 777 – Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 at 5:17pm
5. Su-25 Ukrainian Fighter Jet appears on radar, trailing MH17 at same altitude, est. 4km behind it at 5:21pm

Note: the pilots and passengers of Singapore Airlines Flight SIA351 were close enough to have visually observed, at high altitude, the demise of MH17.

At 5:20pm MH17 began to abruptly lose speed, eventually slowing to 124mph (200kmph). At this time, a Ukrainian Su-25 fighter jet appears on ATC radar and trailing MH17 on the same flight path approximately 2-3km behind MH17, and at the same altitude – only minutes before MH17 disappeared on radar. The Su-25 would not have been visible on ATC radar before it broke the ATC long-range standby radar tracking ceiling of 5km in altitude. Civilian ATC radar would not be able to identify this Su-25 as military because no secondary detection system is mounted – typical for military aircraft. Note also that the Su-25 is armed with air-to-air missiles with a range of 5km-12km. Over the next four minutes, the Ukrainian fighter remained in the area.

Another Smoking Gun: Kiev government officials insisted on July 17th that, “No military aircraft were available in the region”. Based on available data detailed above, this appears to be a lie, indicating that a cover-up was taking place.

Again, it’s important to note here that at the moment when MH17 was allegedly was hit for the first time, at around 5:23pm Moscow time, the passenger jet was also within the range of several Ukrainian BUK batteries deployed close to Donetsk and as well as the Ukrainian Army’s BUK system positioned on the day just 8km south of Shakhterskoye, only a few miles from the eventual crash site at Grabovo. 


IMAGE: A Ukrainian military Su-25 fighter jet carries air-to-air missiles.

MH17′s Mysterious Left Turn

On passing glance, this seemingly minor, yet unexplained  event doesn’t appear to be significant, but as is often the case, the devil is in the detail.

Again, was Kiev ATC also responsible for MH17′s final and fatal diversion from its course, or is there another reason for what appears to be an evasive maneuver?

One possible explanation for this crucial event in the timeline is that MH17 was hit, or damaged, taking an emergency 180º left turn for 14km, before disappearing completely off of radar. This appears to be the case. On July 23rd, Anna-News published an interview with retired Russian Air Force colonel Aleksand Zhilin (Александр Жилин) a frequent military commentator on Ukraine’s Civil War.

“According to the colonel, at 16:19:45 (local time, and 5:19pm Moscow time), a Ukrainian jet fighter targeted the Boeing with an air-to-air missile R-60. The missile damaged the right engine of the Boeing. The Boeing was hit, but still managed to stay in the air. However, in doing so, the Boeing turned 180 degrees to the left. It was at this moment that the false flag attack started falling apart. According to Zhilin, part of the plan controlled by the US with Ukrainian hands executing it was to have the Boeing crash past the southern frontline by the Ukrainian-Russian border. Had the Boeing fallen there, securing the crash sites with the troops in response to international pressure was on top of all else effectively to allow Kiev to lift the encirclement of its brigades (currently pinned down by rebels) in the southern pocket by the Russian border.”

“When, however, the Boeing started to turn in the opposite direction and was still apparently manageable, the US-Ukrainian headquarters of the special operation panicked and ordered the Buk battery to destroy the plane in the air in order to pre-empt the possibility of the Boeing’s emergency landing. A Buk missile was fired and the plane was then finally destroyed.”

21WIRE spoke to former Czech diplomat and political analyst, Vladimir Suchan, who puts Zhilin’s comments into context of what was happening militarily at the time of the crash. Suchan explains, “If MH17 was hit right over the frontline over Snezhnoye, this would have placed the timing and location of the intended downing and crash site to  either the territory controlled by the Ukrainian army, or much closer to the border between Russia and Ukraine where the “securing of the site” would allow lifting the strategic encirclement of the Ukrainian troops in the south and thus, on top of other objectives, saving Kiev’s armed forces from its first major military defeat.” (see ‘Military All-Out Offense’ section below)

If, indeed MH17 was struck by an air-to-air missile at that time, a distress call may have been sent to Kiev ATC, but as yet, Kiev officials may be reluctant to share, or release the entirety of its communications from July 17th. 

At the time of this report being filed at 21WIRE, a second source to verify this testimony is not presently available. Zhilin’s account certainly makes sense when placed next to all ATC and satellite data released by Moscow. However, flight recorder information and data from MH17′s black boxes would certainly be able to corroborate this timeline of events, and one hopes that Great Britain’s predetermined political stance against Russia does not prevent Downing Street, or MI5 Intelligence Services from releasing the black box information in its entirety and more importantly, a full and unedited disclosure to the media. More than likely, the BBC will have first access to this release, and how the BBC report their findings will be very telling.


Above, is one possible map of MH17 final minutes, as calculated from one source of available public data, available here: http://nikolay-istomin.livejournal.com/3057934.html.

This account is also consistent with the location of key pieces of wreckage scattered over the wider crash site radius. It shows M17 turning back on itself, after being struck initially. If this was the final path, then it completely disapproves the US (US State Department) conspiracy theory that a rebel-controlled BUK missile hit the plane head-on from Snezhnoye (Snizhne). This U-turn then also helps explain why Kiev’s first “leaked conversation of the rebels” (see ‘Kiev’s Botch Social Media Audio’ below) tried to place the rebel’s BUK battery at a completely different location in Debaltzevo, a few kilometers northwest of the main crash site at Grabovo. However, that would not explain the U-turn, which they tried so much to conceal – for it points to the Ukrainian jet fighter.

As part of their PR damage-control exercise, Washington released this Google Map-style graphic on Tuesday July 22nd, illustrating its theory that the rebel missile battery was now located in Snezhnoye:

1-US-BUK-MISSILE-HOAX

Whistleblower: A Spanish Air Traffic Controller in Kiev

All evidence pointing to a Ukrainian Su-25 fighter jet in the same frame as MH17, also validates the testimony of ‘Carlos’, an ATC contractor in Kiev.

ETN received information from an air traffic controller (Borispol Airport) in Kiev on Malaysia Airlines flight MH17:

“This Kiev air traffic controller is a citizen of Spain and was working in the Ukraine. He was taken off duty as a civil air-traffic controller along with other foreigners immediately after a Malaysia Airlines passenger aircraft was shot down over the Eastern Ukraine killing 295 passengers and crew on board. The air traffic controller suggested in a private evaluation and basing it on military sources in Kiev, that the Ukrainian military was behind this shoot down. Radar records were immediately confiscated after it became clear a passenger jet was shot down. Military air traffic controllers in internal communication acknowledged the military was involved, and some military chatter said they did not know where the order to shoot down the plane originated from. Obviously it happened after a series of errors, since the very same plane was escorted by two Ukrainian fighter jets until 3 minutes before it disappeared from radar.”

Again, real mounting evidence which points to an obvious cover-up by Kiev and its NATO partners.

Crime scene investigation is important, although reports to date from the crash site in Grabovo do not inspire much confidence, that a thorough and independent forensic investigation will be carried out. The key evidence would be ballistics, including pieces of shrapnel retrieved from the wreckage. It should be easy to determine if they came from any of the following:

1. A bomb on board (this is still a possibility).
2. An air-to-air missile. 
3. A surface-to-air missile.

After that, the autopsy of the bodies would reveal additional evidence about what really took place on July 17th. At present, the majority of the remains are being handled by the Netherlands government, and given their NATO involvement to date in the Ukrainian conflict, it’s debatable whether or not they would present any findings which do not square with Washington and Kiev’s narrow, yet ever-evolving narrative of the incident.

Finally, if MH17 was indeed shot down as a false flag provocation of war by either a Ukrainian SU-25 fighter, or a Ukrainian Army BUK SAM – or both, as much of the hard evidence suggests, then would Malaysia declare war on the Ukraine? Would the UN table a resolution backing sanctions against Ukrainian officials in Kiev for their role in this international war crime?

US-NATO’s Military Drill in the Black Sea Ended on July 17th

Russia’s Satellite Data and Public Presentation on Monday July 21st has put Washington on its back foot. The existence of this intelligence, now made public, along with other data in Russia’s possession, means that the Washington cannot show the real intelligence – which they too have. It’s no coincidence that US and NATO conducted a large-scale military and intelligence drill in the Black Sea just south of Crimea named, SEA BREEZE 2014, which just so happened to end on… July 7th. The drill included hundreds of US military specialists running ‘war simulations’ in electronic warfare, data collection from a spy satellite, and ‘monitoring’ of all passenger aircraft flying in the region. A massive drill – yet another improbable coincidence.

Another smoking gun: Is it a coincidence that the US had its new experimental satellite positioned over Eastern Europe for 1-2 hours, and directly over Donetsk in eastern Ukraine from 5:06pm – 5:21pm. Taking this fact into consideration, alongside the other improbable ‘coincidences’, leads to an almost certain conclusion.

In addition to SEA BREEZE, both US and British armed forces had also scheduled a concurrent military exercise, code named, Rapid Trident 2014, a NATO event which takes place annually in and around the Ukraine, designed to “promote regional stability and security, strengthen partnership capacity and foster trust while improving interoperability between the land forces of Ukraine, and NATO and partner nations,” according to the US Forces in Europe website. Since March, the Pentagon has kept quiet regarding the number of US forces, and hardware assets expected to participate in the maneuvers.

According to US Army spokesman Col. Steven Warren, Rapid Trident is the only Ukraine military exercise the US planned to participate in this year, and it’s main purpose was, “To help the Ukrainian military improve its troops and weapons operability with NATO forces.” 

Ukrainian Military All-Out Offensive Timed For July 18th

Three uncomfortable realities in Kiev were prevailing before the downing of MH17 on July 17th:

First, the troops were losing morale, and suffering defections and other serious set-backs in an increasingly unpopular military theater of Eastern Ukraine.  Kiev was losing the PR war hearts and minds in the Ukraine and abroad.

After the downing of MH17, Kiev garnered huge public sympathy and support, and just so happened to launch a massive offensive on July 18th, one which military analysts believe would have to have been planned many weeks in advance – and could not just be a knee-jerk reaction to the MH17 tragedy as government spokespersons in Kiev insist.

Secondly, they were losing the war. Behind the lines battle reports from Igor Strelkov’s blog at the time confirms this all-out offensive at Snezhnoye by the Kiev military planners against the People’s Republics of Donetsk and Lugansk – allowing the Ukrainian Army to penetrate deeper and deeper, in effect splitting Donetsk and Lugansk.

Vladimir Suchan adds,

“After the loss of MH17 and some talk about “humanitarian ceasefire”, the Kiev regime launched three massive offensives from the north, the west (from Artemovsk, which included a large tank attack) and in the south. Since it always takes some good time to prepare an offensive, this had to be planned sufficiently ahead, though, with a view of the desperate situation for the junta in the south, most likely at a very accelerated pace.  http://voicesevas.ru/news/yugo-vostok/2968-voyna-na-yugo-vostoke-onlayn-18072014-hronika-sobytiy-post-obnovlyaetsya.html

“In this regard, it is also very plausible that some hope was put on having the command of Novororrysia paralyzed, busy and distracted over MH17. By all accounts, both the timing and location of the MH17 crash, has enabled a huge ‘game changer’ in terms of how this conflict was previously going.”

If the international community were indeed to connect the prospect of a  false flag attack on MH17 with the false flag attack by Maidan snipers back in February, and the attempted false flag attack with the Odessa massacre, perhaps the Ukrainian Civil War could be abated, for the right reasons.

Disturbing reports are also coming in about the Ukrainian Military dropping White Phosphorus on civilian targets this week, as forces continue bombarding areas surrounding of Lugansk. Here are two unconfirmed videos, possible evidence of unconventional chemical weapons being deployed over several locations near Lugansk People’s Republic of Novorossia, from July 20-21, 2014:



-

Thirdly, Kiev is going broke trying to fund what appears to be an ethnic cleansing campaign in eastern Ukraine. Sources from the Parliamentary budget office in Kiev now confirm that as of August 1st, Kiev can’t pay its military (who are, in fact, waging war against its own people and calling it ‘anti-terror operations).

“To continue the anti-terrorist operation in eastern Ukraine, it  is necessary to amend the state budget and to find additional sources of its content. We do not have money to pay at least a cash security to our military from August”, stated Ukraine’s Finance Minister Oleksandr Shlapak, speaking in Parliament this week. According to Shlapak, funds previously provided by the state budget for these purposes has been calculated for the period prior to July 1st, and continued operations will require additional funds totaling 9 billion UAH ($1 billion). Infighting has already begun, as MP’s are now blamingthe Ministry of Defense and army staff for corruption and looting of money.

In the wake of the MH17 disaster, US and its NATO allies are responding with a renewed call for more military aid to Kiev and to fast-track the Ukraine’s membership into Washington’s overseas military surrogate, NATO. As an emergency response to “secure the crash site”, NATO stalwart, The Netherlands, are weighing up deploying NATO troops into the middle of this war zone. Such a move could easily cascade into something much worse should another bizarre “accident” occur, or some tragedy befalls Dutch troops inserted into the hot zone.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has responded with strong words of condemnation, stating,

“No matter what our Western counterparts tell us, we can see what’s going on. As it stands, NATO is blatantly building up its forces in Eastern Europe, including the Black Sea and the Baltic Sea areas. Its operational and combat training activities are gaining in scale.”

While the US push Kiev eastwards to fight Washington’s proxy war against Russia, the political and financial situation in Kiev is rapidly falling apart.

On Thursday July 24th, Victoria Nuland’s puppet leader following a US-backed, violent military coup back in February, Prime Minister of Ukraine Arseniy ‘Yatz’ Yatsenyuk (photo, left) announced his resignation in connection with the collapse of a Washington-designed coalition and parliament blocking government initiatives.

Made-up ‘Evidence’ From Washington and Kiev

The talking point shift by the US media on Tuesday July 22nd was an obvious reaction to the Russian data dump. US media are now airing Washington DC’s revised conspiracy theories. Theory 1) “The rebels shot MH17 down by mistake”, and Theory 2) “Russia is responsible for creating the conditions for this tragedy”.

In reality, no evidence actually exists to date, other than anecdotal, that the rebels in the east possess any ‘BUK’ surface-to-air missile systems (see Washington and Kiev’s ‘BUK’ Missile Evidence Debunked’, below).

Close observers of Washington DC’s media blitz can only be left with a feeling of embarrassment, as the US State Department still clings to some semblance of continuity in the face of a total PR meltdown. As late as July 22nd, the US State Department was  still attempting to pass-off its ‘evidence’ from social media (Twitter and YouTube), and backed-up by what it claims is “common sense”, that “clearly indicates Ukrainian militia shot down MH17″.

Since the incident on July 17th, the Kiev regime and US State Department have built their case against Rebels in eastern Ukraine and Moscow, and even Vladimire Putin himself, on the following items, which have all been thoroughly discredited by now:

1. The audio  “tapes” issued by Kiev
2. A video and photos of BUK missile batteries issued by Kiev (of their own BUK missile batteries)
3. Claims by Kiev and supported by the West, that Ukraine had “no military aircraft in the air” at the time of the crash of the MH17 plane. 

On July 22nd, the Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko (photo right) was forced to change Kiev’s story - a damage-control exercise to  the overwhelming evidence against Ukraine. He has since reversed this position.

Suchan explains the western political media machine and its all-out effort to cast Russia and Putin as international pariahs over the incident:

“What has been thus established is that Ukraine, as well as the US, the EU, NATO, and other Western countries, have been systematically and grossly lying about evidence pertaining to the tragedy of MH17, thus willfully – and bluntly, abusing the tragedy and the demise of the victims and the suffering of their families for perverse political goals related to NATO expansionism and anti-Russian hysteria, and ‘Russophobia’, in order to support an openly fascist regime in Kiev, whose objective is the deliberate destruction of civilians and civilian infrastructure in east Ukraine.”

“The smearing campaign has also been used to demonize and criminalize anti-fascism and its resistance to a fascist dictatorship in Kiev, enrolled by Ukraine’s criminal oligarchs.”

Washington and Kiev’s ‘BUK’ Missile Evidence Debunked

Immediately after the MH17 crash event on July 17th, the Ukrainian government in Kiev quickly uploaded a brief YouTube video it purported to be ‘evidence’ of “a ‘BUK’ missile system being moved” out of a rebel-held area near Donetsk. US State Department officials, and every US media outlet, led by CNN, FOX, ABC, NBC and CBS, along with major US talk radio hosts like Sean Hannity, immediately jumped on this 5 second YouTube video claiming it was, “Irrefutable proof that a Russian-made BUK missile system was being moved away after it shot down MH17″. That talking point began to cascade from media, and into public chatter. It seemed their job was all but done.

Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation newspaper , The Sun, always ready to take any pro-war line to the extreme, led the ‘conflict pornography’ on news stands, intentionally inciting fear and jingoism, doing what it always does: nudge British working class readers in a predetermined direction and fuse public opinion among differing classes on divisive international issues. No surprise then, as The Sun ran, “Putin’s Missile” as its headline the next morning. Similar covers and headlines were cloned across US and British media. Within hours of the news breaking – and despite this blanket coverage, not one of these newspapers or TV broadcasters offered any real evidence outside of anecdotal and wild speculation and conjectural theories.

Once again, we’ve witnessed world’s most powerful, highly coordinated and synchronized propaganda machine. Once it’s set in motion, most western consumers are helpless to fend off it’s relentless repeating and universal coverage across hundreds of media outlets owned in most part by 5 US, and 2 British corporations.

A similar attempt was made by Washington and London last September, when US Secretary of State John Kerry, along with then British Foreign Secretary William Hague, presented their now infamous claim of ‘open source evidence’ (YouTube videos) used to assign blame to the Syrian government for a chemical weapons attack against its own people. Many of the photos and videos were later proven to be faked and staged, and ‘the gas’ was made in Britain, and that ‘chemical attack’ was in fact staged by Syrian insurgents still being supported by the US-British-Saudi-Qatari Axis.

Washington’s initial ‘BUK Missile’ social media evidence seems to be rapidly heading down the same memory hole as its Syria predecessor, and soon, it will not be mentioned again by any US official. The speed at which it was released after the crash, and the fact that falsified audio, video, and photos have been intentionally released by the Kiev government in the wake of such a tragedy, demonstrates a clear motive to deceive the public about who is to blame for the MH17 event – using falsified evidence to build a case against ‘pro-Russian separatists’ and Moscow, and even Russian President Vladimir Putin himself.

What is obvious, but not being discussed in mainstream western circles, is that like Syria, Washington and its NATO allies have been openly conducting a proxy war in the Ukraine, and have managed to control media coverage in the west so that what clearly a Civil War in the Ukraine – is being cynically, and very wrongly labeled as an “anti-terror operation”. On a daily basis, the Ukrainian Military are carrying out attacks on civilian targets all over Eastern Ukraine, killing thousands of its own innocent citizens with the full logistical and financial backing of the Washington and NATO. In Syria, the tables are reversed, where the government in Damascus is clearly fighting against known al Qaeda and ISIS-linked foreign terrorists brigades, as Washington and London politicians and media insist on calling it a ‘civil war’. Both are classic proxy wars being waged by the NATO block of nations.

More Falsified and Sloppy ‘Evidence’ Supplied by SBU Defense Ministry in Kiev

Let’s start with the famous 5 second YouTube video released by Kiev and lauded by Washington, CNN, ABC, FOX et all, of a BUK missile battery being moved, we were told, secretly by rebels out of the area after the plane crash.

Not only does signage clearly visible in the video place this truck in Krasnoarmeysk – a town which has been in control of the Ukrainian Army since May 11th. Here is one early news release of the now discredited video.

In the absence of any real evidence or data, it’s worth asking who has paid large sums of money to create a 3-D computer animation sequences, of what the US/Kiev governments claim look place?

In addition to falsified the YouTube video, Kiev also published falsified photos of an alleged BUK missile system on July 19th. Kiev’s Security Service (SBU) published photos online it claimed showed ‘Russia’ secretly withdrawing a BUK-M system from the Ukraine civil war zone, but shortly after publishing this article the photos in question were deleted. The photo released by Kiev was actually an image taken of its own military’s BUK missiles – ironically, our readers will find that Kiev showing photos of its own systems is much closer to the real story than we previously thought.

Somewhat haphazardly, Kiev’s SBU, which is overseen by the new CIA station occupying the top floor in the same building in Kiev, released two more videos meant to assign blame to rebels in Donetsk, with Kiev claiming these were of Russian-made BUK-M being transported back to Russia on July 18th after the crash – but both videos were clearly shot during the winter time, with one found to have been previously published in March. Again, more intentional lying by Kiev, in order to assign blame to ‘pro-Russian Separatists’, and Moscow.

Kiev’s Botched Social Media ‘Audio Clips’

Early on, Washington and the entire western media machine, made much of two audio ‘tapes’ released via YouTube by Kiev officials, alleged to be taken from conversations between ‘pro-Russian separatist’ rebel commanders.

Both Kiev and Washington held these up as ‘evidence’ of rebels using a BUK SAM missile system to shoot down MH17. The only problem here, is that both ‘tapes’ contradict each other regarding the location of the alleged missile batteries.

Vladimir Suchan points out the obvious, “The identification of the direction of the blast then also disproves the junta’s videos with “leaked conversations” from yesterday and today–for the missile could not then be launched either from Debaltzevo, or Donetsk, as claimed on both tapes -these places were by then a bit far, and not in front of MH17. That’s also evidently why, today the junta’s sites are claiming that the BUK missile battery was supposed to be in Snezhnoye, forgetting all about their first tape leak with commander ‘Bes’ from Gorlovka (40 miles north-west). If the Ukrainian Army used a BUK missile, then it would most likely have been fired from north of Amvrosivka, which is a place of a large concentration of Ukrainian troops. It is also southwest of Torez and Snezhnoye in the proximity of which the crash site is located. BUK missiles have a range of up to 20 miles. Enough for a battery in the Amvrosivka region.”

Zero Hedge reported on July 17th:

The only problem is that there is absolutely no way to confirm who “Major” and “Grek” are, and considering the entire Ukraine civil war has been merely one provocation and counter-provocation after another, explicitly staged in advance by either the CIA on the side of Kiev or the Kremlin on the Russian side, one does have to wonder whether the said two “smoking gun” participants aren’t merely two random people speaking Russian and reading off a script?

The clip concludes with another unnamed “Militant” who supposedly is speaking to Mykola Kozitsyn, one of the purported leaders of the Cossacks operating in east Ukraine. The Militant makes it clear to Kozitsyn that it is not a military plane and has “Malaysian Airlines” written on the side. One wonders just where one could find such writing on the side of the crashed and exploded fuselage but that one is for the forensics to decide.”

In addition, multiple independent analysis’s of these audio recordings also reveals that these audio recordings were not integral files, indicating they were spliced together, as is evident from the different time stamp dates visible from the raw audio data. It also reveals at least one portion was recorded, or edited on July 16th – before the crash of MH17. ITAR-TASS Agency confirms this:

“The tape’s second fragment consists of three pieces but was presented as a single audio recording. However, a spectral and time analysis has showed that the dialog was cut into pieces and then assembled. Short pauses in the tape are very indicative: the audio file has preserved time marks which show that the dialog was assembled from various episodes, the expert said. The tape’s linguistic analysis also shows that those who made the faked tape clearly did not have enough material and time, the expert said. That is why, speech fragments can hardly correlate with each other in terms of their sense and the spectral picture of audio materials also differs, the expert said. But the most indicative moment is that the audio tape clearly shows that it was created almost a day before the airliner crash, the expert said.”

Only one conclusion can be drawn here: these tapes were faked, and released after the crash in order to assign blame on rebels and Russia for this event.

In addition to this, video production on both Kiev ‘tapes’ matches a previous YouTube video – same graphics style and editing, which was previously proven to be another fake. Interestingly, Ukrainian producers used the same actor, an alleged Cossack rebel commander, Mykola Kozitsyn, in their MH17 audio production. Zero Hedge also reveals: “Finally, we clearly have no way of authenticating the recording or the participants, it was just over a month ago, on June 5, when in another attempt to cast blame and discredit the separatists, Ukraine released another trademark YouTube clip seeking to disparage and frame Kozitsyn, entitled “Russian Cossack Formations are Responsible For Chaos In Ukraine.”

In summary, multiple falsified information releases by Kiev government officials only points to one conclusion: a cover-up. By contrast, Russia officials have not released any falsified or fraudulent ‘evidence’ to assign blame to any parties – instead Moscow released all of its verifiable data surrounding the incident which has now forced Washington to rethink its wild approach which previously tried to pin responsibility on Russia itself…


IMAGE: President Obama and John Kerry unable to settle on a version of events (Photo: RCJ)

US Now in Full Retreat and Damage-Control Mode

Amazingly, in a US State Department briefing led by Deputy Spokesperson Marie Harf on Tuesday July 22nd, Harf insisted that, yes, US intelligence officials still include these ‘social media’ posts as part of what Secretary of State John Kerry describes as a “mountain of evidence”.

Obviously under great pressure to show strength in the face of a complete collapse in confidence, Harf (photo, left) could be seen stuttering and twitching nervously as difficult questions were raised by members of the media. In one of the biggest flops in State Dept. history, Harf appeared so desperate to shed any further questions on ‘social media evidence’, that she opted for a fatal gaff - stating on record that “US intelligence officials have authenticated the audio”. Unless she means they’ve authenticated these as fake, this statement may come back to haunt US officials. Many are now calling it a bold-faced lie, designed to cover-up the mishandling and over-politicization of posts found on social media, shamelessly used by Washington to promote a war agenda.

As a result, CNN and others are now scavenging the tragedy, trying to hide the emerging facts under the heap of its “fair and balanced” mainstream conspiracy theories. The story has now shifted from what happened, to how US politicians are dealing with the crisis, as was evident after one major outlet who ran this headline, “Obama: What exactly are they trying to hide?” 

On Tuesday, the US government finally admitted (as well as it could), that it had been bluffing about its ‘certainty’ that Russia was behind the downing of Malaysian Air Flight MH-17.

Washington’s New Conspiracy Theory

In a damage control exercise this past Tuesday, Washington invited members of the majors like the Washington Post and the LA Times, to an ‘intelligence update’ briefing, and a press conference run by the inexperienced Marie Harf.

The Los Angeles Times reported:

“U.S. intelligence agencies have so far been unable to determine the nationalities or identities of the crew that launched the missile. U.S. officials said it was possible the SA-11 [anti-aircraft missile] was launched by a defector from the Ukrainian military who was trained to use similar missile systems.”

The quiet U-turn by Washington signals that its previous case blaming the rebels has been destroyed, and rather than concede that the Ukrainian Army has actually shot down MH17, they’ve chosen to instead concoct a new revision about a “rogue defector” and his “rogue team” who happen to be wearing Ukrainian Army uniforms.

Washington’s new and creative official conspiracy theories now include:

1. Ukrainian separatists shot down plane by mistake after misreading ‘fuzzy’ radar images on a much-too sophisticated AS-11 system (as if US intelligence officials were actually there), probably mistook the airliner for a Ukrainian military plane (reverting to their original line).

2. Missile that brought down Malaysian jet probably fired by ‘ill-trained crew’ of pro-Russian rebels

The “ill-trained crew” theory is the work of one U.S. official who, “requested anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly on the issue”. And who could blame him?

Finally, Washington ends up at a place it knows well – reducing a major geopolitical event or crime down to the work of a lone wolf, or in this case, a ‘rogue defector’ from the Ukrainian Army, an image which will no doubt fuel even more wild commentary by Wolf Blitzer, Anderson Cooper, George Stephanopoulos and Sean Hannity.

American investigative reporter Robert Parry (who broke many of the Iran-Contra scandal for AP and Newsweek in the 80′s) published this on Consortium News, July 20th (based on his CIA source):

“What I’ve been told by one source, who has provided accurate information on similar matters in the past, is that U.S. intelligence agencies do have detailed satellite images of the likely missile battery that launched the fateful missile, but the battery appears to have been under the control of Ukrainian government troops dressed in what look like Ukrainian uniforms.” 

This account is fully consistent with

1) the “anonymous US intelligence officers’ briefing from US mainstream media on Tuesday July 22,” as reported,

2) the briefing by the Russian Ministry of Defense on July 21 and,

3) Alexandr Zhilin‘s analysis previously covered.

Backpedaling even further, Washington has officially downgraded its overall indictment, with another ‘senior intelligence official’ announcing a brand new party line – a weaker thesis, somehow claiming that, “Russia created the conditions for this to happen”.

More Western Media Manipulation

London’s media arms have also sprung into action in an attempt to reinforce Washington-NATO-Kiev Axis assignment of guilt. In a classic demonstration of its pro-Foreign Office institutional bias, Guardian writer Shawn Walker carefully attempts to contain the western guilty verdict, considering only ‘pro-Russian rebels’ and intentionally reinforcing the ‘Rebel-BUK conspiracy theory’.

Walker states, “Claims by pro-Russia separatists in east Ukraine that they have never been in possession of the missile launcher apparently used to down flight MH17 are looking increasingly flimsy, as several witnesses told the Guardian they had seen what appeared to be a Buk missile launcher in the vicinity of the crash site last Thursday.

The sightings back up a number of photographs and videos posted online that put the Buk system close to the crash site on the day of the disaster. Just before lunchtime last Thursday, prior to the Malaysia Airlines plane’s takeoff, a Buk was driven through Gagarin Street, one of the central thoroughfares of Torez, witnesses said.”

The Guardian could very well be relaying genuine eyewitness accounts here, but only advanced media watchers will have noticed the slight of hand being applied here: Walker has ruled out any other possible suspects other than rebels – skillfully hiding his paper’s bias in reporting by pouring evidence collected into a pre-determined verdict. If the Guardian were not applying an institutional (British Foreign Office pre-determined conclusion) bias, then its editor would have combined the eyewitness accounts to the clear satellite photographic evidence provided by the Russian authorities, and it doesn’t take a genius to figure out who was really in possession of these surface-to-air missile systems – the Ukrainian military.

Official US Plan to Destroy Civilian Aircraft for Diplomatic Gain

The first official known plan to fake the destruction of a civilian aircraft was drafted by the US Pentagon in 1962. A former NSA analyst at Strategic Culture reports:

“The use of commercial passenger planes as false flag targets of opportunity for U.S. national security and intelligence planners is nothing new.

The U.S. National Archives yielded an explosive formerly classified document some five months before the 9/11 attack in 2001. The document, “Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba”, outlined for Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, a series of false flag attacks, code named Operation Northwoods, which would be carried out by the United States on various targets but be blamed on the Fidel Castro government of Cuba. Dated March 13, 1962, the Top Secret Northwoods document was prepared by America’s top covert Special Operations officer, General Edward Lansdale.”

The Northwoods plans called for the sinking of a boatload of Cuban refugees en route from Cuba to U.S. shores, blowing up an American ship in Cuban waters, and more importantly in light of the recent downing of Malaysian Airlines flight 17 over eastern Ukraine, faking a Cuban Air Force attack on a civilian jetliner.

Lansdale and his Northoods planners concluded that the U.S. invasion of Cuba would receive wide support as a result of an outraged public. The document states:

“World opinion and the United Nations forum should be favorably affected by developing the international image of Cuban government as rash and irresponsible, and as an alarming and unpredictable threat to the peace of the Western Hemisphere.”

Most certainly, this blueprint by US intelligence is mirrored today in 2014, as the US and its NATO member allies (and media assets in tow) using totally synchronized messaging – dominated by wild speculation, hyperbole and hysteria characterizing the rebels in the east of Ukraine as terrorists, Russia as the enemy, and President Vladimir Putin as ‘the personification of evil’ for American and British media consumers.

All we need now is the truth.

Since the attacks of September 11, we are witnessing a transformation of the way the media report the news. They lock us in the unreal. They base truth not on the coherence of a presentation, but on its shocking character. Thus, the observer remains petrified and cannot establish a relation to reality.

The media are lying to us, but at the same time, they show us that they are lying. It is no longer a matter of changing our perception of facts in order to get our support, but to lock us in the spectacle of the omnipotence of power. Showing the annihilation of reason is based on images that serve to replace facts. Information no longer focuses on the ability to perceive and represent a thing, but the need to experience it, or rather to experience oneself through it.

From Bin Laden to Merah, through the “tyrant” Bashar al-Assad, media discourse has become the permanent production of fetishes, ordering surrender to what is “given to see.” The injunction does not aim, as propaganda, to convince. It simply directs the subject to give flesh to the image of the “war of civilizations”. The discursive device of “War of Good against Evil,” updating the Orwellian doublethink process must become a new reality that de-structures our entire existence, of everyday life in global political relations.

Such an approch has become ubiquitous, especially regarding the war in Syria. It consists of cancelling a statement at the same time as it is pronounced, while maintaining what has been previously given to see and hear. The individual must have the ability to accept opposing elements, without raising the existing contradiction. Language is thus reduced to communication and cannot fulfill its function of representation. The deconstruction of the faculty to symbolize prevents any protection vis-à-vis the real to which we are in submission.

Enunciating a Statement And its Opposite at the Same Time

In the reports on the conflict in Syria, the double think procedure is omnipresent. Stating at the same time a thing and its opposite produces a decay of consciousness. It is no longer possible to perceive and analyze reality. Unable to put emotion at a distance, we cannot but feel the real and thus be submitted to it.

Opponents of the regime of Bashar al-Assad are dubbed “freedom fighters” and Islamic fundamentalist enemies of democracy at the same time. It is the same with regard to the use of chemical weapons by belligerents. The media, in the absence of evidence, express certainty as to the Syrian regime’s responsability, although they mention the use of such weapons by the “rebels”. In particular, they relayed the statements of magistrate Carla Del Ponte, a member of the UN independent commission of inquiry into violence in Syria, who said, on May 5, 2013 on Swiss television, “According to the testimonies we have gathered, the rebels have used chemical weapons, making use of sarin gas.” This magistrate, who is also the former prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia can hardly be called indulgent toward the “regime of Bashar Assad.” “Our investigations should be further developed, verified and confirmed through new evidence, but according to what we have established so far, it is the opponents who used sarin,” she added. [1]

The White House, for its part, did not want to consider this evidence and has always expressed an opposite position. Thus, as regards the August 21 Ghouta massacre, it released a statement explaining that there is “little doubt” of the use by Syria of chemical weapons against its opposition. The statement added that the Syrian agreement to allow the UN inspectors in the area is “too late to be credible.”

Reduction of qualitative to quantitative.

Following the use, August 21, 2013, of chemical weapons in the suburbs of Damascus, Kerry reiterated the “strong certainty” of the United States concerning the liability of the Syrian regime. A U.S. intelligence report, released by the White House and said to rely on “multiple” sources, also said that the Syrian government used nerve gas in the attack, the use of which by the rebels is “highly unlikely”. [2]

The individual is placed outside the differentiating power of language. That which is qualitative, that which is certain, is reduced to that which is quantitative, to the “different degrees of certainty” expressed previously by Obama or the “high certainty” pronounced by J. Kerry. The “very little doubt”, as to the liability of the Syrian regime, also mirrors the “highly unlikely” responsibility attributed to opponents. Quality is thereby restricted to a quantitative difference. Quality, that which is, becomes at the same time, that which is not or at least that which may not be, because it no longer expresses a certainty, but a certain amount or degree of certainty or doubt. The opposites, “certainty” and “doubt” become equivalent. The qualitative difference is reduced to a quantitative gap. There is no longer any quality other than that of measurement.

This reduction of qualitative to quantitative has otherwise already invaded our daily lives. We no longer refer to the poor but to the “less fortunate”. Similarly, we no longer encounter invalids, but “less able persons”. The least skilled jobs are now given names that deny de-qualification. Thus, a cleaning woman becomes a ” housekeeper”, the cashier disappears in favour of the “sales assistant” and garbage Collector are now called « sanitation worker ».

The separating power of language is annihilated. Words are turned into verbal phrases that build a homogenized world. We are in a world in which everyone is advantaged. No more are there qualitative differences between human beings, but only quantitative differences. The vision of a world of perfect homogeneity where only equals exist, no longer differing other than quantitatively, was already foreseen by George Orwell in Animal Farm: « All are equal, but some would be more so than others » « [3].

Absolute Certainty in the Absence of Evidence.

The word, which describes and differentiates things, is replaced by an image, by that which is everything at the same time as being nothing. Instead of a word referring to an object, degrees of certainty concern only the feelings of the speaker. These verbal phrases are not intended to designate objective things, but to place the person who receives the message in the perspective of the speaker, to lock them in the warped meaning created by the latter.

Expressed certainty can detach itself from facts and present itself as purely subjective. It does not refer to an observation, but refers to a condition posing as objective through a quantization operation.

The certainty of U.S. and French authorities also distinguishes itself in that it is built on equivocal data, on the invocation of evidence of liability of the Syrian regime, although they recall the impossibility of knowing who struck and how chemical weapons were used. It is no longer possible to construct an objective certainty, because the observation of facts is defused and leaves room for the stupefaction of the observer. Expressed certainty no longer separates true from false, since the ability to judge is suspended.

Precisely, subjective and objective certainty is undifferentiated. It is not a matter of believing what is stated, but of believing the authority who speaks, no matter what he says. Statements of Presidents Obama and Holland are immediately given as absolute certainty, ie: they occupy the place that Descartes gives to God “as a principle guaranteeing the objective truth of subjective experience…” [4]. The matter of going through the steps of objective verification, through the judgment of existence, does not arise to the extent that certainty is set free from all spatial and temporal constraints. It is posited in the absence of limits, in the absence of what psychoanalysis calls the “Third Person”, the place of the Other. [5]

Removal of the “Third Person”

Absolute certainty, posing as the be all and end all, installs a denial of reality, that which escapes us. It does not recognize loss. Constituting “we” is no longer possible because it can only be formed from that which is missing. The monad, for its part, lacks nothing because it is fused with state power. Fetishes fabricated by “the news” fill the void of reality, occupy the place of that which is missing and operate a denial of the third party.

Absolute certainty is opposed to the establishment of a symbolic order integrating the “third person” [6], the domain of language. The proper function of language is to signify that which is real, knowing that the word is not reality itself, but that by which it is represented. Jacques Lacan expresses this necessity with his aphorism “the thing must be lost in order to be represented”. [7]

On the contrary, absolute certainty attaches words to things and does not take into account their relationships. In the absence of a ’third person’, it prevents any real articulation with the symbolic. This absence of linkage is the formation of a social psychosis wherein that which is stated by power becomes reality. The deficiency also allows the emergence of a perverse structure that reverses the speech act and prevents identifying the reality of the psychosis.

Enrolling us in psychosis, the discourse of French and American authorities originates in perverse denial. It constitutes a coup against language “coup because disavowal is situated at the logical basis of language” [8]. Denial of reality is realized by a commodification of words and a procedure of cleavage. The cynical coup is this: “pervert that by which law is articulated, make language the reasonable discourse of unreason” [9] as with “humanitarian war” or “counter-terrorism”.

Counter-terrorism legislation is presented as rational actions to dismantle the law in favour of the fabrication of images. U.S. law is particularly rich in these pictorial constructions, such as the “lone wolf”, a lone terrorist related to an international movement, the “enemy combatant” or “unlawful belligerent” that exist, because they are designated as such by the U.S. President. The enemy combatant, as illegal belligerent, may be a U.S. citizen who has never been on a battlefield and whose “military action” amounts to an act of protest against a military engagement. Deviation from that which is stated by the powers that be is no longer possible. Similarly, any protection against its real threat is removed. The reality manifests itself without dissimilation and can henceforth petrify us.

The suppression of the Third Person reducing the individual to a monad, no longer having an Other outside of state power, allows authority, especially as regards discourse on the war in Syria, to produce a new reality. Evidence of the guilt of the Syrian regime exists, because authority says so.

A “disturbing strangeness”.

The absence of a “third person” settles us in transparency, in a never-never land beyond language. It removes the relationship between interior and exterior. The expression of the omnipotence of the U.S. President, his will to break free from the constraints of language and of any judicial order, reveals our condition, its reduction to “naked life.” There then occurs “a special kind of scary” Freud calls Unheimliche [10], a term which has no equivalent in French and which can as well be translated as “disturbing strangeness” and as “disturbing familiarity.”

It would be, as defined by Schelling, something that should have remained hidden and which has reappeared. Unveiled, worldly things appear in their raw presence as Real. Where the individual believed himself at home, he suddenly feels driven from his home and becomes strangely foreign to himself. The inside of our condition, our annihilation is thrown out and appears to us as a plaything of the U.S. executive branch. The staging of our division, “disturbing strangeness”, becoming that which is most familiar to us, suppresses intimateness by replacing it.

Freud suggests a dissociation of the ego. The latter is then pulverised and can no longer display the Real, the threat that petrifies it. Freud speaks of the formation of a stranger “I” that can turn itself into moral conscience and treat the other part as an object [11].

This mechanism reappears as the return of the repressed archaic, that which is intended to hide the distress of the nursing child. The “disturbing strangeness”, produced by Obama’s speech is of the same order. It instrumentalises what happened in Iraq in order to prevent us from forgetting our impotence. Thus, it reinforces “the permanent return of the same” constitutive of a sense of “disturbing strangeness” or disturbing familiarity. The process of repetition presents itself as an inexorable process, like a power that we cannot confront.

Jacques Lacan confirms this reading. Echoing the work of Freud on the “disturbing strangeness”, he shows that anxiety arises when the subject is facing the “lack of lack” that is to say, an all-powerful otherness that invades the self to the point of destroying every faculty of desire. [12]

In fact, the two translations, the first highlighting the strangeness, the second its familiar character, make each highlight one aspect of this particular anxiety that one can also deal with thanks to the notion of transparency. Interior and exterior confusing themselves, the individual is at once struck by the strangeness of seeing his impotence, by his interior deprivation exhibited outside himself and by the colonization of his intimacy by the spectacle, become familiar, of the enjoyment of the other.

Denial and Splitting of the Ego.

Dissociation is an archaic defense attempt when faced with a power with which one cannot cope. This disintegration of the Ego allows the return of a “déjà vu”. The Superego calls one to see oneself as an infant, as one who does not speak, thus causing a feeling of “disturbing strangeness”.

Faced with the imperative need to believe in the responsibility of Bashar Assad, the individual must suspend contrary information and treat it as if it did not exist. He proceeds to a denial of all that is different, then couched in the regressive position, that of the umbilical union with the mother, a stage preceding language, before the appearance of the function of the father. [13]

The denial of the contradiction between a thing and its opposite, the responsibility of the Syrian government and the use of chemical weapons by the rebels, is the act of denying the reality of perception seen as dangerous because the individual would then have to face the omniscience displayed by the powers that be. To contain the anxiety produced by the “disturbing strangeness”, the subject is forced to juxtapose two opposing and parallel ways of reasoning. The individual then has two incompatible unlinked visions. The denial of the opposition between these two elements removes any confliction; because there coexists within oneself two opposing statements that are juxtaposed without influencing each other. This denial rests on what psychoanalysis calls the “splitting of the ego.”

The cleavage gives one the opportunity to live on two different levels, placing side by side, on the one hand, “knowledge”, the use of sarin gas by the rebels, and on the other hand a dodging of confrontation with a suspension of information. This is to prevent any struggle, any symbolism in order to enjoy the full omnipotence of the powers that be. In the absence of a perceived lack in what one is told, one finds oneself beneath the conflict in an annulment of any judgment.

Orwell has also highlighted this procedure in his definition of “doublethink.” It consists in the following: “to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancel each other out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them,” while being able to forget, « whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed ». Then one must forget, ie: “consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you have just performed. ” [14]

Cleavage is recurrent in the speech surrounding the war in Syria. Things here are regularly affirmed, at the same time as that which contradicts them without a relationship being established between the different enunciations. Contrary to statements by Carla Del Ponte, Washington would first have arrived, “with varying degrees of certainty,” at the conclusion that the Syrian government forces had used sarin gas against their own people. However, Barack Obama, at the same time, said the United States didn’t know ” how [these weapons] were used, when they were used or who used them” [15]. The operation places the subject in fragmentation, unable to react to the nonsense of what is said and shown. One cannot cope with a certainty that is claimed in the absence of evidence.

The logical reversal of language building becomes a manifestation of the power of the U.S. executive. It exhibits a capacity to overcome any language organisation and thus all symbolic order. The absurdity reclaimed by the statement is as a coup against the logical basis of language. It henceforth has a petrification effect on people and captivates them in psychosis.

Notes

[1] « Les rebelles syriens ont utilisé du gaz sarin, selon Carla Del Ponte », Le Monde.fr avec Reuters, le 6 mai 2013.

[2] « Syrie : les États-Unis ont la “forte certitude” que Damas a eu recours à des armes chimiques », Le Monde.fr, le 30 août 2013.

[3] « All are equal but some than others », Georges Orwell, in Animal Farm.

[4] Charles-Éric de Saint Germain, L’Avènement de la vérité Hegel, Kierkegaard, Heidegger, L’Harmattan 2003, p. 37.

[5]Dominique Temple, “Lacan et la réciprocité”, 2008, http://dominique.temple.free.fr/reciprocite.php?page=reciprocite_2&id_article=202

[6] Le « Tiers » est ce qui défusionne l’enfant de la mère, lui donnant ainsi accès au champ du langage et de la parole. Il permet l’assujettissement du sujet à un ordre symbolique.

[7] Jacques Lacan, « Fonction et champ de la parole et du langage en psychanalyse » – in : Écrits 1, Le Seuil, Paris, 1966.

[8] Houriya Abdellouahed, « La tactilité d’une parole. Le pervers et la substance », in Cliniques méditerranéennes N° 72,  Érès , p.5, http://www.cairn.info/revue-cliniques-mediterraneennes-2005-2.htm

[9] Op. Cit., p. 8.

[10] Unheimliche est un adjectif substantivé, formé à partir de deux termes : le préfixe Un, exprimant la privation et l’adjectif heimlich (familier). La traduction « l’inquiétante étrangeté », d’abord proposée par Marie Bonaparte, ne tient compte ni de la familiarité signifié par heimlich, ni de la négation marquée par le Un. Aussi d’autres traductions ont été proposées telle que « l’inquiétante familiarité ». Lire les remarques préliminaires de François Stirn à la traduction de Une inquiétante étrangeté, par Marie Bonaparte et E. Marty, Profil Textes Philosophiques, Philosophie, octobre 2008, www.esparedes.pt/escola/images/freud_etrangete.pdf

[11] Le partage en deux éléments séparés a pour conséquence « que l’un participe au savoir, aux sentiments et aux expériences de l’autre, de l’unification à une autre personne, de sorte que l’on ne sait plus à quoi s’en tenir quant au moi propre, ou qu’on met le moi étranger à la place du Moi propre —donc dédoublement du Moi, division du Moi, permutation du Moi— et enfin, le retour permanent du même », S. Freud, « Inquiétante étrangeté et clivage », in L’Inquiétante étrangeté et autres essais, Gallimard 1988, p. 236.

[12] Régine Detambel, « Sigmund Freud, L’inquiétante étrangeté  autres essais, http://www.detambel.com/f/index.php?sp=liv&livre_id=656

[13] « Inquiétante étrangeté et clivage », http://theses.univ-lyon2.fr/documents/getpart.php?id=lyon2.2002.ravit_m&part=66598

[14] « Retenir simultanément deux opinions qui s’annulent alors qu’on les sait contradictoires et croire à toutes deux… Oublier tout ce qu’il est nécessaire d’oublier, puis le rappeler à sa mémoire quand on en a besoin, pour l’oublier plus rapidement encore. Surtout, appliquer le même processus au processus lui-même. Là, était l’ultime subtilité. Persuader consciemment l’inconscient, puis devenir ensuite inconscient de l’acte d’hypnose que l’on vient de perpétrer. La compréhension même du mot « double pensée » impliquait l’emploi de la double pensée. »,  George Orwell, 1984, première partie, chapitre III, Gallimard Folio 1980, p.55

[15] « Les rebelles syriens ont utilisé du gaz sarin, selon Carla Del Ponte », Op. Cit.

 

This article was first published on our French language website www.mondialisation.ca

Article in French :

Discours de la guerre et double pensée. L’exemple de la Syrie. Mondialisation.ca, 29 of June of 2014

Translation : Roger Lagassé

Press Release

Gaza Ministry of Health, Palestine

Individuals from Spain, Sweden, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, New Zealand, Australia and Venezuela today began a constant protective presence at the al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza City, in response to increasing attacks on medical facilities and personnel by the Israeli military.

 One of Gaza’s hospitals has been totally destroyed, a paediatric hospital so severely damaged it is unusable, and another six have been severely damaged. Four health professionals have been killed and 14 injured. Two medical clinics and 14 ambulances have been completely destroyed, and seven other clinics have been damaged.

 “Hospitals are now targets for the Israeli occupation,” said Dr Medhat Abbas, Director General of Health, “Nowhere is safe. The solidarity and support of the international volunteers is very much appreciated, and we encourage others to join them.”

One of the volunteers said that Shifa Hospital is a red line that must not be crossed.

 ”Israel’s ruthless onslaught against Gaza’s hospitals, clinics, and ambulances has pushed its health care sector, already struggling under siege, to the breaking point. With deaths and injuries, including those from Israeli attacks on medical facilities, rapidly mounting, al-Shifa is a red line the world cannot allow Israel to cross,” said Joe Catron, an activist with the International Solidarity Movement.

 Deputy Ministry of Health Gaza Dr Yousef AbuAlrish welcomed the presence of the nine international volunteers to act as human shields at Shifa Hospital.

 “Saving even one life is equivalent to saving humanity,” he said. “The work you are doing is immensely important.”

 The internationals volunteers will maintain a 24-hour presence at Shifa, and constantly move between wards and departments to provide maximum protection.

 Contacts:

Dr Yousef AbuAlrish, Deputy  Minister of Health                                +972 597 918 339

Dr Medhat Abbas, Director General, Ministry of Health                    +972 599 403 547

Just days after the tragic crash of a Malaysian Airlines flight over eastern Ukraine, Western politicians and media joined together to gain the maximum propaganda value from the disaster.

It had to be Russia; it had to be Putin, they said.

President Obama held a press conference to claim – even before an investigation – that it was pro-Russian rebels in the region who were responsible. His ambassador to the UN, Samantha Power, did the same at the UN Security Council – just one day after the crash!

What the media won’t report about Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17

While western media outlets rush to repeat government propaganda on the event, there are a few things they will not report.

They will not report that the crisis in Ukraine started late last year, when EU and US-supported protesters plotted the overthrow of the elected Ukrainian president, Viktor Yanukovych. Without US-sponsored “regime change,” it is unlikely that hundreds would have been killed in the unrest that followed. Nor would the Malaysian Airlines crash have happened.

The media has reported that the plane must have been shot down by Russian forces or Russian-backed separatists, because the missile that reportedly brought down the plane was Russian made. But they will not report that the Ukrainian government also uses the exact same Russian-made weapons.

They will not report that the post-coup government in Kiev has, according to OSCE monitors, killed 250 people in the breakaway Lugansk region since June, including 20 killed as government forces bombed the city center the day after the plane crash! Most of these are civilians and together they roughly equal the number killed in the plane crash. By contrast, Russia has killed no one in Ukraine, and the separatists have struck largely military, not civilian, targets.

They will not report that the US has strongly backed the Ukrainian government in these attacks on civilians, which a State Department spokeswoman called “measured and moderate.”

They will not report that neither Russia nor the separatists in eastern Ukraine have anything to gain but everything to lose by shooting down a passenger liner full of civilians.

They will not report that the Ukrainian government has much to gain by pinning the attack on Russia, and that the Ukrainian prime minister has already expressed his pleasure that Russia is being blamed for the attack.

They will not report that the missile that apparently shot down the plane was from a sophisticated surface-to-air missile system that requires a good deal of training that the separatists do not have.

They will not report that the separatists in eastern Ukraine have inflicted considerable losses on the Ukrainian government in the week before the plane was downed.

They will not report how similar this is to last summer’s US claim that the Assad government in Syria had used poison gas against civilians in Ghouta.

Assad was also gaining the upper hand in his struggle with US-backed rebels and the US claimed that the attack came from Syrian government positions. Then, US claims led us to the brink of another war in the Middle East. At the last minute public opposition forced Obama to back down – and we have learned since then that US claims about the gas attack were false.

Of course it is entirely possible that the Obama administration and the US media has it right this time, and Russia or the separatists in eastern Ukraine either purposely or inadvertently shot down this aircraft. The real point is, it’s very difficult to get accurate information so everybody engages in propaganda.

At this point it would be unwise to say the Russians did it, the Ukrainian government did it, or the rebels did it. Is it so hard to simply demand a real investigation?

Press Release

Gaza Ministry of Health, Palestine

Medical Facilities and personnel are a red line

The Ministry of Health Gaza strongly condemns two Israeli attacks on Gazan medical facilities and personnel in the last 24 hours.

The first resulted in the destruction of Al Durrah Children’s Hospital in Gaza City last night. A two year-old child in the Intensive Care Unit was killed, and 30 others injured.

 The second was attack this afternoon on an ambulance with two paramedics inside in Beit Hanoun, North Gaza. One was killed, and the other critically injured.

These cold-blooded, pre-meditated and utterly immoral crimes against protected persons must be condemned by all those who purport any commitment to the rule of law.

The Ministry demands the immediate cessation of Israeli occupation military attacks against medical facilities and personnel in Gaza, and demands that the international community soundly condemn this latest Israeli atrocity, and hold Israel accountable for these war crimes.

  Contacts:

Dr Yousef AbuAlrish, Deputy  Minister of Health                                +972 597 918 339

Dr Medhat Abbas, Director General, Ministry of Health                    +972 599 403 547

Resolution passes, despite US opposition, as body approves official inquiry into “all violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law”

The United States was the only country in the world that voted Wednesday against the United Nations investigating human rights violations in Gaza unleashed by Israel’s military assault.

Of the 47 members of the UN Human Rights Council, 29 nations voted to set up a commission to launch an international, independent inquiry, effectively passing the resolution. Seventeen countries abstained, including Germany, France, and the United Kingdom.

The inquiry will look at “all violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the occupied Gaza Strip in the context of military operations conducted since mid June,” according to a statement from the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. The council criticized Israeli military operations for unleashing “widespread, systematic and gross violations of international human rights and fundamental freedoms.”

U.S. ambassador to the Council, Keith Harper, said he issued the “no” vote because the resolution is a “biased and political instrument” that “will not help” the “cessation of hostilities.”

But Josh Ruebner, policy director for the U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, told Common Dreams that the U.S. vote simply “shows the great extent to which the U.S. goes to protect Israel in international forums from any accountability for its actions, no matter how egregious.” Ruebner added that U.S. claims of imbalance are illegitimate, as the inquiry will investigate human rights violations perpetrated by Hamas as well as Israel.

Phyllis Bennis, senior fellow at Institute for Policy Studies, told Common Dreams that the U.S. “no” vote is part of a larger pattern. “The U.S. is the reason why the United Nations is not able to play the role its charter requires, which is to stop the scourge of war,” said Bennis. “The U.S. vetoes and threatens to veto in the Security Council, and in arenas like the General Assembly or Human Rights Council where there is no veto, they threaten other countries.”

The UN resolution comes amid an ever-rising Palestinian death toll, with Gaza Health Ministry official Ashraf al-Qudra reporting Thursday that so far 784 Palestinians have been killed and over 5,000 wounded in Israel’s “Protective Edge” operation. Kyung-Wha Kang, Assistant Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and UN Deputy Emergency Relief Coordinator, estimates that 74 percent of the Palestinians killed are civilians and one-third are children. “One child has been killed each hour in Gaza over the past two days,” Kang said on Wednesday, according to the UN.

Israel launched air strikes on Palestinians seeking shelter in a UN school in Beit Hanoun in Gaza on Thursday, killing at least 15 people and wounding dozens. The attack marked at least the fourth time a UN facility in Gaza has been hit since July 8, according to the Guardian. Chris Gunness, spokesperson for the UN Relief and Works Agency, said on Twitter that “Precise co-ordinates of the UNRWA shelter in Beit Hanoun had been formally given to the Israeli army.”

Thirty-two Israeli soldiers, two Israeli civilians, and a Thai worker in Israel have died.

Rubner expressed concern that the U.S. is likely to obstruct any attempt on the part of the Council to hold Israel accountable for war crimes: “What’s likely to happen is same thing with the Goldstone Report and the Human Rights Council inquiry into the attack on the aid flotilla: reports will document the fact that Israel has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity, and the U.S. will use its veto power or threat thereof to prevent the international community from acting on recommendations for accountability.”

In Bloomberg’s article, “Two Ukrainian Jets Shot Down, Three Dangerous Explanations,” it claims two Ukrainian SU-25 ground attack warplanes were shot down by rebels over Donetsk in eastern Ukraine, stating:

Ukrainian Defense Ministry spokesman told reporters in Kiev that two of its Sukhoi SU-25 fighter jets were shot down while flying at 5,200 meters (17,000 feet) over the Donetsk region in eastern Ukraine. The pilots ejected, and their whereabouts are unknown.

At 17,000 feet, the planes would have been outside the range of the shoulder-fired missiles that the rebels contend are their only air-defense weapons. The planes would, however, be in range of a surface-to-air missile such as the Buk, which is suspected to have been used to shoot down Malaysian Airlines flight MH-17 on July 17.

Bloomberg’s “three dangerous explanations” are patently false. They first assert that the rebels have been lying about the weapons they have access to, claiming (emphasis added):

This possibility would mean that the rebels do, in fact, have missiles capable of hitting a plane at high altitude. The evidence mustered so far that the Malaysia Air plane was shot down at 33,000 feet over rebel-held territory has proven a major problem. “The rebels are clearly having a very difficult time denying having access to such equipment,” says Reed Foster, a defense analyst at IHS Jane’s in London. The rebels have said they have shoulder-fired weapons known as MANPADS, but Foster says shooting down a plane at 17,000 would be “far outside the capacity” of those weapons.

However, Jane’s itself published an article titled, “Ukraine claims Malaysian airliner was shot down in its territory,” in which it claimed (emphasis added):

The shooting down of a Ukrainian air force An-26 transport plane in Luhansk province on 14 July has also raised questions about more advanced systems potentially being operated by the separatists. The An-26 military aircraft was hit while flying at cruising altitude (6,500 m), out of the range of most MANPADS. This suggests the separatists have either gained access to more advanced systems – such as the 9K38 Igla-S (SA-24) MANPADS, 96K6 Pantsyr-S1 self-propelled air defence systems, or 9K37 Buk (SA-11) self-propelled surface-to-air missile systems – or that the aircraft was downed by a missile fired by a Russian system over the border. Moscow denied any involvement in that incident. 

In other words, there are MANPADS capable of hitting Ukrainian SU-25 warplanes and even higher flying military transport planes (up to 6,500 m) – without possessing weapons like Buk missile systems that could reach 33,000 feet where MH17 was flying, or higher.

Bloomberg’s other two “explanations,” include Russia firing the missiles from within their territory – which like all claims by the Western media lack any evidence at all to back them up – and that the Ukrainian government is lying, which is of course plausible since the Ukrainian government already irrationally claims “Russia” shot down MH17 on purpose as an act of malice state-sponsored terrorism. But while Ukraine lying about the incident is possible, the fact that man-portable missile systems rebels may possess could target and take down the SU-25s at the altitudes they were allegedly flying at, provides the most credible “explanation,” and not surprisingly, the explanation Bloomberg intentionally omitted from its propaganda.

With all that is at stake amid the current politically-motivated climate surrounding the downing of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17, would Ukrainian separatists still be using Buk missile systems if they indeed had them to begin with?

Would the Russians still be assisting them in their use – a necessity the West has unanimously declared would be required for separatists to deploy the Buk missile system in the first place? Or were Ukrainian separatists using the highly capable MANPAD systems Jane’s alluded to in their recent analysis of aircraft shot down at higher altitudes than the two SU-25s were flying at? Without actual evidence provided by Bloomberg or the less than credible Ukrainian regime they are citing, commonsense suggests the latter.

This article was first published by Who What Why

The South Stream pipeline’s planned route through the heart of Europe

Now that all eyes are on Ukraine and the potential of a bigger war looms, there’s never been a more important time to understand what is at stake.

As WhoWhatWhy readers know, the real reasons surrounding a conflict are often buried under the headlines and rhetoric.

So it shouldn’t come as any surprise that, behind the scenes, oil and natural gas is driving a big piece of the U.S. response to Russian involvement in Ukraine.

If you want to understand where the rubber meets the geopolitical road in the Ukraine war, you need to learn about the 1,480-mile South Stream natural gas pipeline.South Stream pipeline’s planned route through the heart of Europe

The pipeline is core to the larger battle being fought over Europe between Moscow and Washington. It may even have been a motivation behind Russia’s annexation of Crimea. And if there’s a crack in the unified front between the U.S. and Europe over Russia’s role in Ukraine, South Stream is it.

Why does South Stream matter? It’s a $21.6 billion project to connect Russia’s gas reserves—the world’s largest—to Europe’s markets.  Europe relies on Russia for about 30 percent of its natural gas.

Any delays in finishing the pipeline—scheduled for completion in 2018—can only help Russia’s competitors in the international energy business.  And one player gearing up to challenge Russia in the European energy market is the United States.

This year, the United States became the largest producer of natural gas and oil hydrocarbons in the world, surpassing Russia and Saudi Arabia. There’s solid evidence that the U.S. is seeking both commercial advantage and political influence by gaining a foothold in Europe’s oil and gas markets.

The evidence comes, in part, from the targets the Obama administration has chosen to punish for Russia’s annexation of the Crimean peninsula. All of this raises the question of how much the confrontation in the Ukraine is about who gets to sell natural gas (and later oil) to one of the world’s biggest energy consumers: Europe.

PIPELINE GEOPOLITICS

South Stream pipeline map.

South Stream pipeline map.

South Stream owes much of its existence to the 2005-2010 Russia-Ukraine gas disputes, which left as many as 18 European countries cut off from Russian gas. Gazprom, Russia’s state-run energy company, proposed South Stream as a way to circumvent Ukraine and ensure an uninterrupted, diversified flow to Europe. It found a willing partner in the Italy’s state-controlled oil and gas company, Eni S.p.A., and seven other gas-hungry countries.

To truly understand how intrinsic South Stream is to Russian economic influence over Europe, one only has to look at some of the targets of U.S. sanctions against Russian or Russian-linked companies. Two of them were directly aimed at slowing down or stopping South Stream.

The first South Stream-related company the U.S. targeted was Stroytransgaz, which is building the Bulgarian section. Putin ally and billionaire Gennady Timchenko owns it and he’s already on the sanctions list. So Stroytransgaz had to stop construction or risk exposing other companies on the project to the sanctions.

The second entity in the sanctions crosshairs was a Crimean company called Chernomorneftgaz. After the Russian annexation, the Crimean parliament voted to take over the company, which belonged to the Ukrainian government. And guess what that company owned? The rights to the exclusive maritime economic zone in the Black Sea.

That’s important because Russia routed the pipeline on a longer path through the Black Sea that cut out Ukraine. It avoided the Crimean waters, going instead via Turkey’s.

EUROPEAN SPLIT

The European Union attacked South Stream through a non-binding resolution that called for a halt to its construction. EU member states don’t have to pay attention to the resolution, which was mostly designed to put public pressure on Russia.

That’s where split among countries in Europe became evident.

Several that will benefit from the pipeline have spoken out in support of construction or moved ahead with agreements to build it. Italy wants it to proceed, and Austria and Russia signed an agreement to construct a segment, in defiance of the EU’s position that the pipeline may violate anti-competitiveness rules. Germany’s Siemens will supply the instrumentation for the pipeline.

123One country that’s trying to avoid getting trampled as the giants fight is Bulgaria. It still has close ties to Russia but is subject to pressure from the U.S.

Both have taken aim at its section of South Stream, which is where the pipeline will come ashore from Russia via the Black Sea. The European Union warned the Bulgarian government that its construction tender broke EU rules. The U.S. sanctioned the company that won the tender, Stroytransgaz.

Bulgaria is arguing to the EU that its position is legally sound, and that its economic stability is at risk without South Stream. Bulgaria has no other secure gas supply so “the national interest must be protected,” Economy and Energy Minister Dragomir Stoynev said.

In the meantime, Bulgaria is hard at work finding a way around the U.S. sanctions. The government may hand the construction job to a subsidiary of Gazprom that’s building the Serbian section. And here’s a neat trick: the Bulgarian government approved an $835 million loan from Gazprom to pay for it, secured by future revenue from the pipeline.

JUST BUSINESS, NEVER POLITICAL

According to Vladimir Putin, South Stream is just a business venture facing ordinary commercial setbacks that have nothing to do with Ukraine. Washington is interfering, Putin said after meeting with his Austrian counterpart in June, because the United States wants to supply the gas to Europe. “It is an ordinary competitive struggle. In the course of this competition, political tools are being used,” he said, referring to the U.S. sanctions.

Undoubtedly, the United States has a massive commercial interest in selling natural gas to Europe. Thanks to the abundant supply created by the domestic shale-gas boom, the U.S. may be able to export liquefied natural gas to European buyers in the near future. Already, Washington has licensed seven export facilities; about 30 more are awaiting approval. The first exports could start by the end of this year.

Pipeline Work

Pipeline Work

But since all the infrastructure to ship liquefied gas is not yet in place, Serbian Prime Minister Alexander Vucic, a South Stream proponent, has ridiculed the idea of U.S. gas exports to Europe in a year or two as “fairy tales.” Meanwhile, Putin has pointedly said that piped gas will always be cheaper than the liquid form, and Moscow has consistently claimed that Europe’s gas bill will rise if it chooses alternatives besides Russian natural gas.

However, there’s more than natural gas at play in Europe’s energy future. The Obama Administration is negotiating a free trade agreement with Europe that could legalize American oil exports for the first time since 1975. This would bring U.S. exporters in direct competition with Russia, which sells 84 percent of its oil exports to Europe today.

At the moment the South Stream pipeline is projected to generate approximately $20 billion a year in income.  With that much money at stake, the politics behind the armed confrontation in eastern Ukraine takes on a new dimension: Is the shooting war there part of larger, longer-term conflict—a continuing battle between the United States and Russia for global energy dominance?

The far-right parliamentary coalition in Kiev collapsed yesterday, as the Western-backed regime met with visiting Dutch and Australian officials to prepare a foreign military intervention in war-torn east Ukraine, under cover of investigating the crash of Malaysian Airlines flight MH17.

Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk (Fatherland Party) announced his resignation after the withdrawal from the coalition of the fascist Svoboda Party and the UDAR (“Punch”) party of boxer Vitaly Klitshcko. Yatsenyuk will remain as prime minister until either a new coalition is formed or after elections sometime later this year.

Billionaire oligarch and Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko supported the dissolution of the government, claiming it would permit a “full-scale reset” of the Ukrainian state that Ukrainian society desires. Porsoshenko, who assumed office last month, is hoping that new elections, which Poroshenko can call if a new coalition is not formed in 30 days, will be an opportunity to strengthen his own grip on power.

The collapse of the parliamentary coalition points to the weakness of the regime that emerged from the February 22 putsch. As it prepares to support a Western military intervention in the civil war it is waging in east Ukraine, posing the risk of an escalation into a clash between NATO and Russia, the Kiev regime is preparing austerity measures demanded by the EU that will have a devastating impact on broad sections of the population throughout the country.

Under these conditions, the government cannot tolerate any political opposition, even from such establishment forces as the Stalinist Communist Party of Ukraine (KPU). Explaining his party’s decision to leave the government, Svoboda Party leader Oleh Tyahnybok denounced the presence of pro-Russian forces (the KPU) in the Ukrainian legislature: “We believe that in the current situation, such a parliament which protects state criminals, Moscow agents, which refuses to strip immunity from those people who are working for the Kremlin, should not exist.”

These comments were apparently designed to increase pressure for a ban on the KPU. A party that supported the restoration of capitalism in the USSR, the KPU became an ally of the Party of the Regions of former pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych, who was ousted in February’s Western-backed, fascist-led putsch that brought the current regime to power.

For his part, Parliamentary speaker Oleksandr Turchynov pledged to destroy the KPU. “We only have to tolerate this party for another day,” he said.

These statements came a day after KPU leader Peter Symonenko accused Svoboda members fighting in east Ukraine of killing Ukrainians and harvesting their organs for the illegal organ trade. Significantly, Svoboda did not even attempt to answer Symonenko’s charges. Instead, it responded by beating KPU legislators and trying to throw Symonenko out of the parliament.

KPU officials from the Donetsk region reported yesterday that a KPU official in the nearby village of Glinky, Vyacheslav Kovshun, had been tortured to death at a Ukrainian National Guard checkpoint in the night of July 22-23. He was stopped at the checkpoint, beaten, and repeatedly shot to the legs and chest. He was found dead.

These events point to the utterly reactionary character of the regime installed by the February putsch, which was carried out in close collaboration with Washington, Berlin, and their European allies. After the putsch, Svoboda officials filmed themselves beating Ukrainian television executives. Forces like Svoboda and the Right Sector militia—both of which glorify Stepan Bandera, who collaborated with Nazi SS units that carried out the Holocaust in Ukraine during World War II—now lead the Kiev regime’s forces in east Ukraine.

In his resignation speech yesterday, Yatsenyuk warned that the dissolution of his government might slow the pace of Kiev’s unpopular social cuts against the Ukrainian people to fund the civil war. These include billions of dollars in cuts to energy subsidies, social programs, and government workers’ wages, while not touching the hundreds of billions of dollars of ill-gotten wealth held by the oligarchs.

“Who wants to go to elections and simultaneously vote for unpopular laws?” Yatsenyuk asked. “History will not forgive us. Our government now has no answer to the questions: how are we to pay wages, how are we tomorrow morning going to send fuel for armored vehicles, how will we pay those families who have lost soldiers, to look after the army?”

As the crisis of the Kiev regime mounts, the Western powers and their allies continue to push further to the right in their campaign against Moscow. While this campaign is led by the United States and Germany, all of Washington’s imperialist allies are moving aggressively against Russia—now spearheaded by the Australian and Dutch governments, which are cynically exploiting the large numbers of citizens they lost on the MH17 flight.

While Washington has been unable to substantiate any of its charges that Russia is responsible for the crash, and evidence increasingly points to involvement by the Kiev regime itself, Australia and the Netherlands are seizing on the crash to justify a provocative intervention in east Ukraine.

Yesterday, Dutch Foreign Minister Frans Timmermans and Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop visited Kiev to discuss a military deployment to east Ukraine, ostensibly to secure the MH17 crash site, which is in territory held by anti-Kiev regime forces.

The Netherlands announced they would send 40 unarmed military police to east Ukraine, while Australia is reportedly sending 50 police to London as a first stop on the way to Ukraine.

The Dutch government is reportedly waging an international diplomatic campaign to post hundreds of Dutch soldiers on the crash site—ostensibly to protect investigators from pro-Russian forces—with the support of the Dutch media.

In the Netherlands, Elsevier’s commentator Eric Vrijsen demanded that Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte “threaten to send in these troops in order to up the pressure on the rebels and Russian President Vladimir Putin. And if he does this, he will probably have made up his mind to act on his threat …. The Dutch Special Forces (army commandos and the Marine Corps Marsofs) are internationally respected. Rutte doesn’t have these elite troops at his disposal for nothing.”

Such a deployment would be a reckless maneuver risking an escalation into a direct clash between NATO and pro-Russian forces in east Ukraine—that is, a NATO intervention in the Ukrainian civil war and the possible outbreak of war between NATO and Russia itself.

The threat of such a conflict erupting was underscored by rising border tensions between Ukraine and Russia. After Ukrainian forces shelled Russian border areas two weeks ago, killing one Russian civilian, Washington alleged yesterday that Russian forces are firing artillery from within Russia at Ukrainian military positions in east Ukraine.

Pressed again at a US State Department press briefing yesterday to provide some evidence for her claims, however, spokeswoman Marie Harf was unable to provide any. “This is just some pieces of info I’ve been able to get from our intelligence friends for you. I can’t tell you what it’s based on,” Harf said.

The U.S. Is the Only Country Which Supports Israel No Matter What It Does

Americans – living in a huge country which has never really been invaded, and as the sole superpower – are famous for being out-of-touch with how the rest of the world thinks.

So my fellow Americans will probably be surprised to learn that the U.S. is more or less the only country in the world which has a favorable view of Israel.

Specifically, a 2012 BBC poll found that the U.S. and Nigeria were the only countries of those polled in which the majority of people had favorable views of Israel:

But Nigeria swung negative in the 2013 BBC poll, leaving the U.S. alone of all countries polled:

Indeed, the 2013 poll shows that  Israel is the fourth least popular country in the world, trailing only Iran, Pakistan and North Korea:

Iran is once again the most negatively viewed country, with negative ratings climbing four points to 59%. Most people also give negative ratings to Pakistan (56%, up five points), North Korea (55%, up three points) and Israel (52%, up one point).

Israel Has Violated United Nations Resolutions More than Any Country In the World

Another measure of world opinion on Israel is that the United Nations has condemned Israel’s violence towards its neighbors again and again.

Haaretz noted in 2002:

Israel holds the record for ignoring United Nations Security Council resolutions, according to a study by San Francisco University political science professor Steven Zunes.

***

Israel leads the list. Since 1968, Israel has violated 32 resolutions that included condemnation or criticism of the governments’ policies and actions.

***

Zunes specifically avoided counting resolutions that are vague or unclear so that governments could claim different interpretations to the meaning of the resolutions. Thus, the famous UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338 are not included in his study. He also did not count resolutions that only included condemnations. Instead, he focused on those that included specific calls for changes in the subject governments’ policies.

The resolutions Israel violated were either about its annexation of East Jerusalem or settlements in the territories. Israel also ignored UN Security Council resolutions that called for Israel to cease using harsh measures against the Palestinian population and to cease expelling Palestinians.

Pulitzer prize winning journalist Chris Hedges points out that Israel has broken nearly a hundred UN Security Council resolutions regarding Gaza alone.

Here is a brief sampling of UN Security Council resolutions against Israel:

  • Resolution 106: The Palestine Question (March 29, 1955) ‘condemns’ Israel for Gaza raid
  • Resolution 111: The Palestine Question (January 19, 1956) ” … ‘condemns’ Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people”
  • Resolution 127: The Palestine Question (January 22, 1958) ” … ‘recommends’ Israel suspends its ‘no-man’s zone’ in Jerusalem”.
  • Resolution 162: The Palestine Question (April 11, 1961) ” … ‘urges’ Israel to comply with UN decisions”
  • Resolution 171: The Palestine Question (April 9, 1962) ” … determines flagrant violations’ by Israel in its attack on Syria”
  • Resolution 228: The Palestine Question (November 25, 1966) ” … ‘censures’ Israel for its attack onSamu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control”
  • Resolution 237: Six Day War (June 14, 1967) ” … ‘urges’ Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees”. and called on Israel to ensure the safety and welfare of inhabitants of areas where fighting had taken place
  • Resolution 256: (August 16, 1968) ” … ‘condemns’ Israeli raids on Jordan as ‘flagrant violation”
  • Resolution 258: (September 18, 1968) … expressed ‘concern’ with the welfare of the inhabitants of the Israeli-occupied territories, and requested a special representative to be sent to report on the implementation of Resolution 237, and that Israel cooperate
  • Resolution 259: (September 27, 1968) ” … ‘deplores’ Israel’s refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation”
  • Resolution 265: (April 1, 1969) ” … ‘condemns’ Israel for air attacks on Salt
  • Resolution 270: (August 26, 1969) ” … ‘condemns’ Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon”
  • Resolution 279: (May 12, 1970) “Demands the immediate withdrawal of all Israeli armed forces from Lebanese territory”
  • Resolution 280: (May 19, 1970) ” … ‘condemns’ Israeli’s attacks against Lebanon”
  • Resolution 285: (September 5, 1970) ” … ‘demands’ immediate Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon”
  • Resolution 298: (September 25, 1971) ” … ‘deplores’ Israel’s changing of the status of Jerusalem”
  • Resolution 316: (June 26, 1972) ” … ‘condemns’ Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon”
  • Resolution 317: (July 21, 1972) ” … ‘deplores’ Israel’s refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon”
  • Resolution 332: (April 21, 1973) ” … ‘condemns’ Israel’s repeated attacks against Lebanon”
  • Resolution 337: (August 15, 1973) ” … ‘condemns’ Israel for violating Lebanon’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and for the forcible diversion and seizure of a Lebanese airliner from Lebanon’s air space”
  • Resolution 347: (April 24, 1974)” … ‘condemns’ Israeli attacks on Lebanon”
  • Resolution 444: (January 19, 1979) ” … ‘deplores’ Israel’s lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces”
  • Resolution 446 (March 22, 1979): ‘determines’ that Israeli settlements are a ‘serious obstruction’ to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention”
  • Resolution 450: (June 14, 1979) ” … ‘calls’ on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon”.
  • Resolution 452: (July 20, 1979)   … ‘calls’ on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories”
  • Resolution 465: (March 1, 1980) ” … ‘deplores’ Israel’s settlements and asks all member states not to assist Israel’s settlements program”
  • Resolution 467: (April 24, 1980) ” … ‘strongly deplores’ Israel’s military intervention in Lebanon”
  • Resolution 468: (May 8, 1980) ” … ‘calls’ on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return”
  • Resolution 469: (May 20, 1980) ” … ‘strongly deplores’ Israel’s failure to observe the council’s order not to deport Palestinians”
  • Resolution 471: (June 5, 1980) ” … ‘expresses deep concern’ at Israel’s failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention”
  • Resolution 478 (August 20, 1980): ‘censures (Israel) in the strongest terms’ for its claim to Jerusalemin its ‘Basic Law’
  • Resolution 487: (June 19, 1981) ” … ‘strongly condemns’ Israel for its attack on Iraq’s nuclear facility”
  • Resolution 497 (December 17, 1981), decides that Israel’s annexation of Syria’s Golan Heights is ‘null and void’ and demands that Israel rescinds its decision forthwith
  • Resolution 501: (February 25, 1982) ” … ‘calls’ on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops”.
  • Resolution 515: (July 29, 1982) ” … ‘demands’ that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and allow food supplies to be brought in”
  • Resolution 516 (August 1, 1982) demanded an immediate cessation of military activities in Lebanon, noting violations of the cease-fire in Beirut
  • Resolution 517: (August 4, 1982) ” … ‘censures’ Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon”.
  • Resolution 520: (September 17, 1982) ” … ‘condemns’ Israel’s attack into West Beirut”.
  • Resolution 573: (October 4, 1985) ” … ‘condemns’ Israel ‘vigorously’ for bombing Tunisia in attack on PLO headquarters
  • Resolution 605: (December 22, 1987) ” … ‘strongly deplores’ Israel’s policies and practices denying the human rights of Palestinians
  • Resolution 607: (January 5,  1988) ” … ‘calls’ on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention
  • Resolution 608: (January 14, 1988) ” … ‘deeply regrets’ that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians”
  • Resolution 636: (July 16, 989) ” … ‘deeply regrets’ Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians
  • Resolution 641 (August 30, 1989): ” … ‘deplores’ Israel’s continuing deportation of Palestinians
  • Resolution 673 (October 24, 1990): ” … ‘deplores’ Israel’s refusal to cooperate with the United Nations
  • Resolution 681 (December 20, 1990): ” … ‘deplores’ Israel’s resumption of the deportation of Palestinians
  • Resolution 694 (May 24, 1991): ” … ‘deplores’ Israel’s deportation of Palestinians and calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return
  • Resolution 726 (January 6. 1992): ” … ‘strongly condemns’ Israel’s deportation of Palestinians
  • Resolution 799 (December 18 , 1992): “. . . ‘strongly condemns’ Israel’s deportation of 413 Palestinians and calls for their immediate return
  • Resolution 1435 (September 24, 2002) demanded an end to Israeli measures in and aroundRamallah, and an Israeli withdrawal to positions held before September 2000
  • Resolution 1544 (May 19, 2004) “…‘calls on’ Israel to respect its obligations under international humanitarian law, and insists, in particular, on its obligation not to undertake demolition of homes contrary to that law”
  • Resolution 1860 (January 8, 2009) “…‘calls for’ an immediate, durable and fully respected ceasefire, leading to the full withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza; ‘calls for‘ the unimpeded provision and distribution throughout Gaza of humanitarian assistance, including of food, fuel and medical treatment”

Of course, America is the only country which consistently votes against such  resolutions:

View image on Twitter

Older, White American Males Are Virtually the Only People In the World Who Unconditionally Support Israel

Even with the United States, there are only certain groups which support Israel.

new poll by Pew this month shows that it is mainly Americans 50 years or older, males, conservatives and evangelicals who support Israel:

http://www.people-press.org/files/2014/07/NEW-7-15-2014-11-00-38-AM.png

Indeed, much of the unquestioning support for Israel – no matter what it does – comes from Americans who confuse Zionism with Judaism, and evangelicals who think that the Bible has preordained an Apocalypse started by war between Israel and Arab nations.

Dr. Timothy Webber – an evangelical Christian who has served as a teacher of church history and the history of American religion at Denver Seminary and Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Vice-President at Northern Baptist Theological Seminary in Lombard, IL, and President of Memphis Theological Seminary in Tennessee – notes:

In a recent Time/CNN poll, more than one-third of Americans said that since the terrorist attacks of 9/11, they have been thinking more about how current events might be leading to the end of the world.

While only 36 percent of all Americans believe that the Bible is God’s Word and should be taken literally, 59 percent say they believe that events predicted in the Book of Revelation will come to pass. Almost one out of four Americans believes that 9/11 was predicted in the Bible, and nearly one in five believes that he or she will live long enough to see the end of the world. Even more significant for this study,over one-third of those Americans who support Israel report that they do so because they believe the Bible teaches that the Jews must possess their own country in the Holy Land before Jesus can return.

Millions of Americans believe that the Bible predicts the future and that we are living in the last days. Their beliefs are rooted in dispensationalism, a particular way of understanding the Bible’s prophetic passages, especially those in Daniel and Ezekiel in the Old Testament and the Book of Revelation in the New Testament. They make up about one-third of America’s 40 or 50 million evangelical Christians and believe that the nation of Israel will play a central role in the unfolding of end-times events. In the last part of the 20th century, dispensationalist evangelicals become Israel’s best friends-an alliance that has made a serious geopolitical difference.

***

Starting in the 1970s, dispensationalists broke into the popular culture with runaway best-sellers, and a well-networked political campaign to promote and protect the interests of Israel. Since the mid-1990s, tens of millions of people who have never seen a prophetic chart or listened to a sermon on the second coming have read one or more novels in the Left Behind series, which has become the most effective disseminator of dispensationalist ideas ever.

***

During the early 1980s the Israeli Ministry of Tourism recruited evangelical religious leaders for free “familiarization” tours. In time, hundreds of evangelical pastors got free trips to the Holy Land. The purpose of such promotional tours was to enable people of even limited influence to experience Israel for themselves and be shown how they might bring their own tour group to Israel. The Ministry of Tourism was interested in more than tourist dollars: here was a way of building a solid corps of non-Jewish supporters for Israel in the United States by bringing large numbers of evangelicals to hear and see Israel’s story for themselves. The strategy caught on.

***

Shortly after the Six-Day War, elements within the Israeli government saw the potential power of the evangelical subculture and began to mobilize it as a base of support that could influence American foreign policy. The Israeli government sent Yona Malachy of its Department of Religious Affairs to the United States to study American fundamentalismand its potential as an ally of Israel. Malachy was warmly received by fundamentalistsand was able to influence some of them to issue strong pro-Israeli manifestos. By the mid-1980s, there was a discernible shift in the Israeli political strategy. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the Jewish state’s major lobbying group in Washington, D.C., started re-aligning itself with the American political right-wing, including Christian conservatives. Israel’s timing was perfect. It began working seriously with American dispensationalists at the precise moment that American fundamentalists and evangelicals were discovering their political voice.

***

Probably the largest pro-Israel organization of its kind is the National Unity Coalition for Israel, which was founded by a Jewish woman who learned how to get dispensationalist support. NUCI opposes “the establishment of a Palestinian state within the borders of Israel.”

***

In their commitment to keep Israel strong and moving in directions prophesied by the Bible, dispensationalists are supporting some of the most dangerous elements in Israeli society. They do so because such political and religious elements seem to conform to dispensationalist beliefs about what is coming next for Israel. By lending their support-both financial and spiritual-to such groups, dispensationalists are helping the future they envision come to pass.

***

Dispensationalists believe that the Temple is coming too; and their convictions have led them to support the aims and actions of what most Israelis believe are the most dangerous right-wing elements in their society, people whose views make any compromise necessary for lasting peace impossible. Such sentiments do not matter to the believers in Bible prophecy, for whom the outcome of the quarrelsome issue of the Temple Mount has already been determined by God.

Since the end of the Six-Day War, then, dispensationalists have increasingly moved from observers to participant-observers. They have acted consistently with their convictions about the coming Last Days in ways that make their prophecies appear to be self-fulfilling.

***

As Paul Boyer has pointed out, dispensationalism has effectively conditioned millions of Americans to be somewhat passive about the future and provided them with lenses through which to understand world events. Thanks to the sometimes changing perspectives of their Bible teachers, dispensationalists are certain that trouble in the Middle East is inevitable, that nations will war against nations, and that the time is coming when millions of people will die as a result of nuclear war, the persecution of Antichrist, or as a result of divine judgment. Striving for peace in the Middle East is a hopeless pursuit with no chance of success.

***

For the dispensational community, the future is determined. The Bible’s prophecies are being fulfilled with amazing accuracy and rapidity. They do not believe that the Road Map will-or should-succeed. According to the prophetic texts, partitioning is not in Israel’s future, even if the creation of a Palestinian state is the best chance for peace in the region. Peace is nowhere prophesied for the Middle East, until Jesus comes and brings it himself. The worse thing that the United States, the European Union, Russia, and the United Nations can do is force Israel to give up land for a peace that will never materialize this side of the second comingANYONE WHO PUSHES FOR PEACE in such a manner IS IGNORING OR DEFYING GOD’S PLAN  for the end of the age.

***

It seems clear that dispensationalism is on a roll, that its followers feel they are riding the wave of history into the shore of God’s final plan. Why should they climb back into the stands when being on the field of play is so much more fun and apparently so beneficial to the game’s outcome? As [one dispensationalist group's] advertisement read, “Don’t just read about prophecy when you can be part of it.”

In other words, Americans don’t necessarily support Israel in order to support or protect the Jewish people.

Many Americans support Israel because they believe that it is necessary to help Israel secure the Holy Land promised in the Bible – apparently by any means necessary – in order to bring the Second Coming.

More than 2.2 billion people are “either near or living in poverty,” according to the United Nations Development Report released July 24.The study also found that about 1.2 billion people survive on the equivalent of $1.25 or less a day, while 12 percent of the world’s population (842 million people) suffer from chronic hunger.

These conditions of global suffering and deprivation are not due to any absolute shortage of resources. The world economy produces enough to provide a decent standard of living for every man, woman and child. But the distribution of wealth makes this impossible: the 85 wealthiest people in the world own as much as the 3.5 billion poorest people combined.

The report, published under the title, “Sustaining Human Progress: Reducing Vulnerabilities and Building Resilience,” is hardly intended as a rabble-rousing manifesto. Quite the contrary: it is written in a mixture of statistical jargon and bureaucratic code words that is dry as dust.

The report describes the conditions produced by capitalism—mass poverty, deprivation, social injustice, inequality, oppression—but makes no reference to capitalism. There is simply no mention of the economic system under which the world’s population lives, and thus no discussion of any alternative.

But the facts remain, and here are some of the most important:

• Almost 1.5 billion people are “multi-dimensionally poor, with overlapping deprivations in health, education and living standards.”

• Another 800 million people are living on the edge of poverty “vulnerable to falling back into poverty when setbacks occur.”

• The largest concentration of absolute poverty is in South Asia, with “more than 800 million poor and over 270 million near-poor—that is, more than 71 percent of its population.”

• Income inequality in the developing countries has risen by 11 percent between 1990 and 2010.

• The steepest decline in living conditions during 2013 occurred in Central African Republic, Libya and Syria—three countries targeted by US and French imperialism for military intervention and political subversion.

• About 45 million people were forcibly displaced due to conflict or persecution by the end of 2012—the highest in 18 years—more than 15 million of them refugees.

• Indigenous peoples make up about 5 percent of the world’s population, but account for 15 percent of the world’s poor, with as many as a third in extreme rural poverty.

• Nearly half of all elderly people—46 percent of those aged 60 or older—suffer from one or more physical or intellectual disabilities.

The report pays particular attention to the conditions of children in the developing countries (what used to be called the Third World). Of these children, “7 in 100 will not survive beyond 5, 50 will not have their birth registered, 68 will not receive early childhood education, 17 will never enroll in primary school, 30 will be stunted and 25 will live in poverty.”

While the report attempts to strike an optimistic note because its overall Human Development Index (HDI) numbers are rising, this is largely a statistical illusion. Health figures have improved significantly because of scientific advances and their dissemination to the poorer countries. In the HDI calculation, this offsets significant declines in income, worsening economic inequality, and stagnation in terms of education and other social services.

The report appeals for a more robust policy of social reform worldwide, while admitting that the trend has been entirely in the opposite direction: in virtually every country, ruling elites are slashing public spending and scrapping long-established programs that underpin the living standards of the masses.

The report calls for “universal access to basic social services, especially health and education; stronger social protection, including unemployment insurance and pensions; and a commitment to full employment.” But it acknowledges, “nearly 80 percent of the global population lack comprehensive social protection,” making them extremely vulnerable to any type of economic dislocation, natural disaster or explosion of political violence.

At one point the report makes the declaration:

“The case for universal provision of basic social services rests first and foremost on the premise that all humans should be empowered to live lives they value and that access to certain basic elements of a dignified life ought to be delinked from people’s ability to pay. While ways of delivering such services may vary with circumstances and country context, common to all successful experiences is a single idea: The state has the primary responsibility to extend social services to the entire population, in a basic social contract between citizens and state.”

This statement demonstrates that those who worked on the report may have had good intentions, but no understanding of the political dynamics of world capitalism, in which the ruling elite accepts only one “primary responsibility” for the state: the defense of the interests of the financial aristocracy, by all methods up to and including war and dictatorship, against the great majority of the world’s people.

While the bulk of the report deals with the conditions of life facing the majority of humanity in the developing countries, there are some telling details, particularly in the accompanying statistical charts, about the United States and the European Union.

The United States ranked fifth in the report’s Human Development Index, but only 23rd when inequality was factored in. Among the top 50 countries, only Chile and South Korea ranked below the United States in overall inequality, factoring in income distribution, health care and access to education. Those two countries were both ruled for decades by brutal military dictatorships.

The United States was 43rd among the top 50 countries in inequality in life expectancy, and second lowest among the top 50, surpassing only Chile again, in inequality in income. Only in education was the US in the middle of the pack among the advanced countries, ranking 25th out of 50 countries.

The European countries, particularly Germany and Scandinavia, were at the top of nearly every measure of human development. But the report took notice of the dire trends of the past six years, since the 2008 financial crisis. Because governments “took responsibility for huge private sector debts, especially from troubled banks” and because “tax revenues dwindled in the slowdown,” many countries were thrown into fiscal crisis, and “quickly shifted their policy focus to austerity measures.”

The report continues: “Between 2008 and 2012 public gross fixed capital formation fell 65 percent in Ireland, 60 percent in Greece and Spain, 40 percent in Portugal and 24 percent in Italy. Overall, public investment in the euro area (17 countries) declined from €251 billion in 2009 to €201 billion in 2012—a 20 percent nominal decline. This, after a steady declining trend in investment as a share of GDP since the 1970s. Budget cuts are also affecting the delivery of public services. Between 2009 and 2011 health spending declined in a third of Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries—including Greece, Ireland, Portugal and the United Kingdom.”

These policies have actually made deficits worse by undercutting economic output and increasing unemployment, as well as increasing economic inequality. The report continues: “Recent austerity measures have increased poverty in more than half of European countries, and the groups most at risk are children, immigrants and people from a migrant background, ethnic minorities and people with disabilities.”

But the report can propose nothing more than that the governments of these countries should rethink their policies and pursue a more humane alternative—without addressing the class interests that have dictated these savage attacks on working people.

The complete dead end of this perspective is inevitable, given that it was prepared under the general supervision of the UN Development Programme and its chief administrator, Helen Clark, the former right-wing social democratic prime minister of New Zealand, who is expected to be a candidate for UN secretary general after Ban Ki Moon completes his second term in office in 2016.

Among the half dozen “special contributions” to the report acknowledged in the Foreword are those of Bill Gates, the billionaire founder of Microsoft, Ellen Sirleaf Johnson, the US-backed prime minister of Liberia, University of Chicago economist James Heckman, and former World Bank chief economist Joseph Stiglitz. (See: “Joseph Stiglitz in Australia: A desperate attempt to promote the illusion of reform”).

But although the words “capitalism” and “imperialism” do not appear in the text of the 239-page document, the development report nonetheless provides ample raw material for the indictment of the profit system.

A morte de três jovens israelenses alegadamente assassinados por Hamas foi o pretexto dado para os atuais bombardeios de Gaza.  

Operação Margem de Proteção – Operation Protective Edge (OPE) – dirigida contra Gaza, é reminescente do abominável Plano Dagan denominado “Operação Vingança Justificada”, no qual mortes de inocentes israelenses civís tinham sido previstas pelo planejamento militar da IDF, Força de Defesa de Israel.

As mortes seriam usadas para convocar o apoio do público israelense, assim também como para dar justificação a uma operação contra-terrorista nos territórios dos palestinianos, ocupados por Israel, fazendo-a “legitima” aos olhos da comunidade internacional

Planejado atrás de portas fechadas, em julho de 2001, o Plano Dagan (denominado assim em referência ao então chefe do serviço secreto Mossad, Meir Dagan) tinha sido escolhido pelos arquitetos da IDF e do serviço secreto israelense, Mossad, para ser “lançado imediatamente após o próximo alto-número de vítimas”.

A Operação Margem de Proteção (OPE), dirigida agora contra Gaza, foi planejada bem anteriormente ao sequestro e morte dos três adolescentes israelenses. O Primeiro Ministro Netanyahu, já agora também, convocou 40.000 reservistas. No segmento dos ataques, e dos raids de bombardeios aéreos, um cenário de uma maior operação terrestre é a ser esperada.

Ainda mais, de maneira similar a lógica do Plano Dagan, o chefe do Mossad, serviço de inteligência, “fez uma predição” do sequestro dos três adolescentes.

Abaixo do título “A frieza da presciente profecia do chefe da Mossad quanto ao sequestro” Haaretz, de Israel, confirmou que o “Chefe da Mossad, Tamir Pardo, tinha ‘feito um perfil’ de um cenário fantasmagóricamente [sic] similar ao do sequestro dos três adolescentes desaparecidos na Cisjordânia” Haaretz, 13 de julho de 2014, ênfases acrescentadas).

As mortes dos civís israelenses são apresentadas como culpa de Hamas, sem evidências, e isso para justificar uma operação militar contra Gaza. O objetivo final da “Operação Margem de Proteção” (OPE) é o de romper a base institucional da liderança de Hamas, e destruir a infraestrutura civil de Gaza, tendo em vista uma eventual anexação da Faixa de Gaza a Israel. Foi relatado que Israel já teria atacado 1.320 sítios em Gaza, resultando em 167 mortes e mais do que 1.000 feridos, e isso de até quando da presente data, 13 de julho. (Mannam News, 13 de julho de 2014)

Foram os três rapazes assassinados por Hamas?

Em reportagens da mídia israelense relatou-se que os três adolescentes poderiam ter sido executados por entidades afiliadas a Al Qaeda, mais especificamente pelo Estado Islâmico do Iraque e do Levante (ISIL) que, como por acaso, são “encobertamente”, assim como “abertamente”, apoiados por Israel.

Abaixo do título “Grupo Jihadista toma responsabilidade pela morte dos adolescentes”, o the Times of Israel confirmou que:

Um novo grupo palestiniano de guerra santa, a jihad, prometendo lealdade ao Estado Islâmico (anteriormente conhecido como ISIL) tomou a responsabilidade pelas mortes dos três adolescentes israelenses no mês passado na Cisjordânia, assim como para outros recentes ataques mortais, contra soldados e civís israelenses.

“A ação foi feita em honra de Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, o auto-proclamado “califa” do Estado Islâmico, a reencarnação do Estado Islâmico da Síria e do Levante (ISIL), declarado no mês passado, foi dito na declaração.” (Times of Israel, 3 de julho de 2014)

ISIL (com o novo nome Estado Islâmico) (veja foto) constitue-se na principal força de luta rebelde da Al Qaeda na Síria, dirigida contra o governo de Bashar al Assad. Mais recentemente, brigadas da ISIL entraram também no Iraque confrontando forças governamentais.

Enquanto ISIL é uma entidade afiliada a Al Qaeda, financiada pela Arábia Saudita e Catar, retribuições para as mortes dos adolescentes foi dirigida contra Gaza, em vez de contra a Arábia Saudita e os Países do Golfe.

O apoio que os Estados Unidos e Israel dão as entidades afiliadas da Al Qaeda não se limita ao domínio das operações encobertas. Os militares israelenses (IDF) estão apoiando a entidade da guerra santa, jihadista, no ocupado Elevados dos Golãs – Golan Heights. Além disso, amplamente documentado, lá encontram-se também Forças Especiais ocidentais, assim como israelenses, nas fileiras dos rebeldes do ISIL.

Em março um oficial militar austríaco da Força ONU de Observação do Desembaraçamento nos Elevados dos Golãs – UNDOF  – “confirmou que Israel tinha dado apoio militar e logístico, em alta-escala, aos  terroristas e rebeldes [ISIL e Al Nusrah] em diferentes partes da Síria”

O official da UNDOF confirmou a existência de uma “sala de operações conjuntas”, entre Israel e os rebeldes da Al Qaeda, pertencendo “ao fornecimento de assistência de Israel aos terroristas.”

Essa assistência não se limita a assuntos de logística:

“De acordo com o Canal 1 da televisão de Israel, ‘fontes ligadas a segurança’ informaram a respeito de um novo sistema de mísseis chamados ‘Mitar’, estabelecido nos Golãs para dar cobertura de retaguarda a grupos militantes anti-Síria.

Esse sistema inclui mísseis de meia e de longa distância, de acordo com o relatório.” (Al Alam May 3, 2014 ênfases acrescentadas)

Um hospital militar da IDF, nos ocupados Elevados dos Golãs foi estabelecido para tratamento dos rebeldes da Al Qaeda que tivessem sido feridos.

Em fevereiro o Jerusalem Post disse que o Primeiro Ministro Benjamin Netanyahu tinha visitado o hospital de batalha da IDF nos ocupados Golãs, hospital esse que tinha sido levantado para apoio dos rebeldes jihadistas operando na Síria. O hospital tinha sido levantado então para tratar dos rebeldes feridos da Al Qaeda.

O Jerusalem Post reconhece que o hospital está sendo usado em apoio aos jihadistas da insurgência. Netanyahu referiu-se ao hospital como um lugar que “separava o bem no mundo, do mau no mundo.”

“O bem” de acordo com Netanyahu “é Israel” o qual, numa amarga ironia, apoia de todo coração, os “lutadores da liberdade” da Al Qaeda na Síria; e “o mau refere-se ao Irã, o qual apoia Bashar Al Assad”.

O bem, disse o primeiro ministro, é Israel, o qual “salva vidas da carnificina diária tendo lugar na Síria. Essa é a face real de Israel.”

O mau, ele continuou, é o Irã, que está armando os que fazem essa carnificina. (Jerusalem Post, 19 de fevereiro de 2014)

Enquanto o hospital de campo de batalha da IDF foi estabelecido para apoiar a Al Qaeda, numa operação coordenada pelas Forças Especiais da IDF, Netanyahu casualmente acusa o Irã por “seu apoio a grupos terroristas através do mundo”. (JP, 19 de fevereiro de 2014)

Netanyahu não nega o apoio de seu governo aos jihadistas. O alto chefe da IDF implicitamente reconhece que “elementos da global jihad dentro da Síria” são apoiados por Israel:

Netanyahu fez uma visita aos Golãs conjuntamente com o Ministro Mosje Ya’ alon e o Chefe do Personal, Chief of Staff, Lt.-General Benny Gantz.

Num local de miradouro, com vista panorâmica da fronteira da Síria, OC Comando Norte, Maj.-General Yair Golan, informou Netanyahu a respeito da presença de elementos da jihad global dentro da Síria, assim também como a respeito do trabalho sendo feito para fortificar as defesas da fronteira. (Ibid)

Foto de direita : O Primeiro Ministro Netanyahu cumprimentando um Terrorista da Al Qaeda

Seria esse terrorista ferido um trunfo de inteligência de Israel?

Na foto: “O Primeiro Ministro Benjamin Netanyahu e o Ministro da Defesa Moshe Ya’ alon ao lado de um mercenário ferido. Hospital militar de campo de batalha nos ocupados Elevados dos Golãs, na fronteira com a Síria, 18 de fevereiro de 2014 (ibid, ênfases acrescentadas)

Quem matou os três adolescentes israelenses?

Ironicamente, o mesmo grupo jihadista que foi apontado na reportagem como tendo sequestrado e assassinado os três adolescentes é apoiado pela IDF de Israel, a partir dos ocupados Elevados dos Golãs.

Uma simples coincidência.

 Michel Chossudovsky

Artigo original em inglês :

 GazaMap“Justified Vengeance”, The Pretext for Bombing Gaza: Was the Netanyahu Government behind the Killings of the Three Israeli Teenagers?, 13 de Julio de 2014

Tradução do inglês : Anna Malm, artigospoliticos.wordpress.com

Artigo em francês :

Gaza carte«Vengeance justifiée», le prétexte pour bombarder Gaza: le gouvernement Nétanyahou est-il derrière les meurtres des trois adolescents israéliens?

The Indian government is facing strong opposition for its decision to allow field trials of genetically modified (GM) crops. The Coalition for a GM-Free India is calling the approvals ‘hasty’ and has asked the Minister for Environment, Forests & Climate Change to cancel them.

Swadeshi Jagaran Manch (SJM) is the economic wing of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) – the parent body of the BJP party. It has termed the decision of the Narendra Modi BJP central government as a “betrayal of people’s trust.”

Ashwani Mahajan, All India co-convener of SJM says:

“SJM has received the news reports of approval of field trials of GM food crops by Genetically Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC), under the Union Ministry of Environment & Forest, with shock, disbelief and anguish.”

The GEAC has reportedly approved 60 out of 70 applications for the field trials of GM crops, despite the Supreme Court appointed Technical Expert Committee (TEC) already having submitted its report based on sound science and factual data that strongly recommends the stopping of all such field trials [1].

A statement by the SJM reads:

“People of India who have elected BJP to power are feeling deceived. They had voted BJP to power on the promises the party made to the people of India in its manifesto 2014 and speeches made by the leaders during the election campaign.”

 The BJP had promised in its election manifesto that GM food will not be allowed without evaluation of its long-term effects.

The statement continues:

“SJM wants to remind the government that moratorium on open field trials of GM food crops was the result of long and difficult struggle by people of India including Swadeshi Jagran Manch, farmers, scientific experts, consumers, activists and other stakeholders. The Supreme Court of India has also been of the clear view that no hasty decision in this regard shall be taken that puts the health of people and soil at risk.”

During the previous government, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Agriculture, which included seven members from BJP, also recommended against the trial of GM crops.

The Coalition for a GM-Free India says:

“When most countries around the world are not adopting this risky technology which has a large number of attendant risks to health, environment, and livelihoods, and when several credible official bodies in India have asked for a stopping of field trials, it is extremely irresponsible that our apex biotechnology regulator has thrown such caution to the winds to approve open air field trials.”

Despite election promises, the Modi-led government has signaled its intention of fast-tracking GM technology, despite the TEC recommendations and two reports by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Agriculture advocating a moratorium and adequate regulatory structures free from conflicts of interest, independent scientific expertise and rigorous scientific studies be implemented.

 The prevailing structures are based on too cosy a relationship between compliant bureaucrats and the biotech industry [2], which has in any case already been granted a firm strategic hold over agricultural policy and research in India [3].

The GMO biotech sector’s smokescreen of benevolence

The often-made claim is that GMOs are required to feed India’s huge population. The profit-driven biotech sector which seeks monopolistic control over the world’s food [4] often likes to hide behind a smokescreen of benevolence. Dilnavaz Variava has worked for a range of organizations, including the World Wildlife Fund India, where she was chief executive, and the Bombay Natural History Society. She has also served on several federal government committees as well as one in Maharashtra for the development of agriculture. She says:

“A World Bank commissioned study found that agro-ecological approaches and not GM provide the best solution to the world’s food crisis. In March 2011, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food also reported that small scale farmers could double food production within five to ten years by agro-ecological farming. An Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India study for West Bengal found that organic farming could increase net per capita income of a farmer in the state by 250 percent, lead to wealth accumulation of 120 billion rupees ($1.9 billion), generate exports worth 5.5 billion rupees ($87 million) and create nearly two million employment opportunities over five years. In Andhra Pradesh, Community Managed Sustainable Agriculture was started in 2005-06. It promoted ecologically and economically sound agriculture with state government and World Bank support. About 10,000 villages with one million farmers practice non-pesticidal management on over 3.5 million acres. Pesticide use in the state has decreased by more than 45 percent. Net income increases were 3,000 to 15,000 rupees per acre, in addition to meeting a household’s food needs.” [5]

She also claims that in places where GMOs have been adopted, food insecurity has risen:

“Macroeconomic data for the largest adopters of GM food indicate the opposite. In the U.S., food insecurity has risen from 12 percent in pre-GM 1995 to 15 percent in 2011. In Paraguay, where nearly 65 percent of land is under GM crops, hunger increased from 12.6 percent in 2004-06 to 25.5 percent in 2010-12. In Brazil andArgentina, GM food has not reduced hunger. In any event, GM does not increase yields, as the Union of Concerned Scientists established through a review of 12 years of GM in the US.”

This is of little concern to the powerful biotech lobby and its compliant bureaucrats and politicians. Money talks and wealth buys political influence. That much is as true in the US [6] as it appears to be increasingly the case in India, where the story of GMOs is one of gross violations, conflicts of interest and blatant disregard of biosafety norms [7].

Notes

[1] http://www.countercurrents.org/rodrigues120813.htm

[2] http://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/editorial-dnaedit-tearing-hurry-2004462

[3] http://www.globalresearch.ca/monsanto-controls-both-the-white-house-and-the-us-congress/5336422

[4] http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/07/26/monsanto-seeks-to-control-worlds-food/

[5] http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2013/09/22/gm-crops-wont-solve-indias-food-crisis/

[6] http://www.globalresearch.ca/monsanto-controls-both-the-white-house-and-the-us-congress/5336422

[7] http://indiagminfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/FTs-of-GMOs-kk-biosafety-course.pdf 

Según Human Rights Watch, Estados Unidos es el único país desarrollado que permite legalmente la explotación de los niños en el trabajo a partir de los 12 años de edad.

El tráfico de seres humanos en Estados Unidos

Estados Unidos considera prioritaria la lucha contra el tráfico de seres humanos. Según John F. Kerry, los estados “tienen una obligación moral de aceptar este reto [pues] el tráfico de seres humanos es una ataque contra nuestros valores más caros como la libertad y la dignidad humana”.[1]

No obstante, el propio informe del Departamento de Estado es abrumador para Washington. En efecto, “Estados Unidos es un país fuente, de tránsito y de destino para hombres, mujeres y niños – a la vez ciudadanos estadounidenses y residentes extranjeros – víctimas de tráfico sexual y de trabajos forzados”.[2]

Según este mismo informe,

“Los medios informativos informaron de abusos de los cuales fueron víctimas súbditos extranjeros que trabajan para el ejército estadounidense en Afganistán. Varias ONG reportaron que los detentores de visa que trabajan como sirvientes fueron sometidos a trabajos forzados por el personal de las misiones diplomáticas y de las organizaciones internacionales presentes en Estados Unidos. Mujeres y niñas indo-americanas fueron sometidas al comercio sexual y la juventud LGBT ha sido particularmente vulnerable con respecto a los traficantes”.[3]

El informe de Human Rights Watch

Por otra parte, Estados Unidos es sin duda el único país desarrollado donde los niños pueden ser explotados en el trabajo a partir de los 12 años de edad. Human Rights Watch, organización de defensa de los derechos humanos, denunció la explotación de los niños en los campos de tabaco. Según la entidad tienen como promedio 13 años de edad y trabajan hasta 60 horas por semana. Según una investigación de HRW, el 53% de ellos son expuestos a los pesticidas; el 66% sufren de síntomas recurrentes tales como “nauseas, vómitos, dolores de cabeza, mareos y pérdida de apetito” debidos a la exposición a la nicotina; y el 73% ya han estado enfermos por “nauseas, dolores de cabeza, enfermedades respiratorias, problemas de piel y otros síntomas”.[4]

Según HRW, los niños “trabajan durante largas jornadas sin que se remuneren las horas extras, a menudo bajo un calor extremo sin zona sombreada o pausas suficientes y sin protección adecuada”. Resultan “expuestos a una nicotina peligrosa sin haber fumado un solo cigarrillo”. Los niños también están obligados a manipular “herramientas y máquinas peligrosas, levantar cargas pesadas, escalar varios niveles sin protección para colgar el tabaco en las granjas”.[5]

La organización agrega que “los tractores han vertido pesticidas cerca de las zonas de trabajo los campos”, afectando gravemente la salud de los niños, los cuales subrayaron que “el espray los alcanzaba directamente, ocasionado vómitos, dándoles mareos, y provocando dificultades respiratorias y una sensación de irritación en los ojos”. Además, la mayoría de los pesticidas usados en la producción de tabaco son “neurotóxicos notorios, veneno que altera el sistema nervioso”. Semejante exposición puede provocar a largo plazo “cáncer, problemas cognitivos y de aprendizaje y esterilidad”. HRW subraya que “los niños son particularmente vulnerables pues sus cuerpos y cerebros todavía no han terminado su desarrollo”. Por otra parte, “la mayoría de los niños entrevistados por Human Rights Watch declararon que no habían tenido acceso a los servicios o a un lugar para lavarse las manos en su zona de trabajo, quedándose con residuos de tabaco y pesticidas en las manos, incluso durante los periodos de comida”.[6]

En 2012, el 70% de los niños con menos de 18 años muertos en accidentes de trabajo eran trabajadores agrícolas. El Código de Trabajo de Estado Unidos no ofrece protección suficiente. Así, los niños pueden ser explotados en la agricultura a partir de los 12 años y trabajar “durante largas horas, con un salario inferior, en condiciones más peligrosas que en cualquier otra industria”.[7]

La inclusión de Cuba en la lista de países involucrados en el tráfico de seres humanos parece que está más motivada por consideraciones políticas e ideológicas que por una base factual precisa y verificable. En efecto, las organizaciones internacionales, particularmente las encargadas de la protección de la infancia como la UNICEF, contradicen las afirmaciones de Washington respecto a la explotación de menores. Al contrario, alaban la política social a favor de la protección de las personas en la isla del Caribe. Por otra parte Estados Unidos, centro de tráfico de seres humanos según el Departamento de Estado, es el único país desarrollado que autoriza la explotación de niños a partir de los 12 años, lo que arroja así una sombra sobre su credibilidad cuando se trata de defender los derechos humanos.

Salim Lamrani

Doctor en Estudios Ibéricos y Latinoamericanos de la Universidad Paris Sorbonne-Paris IV, Salim Lamrani es profesor titular de la Universidad de La Reunión y periodista, especialista de las relaciones entre Cuba y Estados Unidos. Su último libro se titula Cuba. Les médias face au défi de l’impartialité, Paris, Editions Estrella, 2013, con un prólogo de Eduardo Galeano.

http://www.amazon.fr/Cuba-m%C3%A9dias-face-d%C3%A9fi-limpartialit%C3%A9/dp/2953128433/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1376731937&sr=1-1

Contacto: [email protected] ; [email protected]

Página Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SalimLamraniOfficiel

 

 

 



[1] Le Monde, « Le rapport américain sur la traite d’humains provoque un tollé », 20 de junio de 2013.

[2] State Department, « Trafficking in Persons Report 2014 », junio de 2014. http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/226849.pdf (sitio consultado el 30 de junio de 2014), p. 30-36.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Human Rights Watch, « US: Child Workers in Danger on Tobacco Farms”, 14 de mayo de 2014. http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/05/14/us-child-workers-danger-tobacco-farms#infographic (sitio consultado el 30 de junio de 2014).

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid.

Journalists love rows. We love them so much that we often let them distract us.

Last week was no exception. Fascinated by an apparent bust-up between Israel and the European Union, most Middle East analysts (myself included) missed a very important story: Britain’s arms sales to Israel are far higher than David Cameron’s government has previously confessed.

Data published in a new report from the House of Commons in London states the value of all British military exports to Israel currently being processed comes to £7.9 billion ($12.1 billion).

This data was supplied by Vince Cable, Britain’s business secretary, who oversees the weapons trade.

I had to do a double-take when reading this information as until now Britain has indicated that the value of its arms sales to Israel are measured in millions, rather than billions.

Each year, the EU issues a report on weapons exports for the entire Union, based on information provided by its individual governments. These reports stated that Britain approved military export licenses for Israel worth €5.7 million in 2011 and €7.2 million in 2010.

Taken at face value, the annual reports suggest that Britain has reduced its weapons exports to Israel since Operation Cast Lead, the murderous three-week attack on Gaza in late 2008 and early 2009. During 2008, Britain authorized weapons sales of €31.5 million to Israel, according to its official data.

Discrepancy

Because I was puzzled by the huge discrepancy between all these statistics, I asked Vince Cable’s department to help me out. I didn’t get a clear answer. But a spokesperson speculated that the gap could be explained by how the yearly figures may not cover equipment that “hasn’t been shipped out yet.”

The latest data, on the other hand, could relate to licenses that have been “granted but not fully executed,” the spokesperson added.

A more plausible explanation, in my view, is that the British government — both under Cameron and his Labour Party predecessors, Gordon Brown and Tony Blair — has been dishonest about the full scale of its weapons sales to Israel. Pressure from some diligent members of Parliament might have finally led Cable to provide them with more comprehensive figures.

The Commons’ report doesn’t go into much detail about the type of military equipment involved. It is telling, nonetheless, that the largest single deal itemized for Israel involved more than £7.7 billion worth of cryptographic technology.

“Battle-tested”

As far as I can see, there is no accompanying information about this contract — not even a date for when it was rubber-stamped. But anyone familiar with the nature of the Israeli economy should be able to make an educated guess about what is going on.

Israel has exploited the opportunities afforded by occupying the land of another people in order to develop a world-class “homeland security” sector. Israel’s drones are the best-known example of innovations routinely “battle-tested” — a term favored by arms traders — on Palestinian civilians.

Britain, it seems, is providing cartloads of sophisticated material to Israeli entrepreneurs intent on perpetuating the crimes of apartheid and occupation. If I’m wide of the mark, then I challenge Cable to spell out what exactly he and his predecessors have approved.

Despite the large sums involved, this new data does not give the full picture about military cooperation with Israel. Exports of components from Britain to America’s weapons industry are excluded, as far as I can tell, even though there’s a strong chance they will end up in Israeli hands.

Nor does the new data deal with how Britain is an important customer for Israeli weapons. Elbit, a leading Israeli warplane manufacturer, is assembling a series of drones for use by the British Army under the £700 million Watchkeeper program. Elbit is among the Israeli companies scheduled to take part in the world’s largest weapons fair in London this September.

There can be no excuse for any military cooperation with Israel. An EU law on arms exports makes it clear that weapons should not be sold if they are likely to facilitate repression or aggravate tensions in a particular region.

Brazen

Britain’s foreign ministry has named Israel as one of 27 “countries of concern” for human rights abuses. Of those 27, Israel is the largest destination for British arms exports. Saudi Arabia — long thought to be the biggest client for Britain’s weapons industry — is actually in second place.

The brazen effrontery of the British establishment was on display again today, when it convinced other EU governments to blacklist Hizballah as a “terrorist” organization. The move was taken at the behest of Israel, which alleges that Hizballah was behind a bombing in Bulgaria last year.

The EU has been willing to swallow Israel’s version of events — even though the Union’s own police agency Europol has acknowledged there is no proof of Hizballah’s involvement. Reports of a major rift between the EU and Israel — as many a headline indicated last week — are, therefore, exaggerated.

Without question, Hizballah has done things that can be considered criminal — especially in Syria. Yet there would be no Hizballah if it wasn’t for Israeli aggression towards Lebanon.

Hizballah is a symptom of the problems in the Middle East. Britain, on the other hand, is the cause.

It was Britain’s political establishment which “gifted” Palestine to the Zionist movement in 1917. All these years later, Britain is arming Israel to the teeth.

 Despite the conclusion by US intelligence that there is no evidence of Russian involvement in the destruction of the Malaysian airliner and all lives onboard, Washington is escalating the crisis and shepherding the World toward war.

 Twenty-two US senators have introduced into the 113th Congress, Second Session, a bill,  S.2277, “To prevent further Russian aggression toward Ukraine and other sovereign states in Europe and Eurasia, and for other purposes.” The bill is before the Committee on Foreign Relations.

 Note that prior to any evidence of any Russian aggression, there are already 22 senators lined up in behalf of preventing further Russian aggression.

 Accompanying this preparatory propaganda move to create a framework for war, hot or cold with Russia, NATO commander General Philip Breedlove announced his plan for a deployment of massive military means in Eastern Europe that would permit lightening responses against Russia in order to protect Europe from Russian aggression.

 There we have it again: Russian Aggression.  Repeat it enough and it becomes real.

 The existence of “Russian aggression” is assumed, not demonstrated. Neither Breedlove nor the senators make any reference to Russian war plans for an attack on Europe or any other countries.  There are no references to Russian position papers and documents setting forth a Russian expansionist ideology or a belief declared by Moscow that Russians are “exceptional, indispensable people” with the right to exercise hegemony over the world.  No evidence is presented that Russia has infiltrated the communication systems of the entire world for spy purposes.  There is no evidence that Putin has Obama’s or Obama’s daughters’ private cell phone conversations or that Russia downloads US corporate secrets for the benefit of Russian businesses.

 Nevertheless, the NATO commander and US senators see an urgent need to create blitzkrieg capability for NATO on Russia’s borders.

 Senate bill 2277 consists of three titles: “Reinvigorating the Nato Alliance,” “Deterring Further Russian Aggression in Europe,” and “Hardening Ukraine and other European and Eurasian States Against Russian Aggression.”  Who do you think wrote this bill?  Hint: it wasn’t the senators or their staffs.

 Title I deals with strengthening US force posture in Europe and Eurasia and strengthening the NATO alliance, with accelerating the construction of ABM (anti-ballistic missile) bases on Russia’s borders so as to degrade the Russian strategic nuclear deterrent, and to provide more money for Poland and the Baltic states and strengthen US-German cooperation on global security issues, that is, to make certain that the German military is incorporated as part of the US empire military force.

 Title II is about confronting “Russian aggression in Europe” with sanctions and with financial and diplomatic “support for Russian democracy and civil society organizations,”  which means to pump billions of dollars into NGOs (non-governmental organizations) that can be used to destabilize Russia in the way that Washington used the NGOs it funded in Ukraine to overthrow the elected government.  For 20 years Russian government negligence permitted Washington to organize fifth columns inside Russia that pose as human rights organizations, etc.

 Title III deals with military and intelligence assistance for Ukraine, putting Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova on a NATO track, expediting US natural gas exports in order to erase European and Eurasian energy dependence on Russia, preventing recognition of Crimea as again a part of Russia, expanding broadcasting (propaganda) into Russian areas, and again “support for democracy and civil society organizations in countries of the former Soviet Union,” which means to use money to subvert the Russian federation.

 However you look at this, it comprises a declaration of war.  Moreover, these provocative and expensive moves are presented as necessary to counter Russian aggression for which there is no evidence.

 How do we characterize a bill that is not merely thoughtless, unnecessary, and dangerous, but also more Orwellian than Orwell?  I am open to suggestions.

 Ukraine as it currently exists is an ahistorical state with artificial boundaries.  Ukraine presently consists of part of what was once a larger entity plus former Russian provinces added to the Ukrainian Soviet Republic by Soviet leaders.  When the Soviet Union collapsed and Russia permitted Ukraine’s independence, under US pressure Russia mistakenly permitted Ukraine to take with it the former Russian provinces.

When Washington executed its coup in Kiev last year, the Russophobes who grabbed power began threatening in word and deed the Russian populations in eastern and southern Ukraine.  The Crimeans voted to reunite with Russia and were accepted. This reunification was grossly misrepresented by Western propaganda.  When other former Russian provinces voted likewise, the Russian government, kowtowing to Western propaganda, did not grant their requests.  Instead, Russian president Putin called for Kiev and the former Russian provinces to work out an agreement that would keep the provinces within Ukraine.

 Kiev and its Washington master did not listen. Instead, Kiev launched military attacks on the provinces and was conducting bombing attacks on the provinces at the moment the Malaysian airliner was downed.

Washington and its European vassals have consistently misrepresented the situation in Ukraine and denied their responsibility for the violence, instead placing all blame on Russia.  But it is not Russia that is conducting bombing raids and attacking provinces with troops, tanks, and artillery.  Just as Israel’s current military assault against Palestinian civilians fails to evoke criticism from Washington, European governments, and the Western media, Kiev’s assault on the former Russian provinces goes unreported and uncriticized.  Indeed, it appears that few Americans are even aware that Kiev is attacking civilian areas of the provinces that wish to return to their mother country.

Sanctions should be imposed on Kiev, from which the military violence originates.  Instead, Kiev is receiving financial and military support, and sanctions are placed on Russia which is not militarily involved in the situation.

When the outbreak of violence against the former Russian provinces began, the Russian Duma voted Putin the power to intervene militarily.  Instead of using this power, Putin requested that the Duma rescind the power, which the Duma did.  Putin preferred to deal with the problem diplomatically in a reasonable and unprovocative manner.

 Putin has received neither respect nor appreciation for encouraging a non-violent resolution of the unfortunate Ukrainian situation created by Washington’s coup against a democratically elected government that was only months away from a chance to elect a different government.

 The sanctions that Washington has applied and that Washington is pressuring its European puppets to join send the wrong information to Kiev.  It tells Kiev that the West approves and encourages Kiev’s determination to resolve its differences with the former Russian provinces with violence rather than with negotiation.

 This means war will continue, and that is clearly Washington’s intent.  The latest reports are that US military advisors will soon be in Ukraine to aid the conquest of the former Russian provinces that are in revolt.

The presstitute nature of the Western media ensures that the bulk of the American and European populations will remain in the grip of Washington’s anti-Russian propaganda.

 At some point the Russian government will have to face the fact that it doesn’t have “Western partners.”  Russia has Western enemies who are being organized to isolate Russia, to injure Russia economically and diplomatically, to surround Russia militarily, to destabilize Russia by calling the American-funded NGOs into the streets, and in the absence of a coup that installs an American puppet in Moscow to attack Russia with nuclear weapons.

I respect Putin’s reliance on diplomacy and good will in the place of force.  The problem with Putin’s approach is that Washington has no good will, so there is no reciprocity.

Washington has an agenda. Europe consists of captive nations, and these nations are without leaders capable of breaking free of Washington’s agenda.

I hope that I am wrong, but I think Putin has miscalculated.  If Putin had accepted the

former Russian provinces requests to reunite with Russia, the conflict in Ukraine would be over.  I am certain that Europe would not have joined Washington in any invasion

with the purpose of recovering for Ukraine former provinces of Russia herself.  When Washington says that Putin is responsible for downing the Malaysian airliner, Washington is correct in a way that Washington doesn’t suspect.  Had Putin completed the task begun with Crimea and reunited the Russian provinces with Russia, there would have been no war during which an airliner could have been downed, whether by accident or as a plot to demonize Russia.  Ukraine has no capability of confronting Russia militarily and had no alternative to accepting the reunification of the Russian territories.

 Europe would have witnessed a decisive Russian decision and would have put a great distance between itself and Washington’s provocative agenda.  This European response would have precluded Washington’s ability to gradually escalate the crisis by gradually turning the temperature higher without the European frog jumping out of the pot.

 In its dealings with Washington Europe has grown accustomed to the efficacy of bribes, threats, and coercion.  Captive nations are inured to diplomacy’s impotence.  Europeans see diplomacy as the weak card played by the weak party.  And, of course, all the Europeans want money, which Washington prints with abandon.

 Russia and China are disadvantaged in their conflict with Washington.  Russia and China have emerged from tyranny. People in both countries were influenced by American cold war propaganda.  Both countries have educated people who think that America has freedom, democracy, justice, civil liberty, economic wellbeing and is a welcoming friend of other countries that want the same thing.

 This is a dangerous delusion. Washington has an agenda.  Washington has put in place a police state to suppress its own population, and Washington believes that history has conveyed the right to Washington to exercise hegemony over the world.  Last year President Obama declared to the world that he sincerely believes that America is the exceptional nation on whose leadership the world depends.

 In other words, all other countries and peoples are unexceptional.  Their voices are unimportant.  Their aspirations are best served by Washington’s leadership. Those who disagree–Russia, China, Iran, and the new entity ISIL–are regarded by Washington as obstacles to history’s purpose.  Anything, whether an idea or a country, that is in the way of Washington is in the way of History’s Purpose and must be run over.

 In the late 18th and early 19th centuries Europe faced the determination of the French Revolution to impose Liberty, Equality, Fraternity upon Europe. Today Washington’s ambition is larger.  The ambition is to impose Washington’s hegemony on the entire world.

 Unless Russia and China submit, this means war.

Preamble:

In this Russian Ministry of Defence press-conference, the Russian Deputy Defense Minister, Anatoly Antonov, states that neither Ukraine nor Western countries have bothered to respond to the data presented by the Ministry earlier regarding the Boeing 777 (Flight MH17) crash in Ukraine.At the same time, according to Antonov, despite the US alleging a certain version of the events, it has yet to provide any evidence for its accusations. The post includes the following:

  1. Video of Russian Ministry of Defence Press-Conference w/ENG subtitles
  2. Video of Russian Ministry of Defence Press-Conference in English

VideoRussian Ministry of Defence: Still No Evidence of US Version of the #MH17 Crash (w/ENG subs)

-

Note: For subtitles, kindly click on “Caption” next to the Settings Wheel in the lower right-hand corner

Video: Russian Defense Minister on MH17: Most US “evidence” based on social media posts

Mass Protests by Families of Conscripts in Prykarpattia Region, Ukraine

July 23, 2014

Translated from Ukrainian by Valentina Lisitsa

ENG subtitles by Marcel Sardo

Video: Mass Protests By Families of Men Drafted into the Ukrainian Army – w/ENG subtitles

Full Transcript below



Note: Video Report Published by Channel 112, Ukraine

Transcript of the Video 

Location of Protests: Prykarpattia Region, West Ukraine

News Anchor: In the Ciscarpathian region (Prykarpattia, West Ukraine) mass protests took place. The main participants are the families of men summoned for military draft. People trust neither local authorities nor military leadership in Kiev. They have many questions to the authorities and they demand immediate answers. More in our video report, coming up next.

NarratorYuri Lukyanuk already did his military duty – about 20 years ago. Now he got summons once again. But under his care are two small children. He has nobody to leave them with.

Yuri Lukyanuk: I take care of two small children. My daughter is in hospital on bed rest [for pregnancy complications], my wife, a migrant worker, is away. What am I to do?

Lubov Dibrova: Why would they take my husband? He is the only breadwinner in the family. And he is not in good health. If they take him to war – let them take me too. How can I live without him?

Narrator: People are afraid that if they let their men go to war they will never see them again. Dmytro has already participated in ATO,  today he is protesting with others. He is on 10- day leave.  He calls his comrades every day.

Dmytro: Now we are dealing with heavy weapons: tanks, mortar launchers, “Grad” rocket launchers … How can we go against them armed with machine guns? It is impossible. It is like a hell over there.

Narrator: Dmytro tells us how they waited for 3 weeks to get reinforcements. All in vain. The local commissary confirms: it is impossible to fight like this.

Igor Pavlyuk, Military Commissary of Ivano-Frankivsk oblast: One can’t fight against Grad rockets. Not with the weapons they are given. You know perfectly well that I complained about it. Though it is above my pay grade.

Narrator: That’s why people question the authorities.

Irina Seredyuk: We want explanation from the authorities, we want guarantees, we want to know why is it that only Western region men are sent to fight in the East. Why the bulk of “Cargo-200″ [casualties] arrives to Lviv.

We want to know why Easterners, who should know their territory well, are escaping to the West, hiding here in Mochary, hiding in Bukovel, [BUT members - of Block of Yulia Tymoshenko] hiding in Ivano-Frankivsk,  camping in their tents,  swearing at locals.

Narrator: Protests in Ciscarpathia are in their third day. People are blocking enlistment headquarters, highways, chasing out medical commission experts. They warn – if Kiev doesn’t hear them they will go to Kiev.

Global  Research, July 24, 2014

Ukraine’s Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk announced his resignation in the Rada (Parliament) and that of the entire Cabinet on Thursday, July 24.  This decision was taken following the withdrawal of two parties from the coalition government and the non-adoption of two important pieces of legislation, which had been demanded by the International Monetary Fund (IMF)

“I announce my resignation after the collapse of the coalition and the blocking of government initiatives …

“In connection with the breakup of the parliamentary coalition, as well as non-adoption of a number of important bills, I announce my resignation,”

The resignation of the Prime Minister signifies the collapse of the government and the resignation of the entire cabinet.

“But the cabinet members will continue fulfilling their duties until a new coalition is formed in the Rada.”

On July 24th, the Rada failed to support the government’s bill pertaining to the 2014 budget sequestration, which had been demanded by the IMF on behalf of Kiev’s external creditors. The disbursement by the IMF of the “Second Tranche” of a 17 billion dollar policy based loan was conditional upon the prior adoption of this legislation.

“The parliament must adopt amendments to the state budget needed to finance our army and also documents needed for cooperation with international financial institutions.[e.g. IMF, World Bank, EBRD] said PM Yatsenyuk. (emphasis added)

The entire country is in an impasse. No money will be forthcoming from the IMF until this legislation is adopted. In the meantime, Ukraine remains on the blacklist of its external creditors.

Moreover, a controversial draft law on reforming the country’s gas transportation system was rejected (Itar-Tass, July 24, 2014).

Both bills were tied into the government’s negotiations with both the EU and the IMF.

What Happens Next?

The national economy is in crisis, the political structures of the country are in total disarray, all of which is occurring in the immediate wake of the Malaysian Airlines MH17 crash in Eastern Ukraine.

The two parties which left the coalition are The Neo-Nazi Svoboda party and the Centre Right Ukraine Democratic Alliance for Reform (UDAR) Party led by former champion boxer Vitali Klitschko.

President Poroshenko (left) has intimated that the resignation of the cabinet has paved the way for a process of meaningful political restructuring:  “Society wants a full reset of state authorities,” said Mr Poroshenko.

What is implied by Poroshenko’s statement is that the parliamentary process is slated to become defunct inasmuch as Rada is obligated to adopt the legislation demanded by the IMF and the European Union. And if the Rada does not adopt the legislation, the composition of the Parliament will be changed through a process of outright political manipulation.

The 2014 budget project demanded by the IMF includes massive cuts in social spending coupled with increased allocations to the Armed Forces. Its adoption will contribute (virtually overnight) to a further process of the impoverishment of the Ukraine population.

The speaker of the Rada, Mr. Oleksandr Turchynov confirmed that the Ukraine Democratic Alliance for Reform (UDAR) and Svoboda (Freedom) would be invited to propose a candidate to occupy the post of interim Prime Minister.

So much for democracy: the leader of a Neo-Nazi formation Oleh Tyahnybok (Image right) will play a key role in the appointment of an interim Prime Minister to replace Mr. Yatsenyuk.

Parliamentary elections will only occur if the Rada fails to forge a new coalition government within the next 30 days:

The breakup of the coalition “was probably agreed on by political parties seeking elections and the president,” Yuriy Yakymenko, the head of political research at Kiev’s Razumkov Center, a non-governmental policy group, said by phone.

“Withdrawals from the coalition should not paralyze the parliament’s work,” Poroshenko said before Yatsenyuk announced his resignation.” (Business Week, July 24, 2014

Yatsenyuk intimated in his resignation speech that the State was bankrupt and that failure to abide by IMF demands would create social chaos:

“The fact is that today you failed to vote for the laws, and I have nothing (with which) to pay wages of policemen, doctors, teachers; nothing to buy a rifle with, nothing to fuel an armored personnel carrier with. Today you failed to take a decision to fill the gas storages to allow us to live through the winter, to at last free ourselves from dependence on Russian gas,” (Rada, July 24, 2014)

The IMF Program and the Interim Government

In the days following the Ukraine coup d’Etat of February 23, which led to the ousting of the duly elected president, Wall Street and the IMF–in liaison with the US Treasury and the European Commission in Brussels– had already set the stage for the imposition of the IMF’s “strong economic medicine”.

Following the installation of the interim coalition government, Prime Minister Arseny Yatsenyuk dismissed the need to even negotiate with the IMF. He called for an  an unconditional acceptance of IMF shock therapy:

We have no other choice but to accept the IMF offer”.

Yatsenyuk intimated that Ukraine will “accept whatever offer the IMF and the EU made” (voice of russia.com March 21, 2014, emphasis added)

In surrendering to the IMF at the outset of the interim government in March 2014, Yatsenyuk was fully aware that the proposed IMF-World Bank macro-economic reforms would brutally impoverish millions of people, including those who protested in Maidan against the Yanukovitch government.

The adoption of the more ruthless components of the IMF’s economic package requiring supportive legislation had been delayed until after the May 25 elections.

Cracking Down on the Party of Regions and the Communist Party

Meanwhile, the government is cracking down on the Ukraine Communist Party which is now illegal as well as on the Party of Regions, both of which were firmly opposed to the IMF policy reforms.

Ukraine as An Ally without NATO Status

In turn, the Ministry of Defense has raised the issue of direct US military support in the military campaign in Eastern Ukraine, where the Donbass militia have repealed the forces of the Kiev regime.

“The current situation testifies to clear Russian interference in Ukraine and its military support to terrorist groups active in Ukraine’s eastern regions… Right now, Ukraine’s armed forces need international support more than ever before”, said Deputy Defense Ihor Kabanenko to David Baldwin, commander of the California National Guard. (Kiev Post, July 24, 2014)

Commander Baldwin was in Kiev for high level consultations with the Ministry of Defense.  In the course of his meetings with DeputyDefense Minister Ihor Kabanenko, Baldwin announced on behalf of the US government that:

“The United States of America is considering the possibility of granting Ukraine the status of an ally without membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

… Baldwin said that the American side highly appreciates its cooperation with the Armed Forces of Ukraine and that it is ready to provide comprehensive support to them.

He stressed that a draft law on prevention of Russian aggression, adoption of which will allow Ukraine to obtain the status of an ally of the United States without NATO membership, is currently under consideration by the United States government.

… President Petro Poroshenko has asked the United States Congress to declare the self-proclaimed “People’s Republic of Luhansk” and “People’s Republic of Donetsk” as terrorist organizations and declare their members as terrorists.Poroshenko believes that when sanctions are not working, there are grounds for appeal to the United States Congress to grant Ukraine the special status of a major ally outside NATO (like Israel, Australia, and the Philippines) to enable it to solve its security problems. (Ukrainian News, July 24, 2014, emphasis added)

The granting of the “status of ally outside NATO” would set the stage for the possible deployment of US and NATO forces inside Ukraine in the context of joint military operations with the Ukraine Armed Forces and National Guard.

Chris Wrinn created these cartoons with an aim to have activists and the media stop heckling.

Here is a more productive approach: ask U.S. Congressional representatives and Canadian Members of Parliament one question: “How much do they pay you to say that?” every time they repeat the pro-Israeli talking points at their press conferences.

Repeated often enough it might start to sink into a few minds.

Please distribute to your friends, enemies, groups, lists, Facebook, Twitter etc., as you find appropriate.