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
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.
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.
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”.
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 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. [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.
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)
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.
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)
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.
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.
Timeline: What Happened on the Morning of September 11, 2001
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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,  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. 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.
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.  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, 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. 
* * *
* * *
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.
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.” 
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.” 
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. 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. 
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.
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. 
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.” 
“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.” 
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.
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, and are documented to be financing the Muslim Brotherhood-dominated Syrian National Council against President Bashar al-Assad. 
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.
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.” 
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.
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.”  Under behind-the-scenes machinations the Libyan government is dominated by Jihadists and by followers of the Muslim Brotherhood, as in Tunisia and Egypt. 
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. 
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.
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,  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. 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 ofFull Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order
 Dan Peleschuk, Sheikh Murdered Over Religious Split Say Analysts, RIA Novosti, August 30, 2012, accessed in
 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).”
 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?”
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.
“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.
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.
Why Does the U.S. Support a Country which was FOUNDED With Terrorism
A U.S. congressman for 6 years, who is now a talking head on MSNBC (Joe Scarborough) says that – even if the Saudi government backed the 9/11 attacks – Saudi oil is too important to do anything about it:
This is not an isolated incident. It is a microcosm of U.S.-Saudi relations.
By way of background, former MI6 agent Alastair Crooke notes that Saudi Arabia was founded with terrorism:
One dominant strand to the Saudi identity pertains directly to Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab (the founder of Wahhabism), and the use to which his radical, exclusionist puritanism was put by Ibn Saud. (The latter was then no more than a minor leader — amongst many — of continually sparring and raiding Bedouin tribes in the baking and desperately poor deserts of the Nejd.)
Abd al-Wahhab demanded conformity — a conformity that was to be demonstrated in physical and tangible ways. He argued that all Muslims must individually pledge their allegiance to a single Muslim leader (a Caliph, if there were one). Those who would not conform to this view should be killed, their wives and daughters violated, and their possessions confiscated, he wrote. The list of apostates meriting death included the Shiite, Sufis and other Muslim denominations, whom Abd al-Wahhab did not consider to be Muslim at all.
Abd al-Wahhab’s advocacy of these ultra radical views inevitably led to his expulsion from his own town — and in 1741, after some wanderings, he found refuge under the protection of Ibn Saud and his tribe. What Ibn Saud perceived in Abd al-Wahhab’s novel teaching was the means to overturn Arab tradition and convention. It was a path to seizing power.
Ibn Saud’s clan, seizing on Abd al-Wahhab’s doctrine, now could do what they always did, which was raiding neighboring villages and robbing them of their possessions. Only now they were doing it not within the ambit of Arab tradition, but rather under the banner of jihad. Ibn Saud and Abd al-Wahhab also reintroduced the idea of martyrdom in the name of jihad, as it granted those martyred immediate entry into paradise.
Their strategy — like that of ISIS today — was to bring the peoples whom they conquered into submission. They aimed to instill fear. In 1801, the Allies attacked the Holy City of Karbala in Iraq. They massacred thousands of Shiites, including women and children. Many Shiite shrines were destroyed, including the shrine of Imam Hussein, the murdered grandson of Prophet Muhammad.
A British official, Lieutenant Francis Warden, observing the situation at the time, wrote: “They pillaged the whole of it [Karbala], and plundered the Tomb of Hussein… slaying in the course of the day, with circumstances of peculiar cruelty, above five thousand of the inhabitants …”
Osman Ibn Bishr Najdi, the historian of the first Saudi state, wrote that Ibn Saud committed a massacre in Karbala in 1801. He proudly documented that massacre saying, “we took Karbala and slaughtered and took its people (as slaves), then praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds, and we do not apologize for that and say: ‘And to the unbelievers: the same treatment.’”
In 1803, Abdul Aziz then entered the Holy City of Mecca, which surrendered under the impact of terror and panic (the same fate was to befall Medina, too). Abd al-Wahhab’s followers demolished historical monuments and all the tombs and shrines in their midst. By the end, they had destroyed centuries of Islamic architecture near the Grand Mosque.
With the advent of the oil bonanza — as the French scholar, Giles Kepel writes, Saudi goals were to “reach out and spread Wahhabism across the Muslim world … to “Wahhabise” Islam, thereby reducing the “multitude of voices within the religion” to a “single creed” — a movement which would transcend national divisions. Billions of dollars were — and continue to be — invested in this manifestation of soft power.
It was this heady mix of billion dollar soft power projection — and the Saudi willingness to manage Sunni Islam both to further America’s interests, as it concomitantly embedded Wahhabism educationally, socially and culturally throughout the lands of Islam — that brought into being a western policy dependency on Saudi Arabia, a dependency that has endured since Abd-al Aziz’s meeting with Roosevelt on a U.S. warship (returning the president from the Yalta Conference) until today.
The more radical Islamist movements were perceived by Western intelligence services as being more effective in toppling the USSR in Afghanistan — and in combatting out-of-favor Middle Eastern leaders and states.Why should we be surprised then, that from Prince Bandar’s Saudi-Western mandate to manage the insurgency in Syria against President Assad should have emerged a neo-Ikhwan type of violent, fear-inducing vanguard movement: ISIS?
Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, founder of “Wahhabism,” an austere form of Islam, arrives in the central Arabian state of Najd in 1744 preaching a return to “pure” Islam. He seeks protection from the local emir, Muhammad ibn Saud, head of the Al Saud tribal family, and they cut a deal. The Al Saud will endorse al-Wahhab’s austere form of Islam and in return, the Al Saud will get political legitimacy and regular tithes from al-Wahhab’s followers. The religious-political alliance that al-Wahhab and Saud forge endures to this day in Saudi Arabia.
By the 19th century, the Al Saud has spread its influence across the Arabian Peninsula, stretching from the Red Sea to the Persian Gulf and including the Two Holy Cities of Mecca and Medina.
By 1945, the U.S. urgently needs oil facilities to help supply forces fighting in the Second World War. Meanwhile, security is at the forefront of King Abd al-Aziz’s concerns. President Franklin Roosevelt invites the king to meet him aboard the U.S.S. Quincy, docked in the Suez Canal. The two leaders cement a secret oil-for-security pact: The king guarantees to give the U.S. secure access to Saudi oil and in exchange the U.S. will provide military assistance and training to Saudi Arabia and build the Dhahran military base.
U.S. presidents have been extremely close to the Saudi monarchs ever since.
“The ideology of the Saudi regime is that of ISIS even if the foreign policies differ,” California State University-Stanislaus Professor Asad AbuKhalil tells The Progressive.
“Wahhabi Islam [the official ideology of the Saudi monarchy] is fully in sync with ISIS.”
But instead of isolating the Saudi regime from the global mainstream, President Obama paid a visit there earlier this year, meeting with King Abdullah. He reportedly did not discuss the regime’s dubious conduct.
“I can’t think of a more pernicious actor in the region,” British-Pakistani author Mohsin Hamid told me in an interview last year. “The House of Saud has exported this very pernicious form of militant Islam under U.S. watch. Then the United States comes in repeatedly to attack symptoms of this problem without ever addressing the basic issue: Where does it all come from? Who’s at the heart of this thing? It would be like saying that if you have skin rash because of cancer, the best option is to cut off your skin. It doesn’t make any sense.”
Yet, the United States continues with this approach.
Even establishment opinion is recognizing the dimensions of the Saudi problem.
“It can’t be exporting extremism and at the same time ask the United States to protect it,” Retired General (and onetime presidential contender) Wesley Clark recently told CNN.
“Al Qaeda, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, Boko Haram, the Shabab and others are all violent Sunni Salafi groupings,” Ed Husain of the Council on Foreign Relations recently wrote in the New York Times. “For five decades, Saudi Arabia has been the official sponsor of Sunni Salafism [another term for Wahhabism] across the globe.”
Such entities “have been lavishly supported by the Saudi government, which has appointed emissaries to its embassies in Muslim countries who proselytize for Salafism,” he adds.
Then-U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wrote in a December 2009 leaked diplomatic cable that entities in Saudi Arabia were the “most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide.”
Yet the United States keeps mum because the Saudi monarchy serves U.S. interests. Due to its pivotal role in OPEC, it makes sure that crude oil prices don’t rise above a certain level. It is a key purchaser of American weapons. It invests in U.S. government bonds. And it has acted in the past as proxy for covert U.S. actions, such as funneling arms and funding to the Nicaraguan contras.
Until Saudi Arabia stops sponsoring the most reactionary brands of Sunni Islam, this U.S. ally will remain responsible for much of the mayhem in the Muslim world.
The Independent headlines “Iraq crisis: How Saudi Arabia helped Isis take over the north of the country”:
Some time before 9/11, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, once the powerful Saudi ambassador in Washington and head of Saudi intelligence until a few months ago, had a revealing and ominous conversation with the head of the British Secret Intelligence Service, MI6, Sir Richard Dearlove. Prince Bandar told him: “The time is not far off in the Middle East, Richard, when it will be literally ‘God help the Shia’. More than a billion Sunnis have simply had enough of them.”
There is no doubt about the accuracy of the quote by Prince Bandar, secretary-general of the Saudi National Security Council from 2005 and head of General Intelligence between 2012 and 2014, the crucial two years when al-Qa’ida-type jihadis took over the Sunni-armed opposition in Iraq and Syria. Speaking at the Royal United Services Institute last week, Dearlove, who headed MI6 from 1999 to 2004, emphasised the significance of Prince Bandar’s words, saying that they constituted “a chilling comment that I remember very well indeed”.
He does not doubt that substantial and sustained funding from private donors in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, to which the authorities may have turned a blind eye, has played a central role in the Isis surge into Sunni areas of Iraq. He said: “Such things simply do not happen spontaneously.” This sounds realistic since the tribal and communal leadership in Sunni majority provinces is much beholden to Saudi and Gulf paymasters, and would be unlikely to cooperate with Isis without their consent.
Unfortunately, Christians in areas captured by Isis are finding this is not true, as their churches are desecrated and they are forced to flee. A difference between al-Qa’ida and Isis is that the latter is much better organised; if it does attack Western targets the results are likely to be devastating.
Dearlove … sees Saudi strategic thinking as being shaped by two deep-seated beliefs or attitudes. First, they are convinced that there “can be no legitimate or admissible challenge to the Islamic purity of their Wahhabi credentials as guardians of Islam’s holiest shrines”. But, perhaps more significantly given the deepening Sunni-Shia confrontation, the Saudi belief that they possess a monopoly of Islamic truth leads them to be “deeply attracted towards any militancy which can effectively challenge Shia-dom”.
Western governments traditionally play down the connection between Saudi Arabia and its Wahhabist faith, on the one hand, and jihadism, whether of the variety espoused by Osama bin Laden and al-Qa’ida or by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’s Isis. There is nothing conspiratorial or secret about these links: 15 out of 19 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, as was Bin Laden and most of the private donors who funded the operation.
But there has always been a second theme to Saudi policy towards al-Qa’ida type jihadis, contradicting Prince Bandar’s approach and seeing jihadis as a mortal threat to the Kingdom. Dearlove illustrates this attitude by relating how, soon after 9/11, he visited the Saudi capital Riyadh with Tony Blair.
He remembers the then head of Saudi General Intelligence “literally shouting at me across his office: ’9/11 is a mere pinprick on the West. In the medium term, it is nothing more than a series of personal tragedies. What these terrorists want is to destroy the House of Saud and remake the Middle East.’” In the event, Saudi Arabia adopted both policies, encouraging the jihadis as a useful tool of Saudi anti-Shia influence abroad but suppressing them at home as a threat to the status quo. It is this dual policy that has fallen apart over the last year.
Saudi sympathy for anti-Shia “militancy” is identified in leaked US official documents. The then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wrote in December 2009 in a cable released by Wikileaks that “Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qa’ida, the Taliban, LeT [Lashkar-e-Taiba in Pakistan] and other terrorist groups.”
Saudi Arabia and its allies are in practice playing into the hands of Isis which is swiftly gaining full control of the Sunni opposition in Syria and Iraq.
For all his gargantuan mistakes, Maliki’s failings are not the reason why the Iraqi state is disintegrating. What destabilised Iraq from 2011 on was the revolt of the Sunni in Syria and the takeover of that revolt by jihadis, who were often sponsored by donors in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and United Arab Emirates. Again and again Iraqi politicians warned that by not seeking to close down the civil war in Syria, Western leaders were making it inevitable that the conflict in Iraq would restart. “I guess they just didn’t believe us and were fixated on getting rid of [President Bashar al-] Assad,” said an Iraqi leader in Baghdad last week.
Saudi Arabia has created a Frankenstein’s monster over which it is rapidly losing control. The same is true of its allies such as Turkey which has been a vital back-base for Isis and Jabhat al-Nusra by keeping the 510-mile-long Turkish-Syrian border open.
As we’ve extensively documented, the Saudis and the U.S. backed the radical “madrassas” in which Islamic radicalism was spread.
“The separatists are backed, trained, armed, financed by Russia. Russia determined that it had to be a little more overt in what it had already been doing, but it’s not really a shift.”Obama, 29 August 2014.
”If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.” - Joseph Goebbels (Hitler’s Propaganda Minister)
Interestingly, most of us who are seeking the truth are primarily attempting to undo the lies – lies umpteen times repeated, lies about “Russian invasions”, first proclaimed by Poroshenko, Ukraine’s oligarch leader (sic), lies of Russia “not respecting Ukraine’s sovereignty”, demonization directed against President Putin, Malaysian airliners downed by Russia – and-so-on.
The latest accusation is that JP Morgan and four other Wall Street banks have been hacked. And the culprit is…. Of, course Russia, according to the presstitute MSM.
It doesn’t matter whether what Poroshenko said and is repeated the world over was based on a translation error (according to the German Tagesschau, the German mainstream TV news) – or whether it is just a conventional lie continuously repeated until it becomes the truth à la Goebbels – the western bought propaganda machine takes full advantage of this hundreds of years old simple strategy of deception.
The interesting part, however, is that hardly anyone on that very occasion is presenting the counter-weight, so to speak, namely to what extent Kiev is assisted by US paid mercenaries, CIA military and strategic advisers and their equipment, all paid for in one way or another by the State Department, CIA, or NATO. And these are facts. Not inventions for deception.
There is enough proof about who caused the 22 February 2014 coup (Maidan) – Madame Nuland, Kerry’s assistant, bragged about it at the Washington Press club – remember the US$ 5 billion “investment” in Ukraine’s regime change that cannot be let go down the drain because of the f….ing Europeans. She was caught hot-handed or hot-voiced on the phone with the US Ambassador in Kiev.
Ever since that infamous coup, the US / NATO and the EU have had their dirty hands in Kiev’s Nazi killer junta – otherwise the Kiev thugs would have never had either the courage or the military knowledge to advance to the Donbas area of Ukraine, where they were literally ordered to kill their brothers. Some of them with some conscience defected early on; then they were accompanied under threats of life by CIA ‘advisers’. Eventually they defected by the thousands because of lack of food and ammunition and the resulting low-low morale.
It is actually irrelevant whether Russia has troops and armory in East Ukraine. In fact it would be well justified for Russia to defend her countrymen from savage slaughter, as many Donbas citizens are originally Russians. But – they don’t, as Mr. Putin is too smart to spoil his diplomatic assets on a war that is already lost by Kiev.
Be this as it may, why do we, truth seekers, at a time of Obama’s lie exclamations and countless media repetitions not present more frequently the US / NATO invasion in Ukraine and their assistance to the Kiev murderers, rather than always being on the defensive, undoing lies in defense of Russia?
The truth of what the US-NATO killing machine, its vassal EU states and its paid mercenaries are up to in Ukraine, and that they won’t let go regardless of what Obama mutters to tranquilize the world — the truth is in one way or another Washington is committed to its financial and corporate elite to achieve Full Spectrum Dominance, meaning complete subjugation of the world to Washington’s masters, the military-security industrial complex and the war financing monetary system – FED-Wall Street-IMF, the latter being a mere extension of the US Treasury.
The Endgame means encircling Russia and China with more NATO bases, including Ukraine and Moldova, as close as possible to Moscow’s doorsteps; and, foreseen by 2015, with 60% of the US naval fleet in the South China Sea.
We should not be detracted by the day-to-day details and lies, by the fires that flare up here and there, though all horrible, killing thousands of people; we should not be confused by ‘who is doing what?’ – But rather focus on the Big Picture, the intentions behind the US / NATO killing machine, not so much by denying the obvious lies, but rather by describing actual facts and the long-term strategy behind them.
Obama screamed again ‘wolf’ today, literally shouting – ‘Russia has invaded Ukraine, Russia’s military and equipment are in Ukraine, Russia is funding the separatists’ — then adds, ‘but it’s not in the cards for America to intervene now.’
Don’t be fooled. Obama and his masters won’t go away. He says the same about American intervention in Syria – it’s not the right time, while arming and bombing (as a disguise) at the same time ISIS, created and funded in 2007 by Washington under successively different names to further confuse the public at large. At that time they came out of Turkey as Syrian Freedom Fighters, later they converted into the Al’Nusra Front of rebels, and now they are the ISIS, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, also called the Islamic State of the Levant.
This will do until the public needs to be again confused with a new group of Islamic terrorists to justify continuous wars on terror – to feed continuously the fat profit accounts of the eternal war lords. But only, if we the people let them confuse and deceive and divide us.
At the same time, Washington’s warmonger-in-chief, encourages his EU puppets to intervene and sending their troops into Ukraine, and imposing still more ‘sanctions’ on Russia. Let Europe take the hit if there is war. Not for nothing are NATO bases spiked throughout Europe, convenient targets for Russian missiles. – One could wonder – are the Europeans blind or just don’t care – or their leaders (sic) bought to the point where they hope to just disappear to America’s paradise when Russian rockets hit their countries’ NATO bases – and let their people smolder under nuclear dust?
We the 99.99% have all the powers to stop these US instigated murderous aggressions, by rejecting the continuously lying and deceiving propaganda machine, by rejecting and refusing to listen to the corporate presstitute media.
A few weeks ago there was hope that German Chancellor Merkel would see the light, would abandon the bandwagon of the ‘sanctioners’, because not only did she get a lot of pressure from German industrialists, but also the German people are worried about their energy supply – especially this coming winter. Germany depends by up to 40% on Russia for their energy supplies.
Unfortunately we were wrong. Madame Merkel bent over backwards to please Obama. The naked emperor convinced her not to leave his sinking ship. – What does he have up his imaginary sleeve? Anything he may have discovered by eavesdropping on her cellphone conversations? – So strong to sway her away from reason to the detriment of all of Europe? – These latest sanctions are backlashing on the EU, especially the farmers, a multiple times harder than they hit Russia. European agriculture and mostly small farmers, are losing billions of euros worth on stalled exports to Russia of meat, vegetables, fruit and other food stuff, because Russia retaliated by blocking imports from the EU. Russia is now establishing new trade routes with Latin America.
On 18 September Obama will meet at the White House with Poroshenko, to be sure he stays in line and doesn’t sway Putin’s way, because corrupt oligarchs tend to be not very reliable. Obama may promise him premature entry to NATO and all the fake fiat dollars that come with it.
It would not be a surprise if Obama were also to receive Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of the ‘new’ ISIS caliphate, to assure him of America’s continuous support, if he lets him bomb them, the ISIS troops that is, ever so often, just for show and to confuse the public mind – and, of course, as a disguise to bomb Syria to eventually topple Baschar al-Assad for – regime change.
Obama may also promise the ISIS a key role in the new Syrian government – provided he succeeds in regime change (for now unlikely) – similar as he did to the ‘rebels’ and other Islamic fractions of Libya. What Obama needs are not well-organized new regimes, but civil wars, fighting sections of societies to keep populations dying, and those still alive on their toes, fighting for their daily survival and fleeing across borders into refugee camps of other lands, thereby swallowing up neighboring countries resources and creating anger in the local population – the old divide to rein tactic.
The Big Picture is important. The people need to see it, the End Game – what is expecting them, if they – we, the 99.99% – are not taking actions to prevent Full Spectrum Dominance from succeeding.
Peter Koenig is an economist and former World Bank staff. He worked extensively around the world in the fields of environment and water resources. He writes regularly for Global Research, ICH, the Voice of Russia and other internet sites. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe.
The front pages below from August 2013 constitute a vivid example of the relentless and utterly deceptive war propaganda against Syria.
Now, with utmost impunity, the perpetrators of the genocidal war on Syria are declaring their plan to bombard Syrian territory under the guise of “collaborating” with the Syrian government against the “terrorists” who, in reality, are NATO’s mercenary death squads.
Read the London tabloids. Russia has launched “a full-scale invasion”. A vast propaganda campaign has been launched. Where is the evidence?
The media is spreading “fake evidence” in the week leading up to the Wales NATO Summit.
The objective is to herald Russia as the aggressor.
What is at stake is a strategic public relations stunt.
Sixty countries will be represented at the NATO Summit in Wales on 4-5 September including the 28 NATO member states.
The media lies “fit the military agenda” already formulated by the Pentagon in consultation with NATO and Her Majesty’s Government.
US-NATO requires “evidence” to build a political consensus at the Wales NATO Summit on September 4-5 hosted by Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron. According to PM David Cameron in a letter addressed to heads of State and heads of government of NATO member states ahead of the Summit:
“Leaders [of NATO countries] must review NATO’s long term relationship with Russiaat the summit in response to Russia’s illegal actions in Ukraine.
A pretext for an all out war on Russia under a humanitarian cloak? The West coming to the rescue of civilians in Eastern Ukraine?
In late July in consultation with the Pentagon, NATO’s Europe commander General Philip Breedlove had (ahead of the Wales NATO meeting) already called for “stockpiling a base in Poland with enough weapons, ammunition and other supplies to support a rapid deployment of thousands of troops against Russia”.(RT, July 24, 2014). According to General Breedlove, NATO needs “pre-positioned supplies, pre-positioned capabilities and a basing area ready to rapidly accept follow-on forces”:
“He plans to recommend placing supplies — weapons, ammunition and ration packs — at the headquarters to enable a sudden influx of thousands of Nato troops” (Times, August 22, 2014, emphasis added)
Breedlove’s “Blitzkrieg scenario” which could escalate into a World War III scenario is part of NATO’s summit agenda in Wales next week. In substance it is a “copy and paste” of the draft Russian Aggression Prevention Act (RAPA) (in the US Senate) which directs President Obama to initiate the militarization of Eastern Europe with a view to confronting Russia.
The Convoy of Russian Tanks. Where is It?
In support of NATO’s planned deployments to Eastern Europe, the Western media is claiming without evidence that a large convoy of Russian tanks has crossed the border into Ukraine and are operating under Russian command inside Ukraine.
The satellite images released by NATO show tanks and vehicles inside Ukraine, within an area controlled by Donbass forces. Where did they come from?
While media reports (with extensive photographic evidence). confirmed the entry into Ukraine of a convoy of Russian “white vans” which were part of Russia’s humanitarian initiative, nobody actually saw the tanks entering Ukraine.
With regard to the NATO satellite images, there is no indication as to where these tanks and armored vehicles came from and whether they were operated by the Russian military.
The Daily Mail online featured an unconvincing 20 second video of an alleged Russian tank inside Ukraine (see still image above).
Spinning a Russian Invasion
This is not the first time that the media is spinning a “Russian Invasion”. Earlier reports in June alluded to State Department sources that:
“three aging Russian T-64 tanks had been sent to Ukraine,” and that the Ukrainian government was claiming that there were 10 more tanks. The Times also noted:
Adding to Western concerns, the senior Obama administration official said, artillery has been moved to a deployment site inside southwest Russia and may soon be shipped across the border.
It should be noted that this as well as previous “Russian invasions” have been the object of sizable speculative gains on financial markets.
Where are the alleged Russian Tanks?
While various explanations are put forth concerning the alleged Russian tanks and armored vehicles, what is never mentioned in Western media reports is that the Donbass militia do not need Russian tanks.
In the course of the last two months, the Donbass militia have acquired a significant arsenal of tanks and armored vehicles captured from Ukrainian forces.
Rebels operate a tank in eastern Ukraine (Rob Stothard/Getty Images)
The large loss of military equipment is confirmed by the Ukraine Ministry of Internal Affairs, either destroyed or captured by Donbass forces.
Official Ukraine sources acknowledge a significant loss of tanks and armored vehicles.
Based on a two week period in July, 35 Ukraine Army tanks and 96 Armoured Battle Vehicles were either confiscated or destroyed by Donetsk and Lugansk forces, according to an official brief signed by Arsen Avakov (Minister of Internal Affairs) and V. Gritsak (Head of ATO [Anti-Terrorism Operation])
While we are not in a position to fully corroborate the Cyberberkut report, the figures collected over the period of June 20 to August 15 are broadly consistent with the official release.
What these two sets of figures confirm is that rebel forces in Donesk and Lugansk possess a significant military arsenal and this arsenal did not originate from Russia. It was captured from Ukraine forces as confirmed by official Ukraine sources.
This information is of crucial significance because it refutes the accusations by Washington and NATO that the tanks and armored vehicles identified in Donbass came from Russia.
Moreover, there is evidence that entire Ukrainian battalions have surrendered to the Donetsk and Lugansk militia, a large number of Ukrainian soldiers who have abandoned the battlefield have fled to Russia or have joined the Donbass militia:
“The 72nd Brigade for all intents and purposes has ceased to exist [in early August] due to ammunition and food rations running out. They held on while they still had resources and then began to exit into the territory of the Russian Federation – at first in separate groups, followed by the surviving remnants of the once full-fledged brigade.
More generally, the Western media has failed to cover the war theater in Donbass. More than 2000 civilians have been killed as a result of shelling and bombing by Kiev forces, close to a million Ukrainians are refugees in Russia.
The humanitarian crisis is invariably not mentioned by the media and when it is, the blame is placed on Russia.
Entire battalions of the Ukraine forces have surrendered.
July 18, 2014 – Official Ukrainian Military Accounting of Losses for July 9-15, 2014
((1) Ukrainian Version; (2) Translation)
TOTAL UKRAINIAN LOSSES
Killed in Action: 1600
Wounded in Action: 4723
Armoured Battle Vehicles: 96
TOTAL MILITIA LOSSES
Killed in Action: 48
Wounded in Action: 64
Armoured Battle Vehicles: 0
TOTAL CIVILIAN LOSSES
SIGNED & SUBMITTED BY: Arsen Avakov (Minister of Internal Affairs) and V. Gritsak (Head of ATO)
Annex II Cyberberkut Report (Translated from Russian)
Having access to classified information of Ukrainian security services, we are able to confirm that the fratricidal war led by the Kiev regime is from a military standpoint in an impasse. The Kiev forces have experienced significant losses.
From the new documents, we are able to confirm that from 8 to 15th of August, the Army of the Southeast has captured:
Claims about Russia invading Ukraine are fabricated. Big Lies proliferate. On Thursday, State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki lied saying
“we’re seeing…a pattern of escalating aggression in Ukraine from the Russians and Russian-backed separatists.”
“And it’s clear that Russia has not only stepped up its presence in eastern Ukraine and intervened directly with combat forces – armored vehicles, artillery, and surface-to-air systems – and is actively fighting Ukrainian forces as well as playing a direct supporting role to the separatist proxies and mercenaries.”
The White House is considering a range of options, she said. “We have additional tools and sanctions that we could certainly choose to put in place.”
US ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, repeated the Big Lie. His Twitter messages falsely claim “an increasing number of Russian troops are intervening directly in fighting on Ukrainian territory.”
Russia sent its newest air defense systems, he claims. At an August 28 emergency Security Council meeting, US envoy Samantha Power lied saying:
“Instead of listening, instead of heeding the demands of the international community and the rules of the international order, at every step, Russia has come before this Council to say everything except the truth.”
“It has manipulated. It has obfuscated. It has outright lied. So we have learned to measure Russia by its actions and not by its words.”
On Friday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov debunked spurious invasion claims,” saying:
“It’s not the first time we’ve heard wild guesses, though facts have never been presented so far.”
“There have been reports about satellite imagery exposing Russian troop movements.”
“They turned out to be images from video games. The latest accusations happen to be much the same quality.”
“We’ll react by remaining persistent in our policies to stay bloodshed and give a start to the nationwide dialogue and negotiations about the future of Ukraine, with participation of all Ukrainian regions and political forces, something that was agreed upon in Geneva back in April and in Berlin (in August), yet what is being so deliberately evaded by our Western partners now.”
On Friday, Vladimir Putin noted clear self-defense forces success against Kiev’s military.
At the same time, Donbass area fighting poses a “grave danger” to beleaguered residents, he said.
He and Lavrov deplore war. They’ve all-out for peaceful conflict resolution since fighting erupted in April.
“(O)nce again (he) call(ed) on the Ukrainian authorities to immediately stop military actions, cease fire, sit down at the negotiating table with Donbass representatives, and resolve all the accumulated problems exclusively via peaceful means.”
Moscow’s envoy Vitaly Churkin accused Kiev of waging war on its own people.
“Ukrainian forces in defiance of all norms of international humanitarian law and just moral principles are indiscriminately attacking cities, residential areas and infrastructures,” he explained.
His comments came on the same day Kiev forces attacked four buses of refugees seeking refuge in Russia. Its dirty war shows no mercy.
The New York Times is America’s lead source of media misinformation and propaganda.
On Thursday, it headlined “Ukraine Leader Says ‘Huge Loads of Arms’ Pour in From Russia,” saying:
“…Russian forces are on the move in Eastern Ukraine…” Its president, Petro Poroshenko, accused Russia “of an invasion to aid the separatists.”
“(H)is national security council ordered mandatory conscription to help counter what he called an ‘extremely difficult’ threat.”
Poroshenko lied claiming
“Columns of heavy artillery, huge loads of arms and regular Russian servicemen (invaded) Ukraine from Russia through the uncontrolled border area.”
“Mercenaries, along with regular servicemen, (are) trying to overrun positions held by the Ukrainian military.”
So-called NATO satellite images were cited as proof. Its web site claimed they show “Russian combat troops inside Ukraine.”
Comprehensive Crisis and Operations Management Centre director Brigadier General Nico Tak lied claiming:
“Over the past two weeks we have noted a significant escalation in both the level and sophistication of Russia’s military interference in Ukraine.”
“The satellite images released today provide additional evidence that Russian combat soldiers, equipped with sophisticated heavy weaponry, are operating inside Ukraine’s sovereign territory.”
Fact: No Russian invasion occurred.
Fact: Claims otherwise are fake.
Fact: MSM regurgitate official Big Lies.
Fact: Commercial satellite operator DigitalGlobe provided the satellite images.
Fact: Both sides use Russian weapons.
Fact: Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) Prime Minister Alexander Zakharchenko said around three to four thousand Russian volunteers are aiding self-defense forces.
Fact: Many are retired Russian servicemen, he said.
Fact: Others on active duty used leave time to help “us struggle for our freedom.”
Fact: Moscow didn’t send them.
Fact: Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Ukrainian monitoring team and Russia’s representative said no Russian forces are present on Ukraine’s border.
Fact: Claims of a Russian invasion are false, they said.
Russia’s Defense Ministry exposed a Forgotten Regiment (FR) Russian veterans organization hoax about Russian units involved in Southeast Ukraine fighting.
According to Ministry spokesman General Igor Konashenkov, FR claims have “no relation to reality.”
“We have studied the contents of this hoax, and are obliged to disappoint its overseas authors and their few sympathizers in Russia, who have joined forces to publish their ‘revelation…’ ”
The “combat ready” infantry, artillery, paratrooper and reconnaissance exist. They’re engaged in routine training exercises in different parts of Russia.
They’re not involved in Southeastern Ukraine conflict. Claims otherwise are spurious.
According to Moscow’s permanent EU representative Vladimir Chizhov:
NATO, Washington and EU states presented no evidence of Russian military involvement in Ukraine.
Misinformation substitutes for hard truths. Often it’s disseminated ahead of important EU meetings.
This time it precedes an August 30 Brussels summit. Expect more sanctions to follow. Expect Russia to respond in kind.
Washington Post editors are militantly anti-Russian. On August 28, they headlined “The West must make Mr. Putin pay for his aggression.”
They lied claiming Putin
“sen(t) Russian forces openly into Ukraine in the past 48 hours.” They called doing so “a watershed…”
“If Mr. Putin does not pay a high price for this naked, if still cynically denied, attack on his neighbor, the precedent could sow instability (from) the Baltic Sea…to the South China Sea…, they said.”
Despite no evidence whatever of Russian revanchist aims, they accused Putin of wanting control over Southeastern Ukraine.
“(T)he United States and its allies cannot afford to let Mr. Putin break the rules. It is time to hit Russia with the full brunt of financial sanctions” and much more, they said.
They want Ukraine provided with arms and intelligence. They want military related sales to Russia halted. They want NATO strengthened.
They ludicrously claimed nations worldwide “rely on US leadership and its commitment to the rule of law…”
No country more systematically violates it. None more egregiously. None poses a greater threat to humanity.
Don’t expect WaPo editors to explain. Or their Wall Street Journal counterparts. On August 28, they headlined “Putin Marches Ahead.”
The joined with other MSM scoundrels claiming Russia invaded Ukraine. In February, they accused Moscow of “grabbing Crimea.”
They ignored near Crimean unanimity to join Russia. They now accused Russian forces of “firing artillery at Ukrainian positions from both (their own) territory and inside Ukraine.”
They claim Putin’s strategy is “to open a land bridge between Russia and Crimea.” He wants its economy “knit more closely to Russia’s,” they said.
“(E)scalation…open(ed) up another front for the Ukrainian military as it tries to regain control over the east.”
“Kiev forces will now have to fight on a third front against Russian soldiers and armor.”
Journal editors want a “serious response to this serious challenge to Europe’s political order…” They barely stopped short of urging Obama to declare war.
The risk of direct US-led NATO confrontation grows. Doing so belligerently is madness.
It risks the unthinkable. It risks potential global war. Deescalating crisis conditions matters most.
Washington’s imperial agenda undermines it. The worst of all possible outcomes may follow.
The upcoming NATO summit in Wales is a public relations stunt aimed at building a political consensus directed against Russia and to accuse the country of interfering in Ukraine’s internal affairs, according to Professor Michel Chossudovsky, director of the Center for Research on Globalization.
“The fact that Russia is not invited to the NATO summit indicates that the meeting is directed against Russia, and that’s the main objective of that meeting,” Chossudovsky told RIA Novosti.
“It’s not to say that the meeting involves any kind of military planning. The military planning will take place elsewhere. The purpose of that meeting is strictly public relations,” he added.
Chossudovsky argued that many NATO members are the US’ political puppets, blindly following Washington’s strategies.
“It’s there to twist the arms of the heads of state, heads of government from these 60 countries. Many of these leaders already are pro-US. That’s a consensus of politicians, many of whom are political puppets,” Chossudovsky asserted, adding that consensus among members is usually achieved through various forms of blackmail.
Chossudovsky expressed doubt about NATO’s willingness to solve the Ukrainian conflict in a diplomatic way and stressed that if NATO were committed to a peaceful solution in Ukraine, it would indeed invite Russia to the summit.
“That would be dialogue,” he said.
“However, they’ve lost the type of diplomacy which existed during the Cold War era, when there was a civilized East-West relationship between heads of state, polite and constructive in many cases. And now we have only people who have very little ability to actually negotiate,” he added.
This week’s meetings between the Russian president and his Ukrainian counterpart Chossudovsky considers as an another example of weak diplomacy and poor negotiations.
“While Poroshenko wants to have bilateral discussions with Russia regarding east Ukraine, he does not want to negotiate with the federalists,” the expert explained, underlining that Putin insisted that any solution to the crisis in east Ukraine has to be negotiated among the parties concerned.
Chossudovsky believes that Poroshenko’s discussions with Putin were carefully prepared in advance with Western advisers.
“Poroshenko does not make any decisions, but at the same time he is complicit in extensive war crimes committed against the people of southeast Ukraine,” he asserted.
“I have to underscore the fact that the Ukrainian government is not a legitimate government, Moreover, it does not decide on anything. Mr. Poroshenko is a puppet of the United States,” Chossudovsky concluded.
NATO members are scheduled to meet next week in Wales to discuss the alliance’s response to Russia, which it accuses of interfering in Ukrainian affairs.
The summit will focus on “the evolution of partnerships” of NATO with nonmembers and on the “narrative for the Post-2014 era” of the relevance of NATO’s existence in the post-Cold War period and its future after US troops withdraw from Afghanistan at the end of the year.
The leaders of some 60 countries are expected to attend the summit.
Russia insists on the immediate release of staff members of the Russian embassy in Kiev, detained on August 28, the Russian Foreign Ministry said on Friday.
“We urge to stop provocations against Russian diplomatic institutions in Ukraine and our diplomatic staff members,” the ministry said.
According to the ministry, “another revolting action against the Russian embassy security guards, including the personal guard of the ambassador,” was staged in Kiev on August 28. They were detained at the exit of a cafe under an openly manufactured pretext of having grenades, despite the fact that they produced diplomatic passports.
“We demand the immediate release of the embassy staff members and prevention of any future violations of international conventions on diplomatic immunity,” the ministry said.
Russia urges the Ukrainian parties and Western partners to show goodwill towards solving problems exclusively by peaceful means, the Russian Foreign Ministry said on Friday.
“This is the only way whether the West really advocates for the interests of obedient Ukrainian politicians, the Ukrainian multinational people and the Ukrainian state the future of which can and should be ensured by searching for nationwide accord,”the ministry said.
“Russia will consistently do its best to create conditions for resolving the crisis in negotiations through strengthening confidence-building measures between the conflicting parties and taking concrete measures to de-escalate the situation and assist to civilians,” the ministry said.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has compared the shelling of east Ukrainian towns and cities by Kiev’s troops to actions carried out by the Nazis during World War II.
“Sad as it might seem, this reminds me of the events of World War II, when the German Nazi occupants surrounded our cities, like Leningrad, and directly shelled those cities and their inhabitants,” Putin said on Friday, speaking at the “Seliger-2014” youth forum.
He recalled the signs in St. Petersburg, preserved since World War II, which warned citizens which side of the road was more vulnerable to shelling.
Now “both towns and cities are surrounded by the Ukrainian army, which is directly shelling residential areas with the purpose of destroying infrastructure, and suppressing the will of those in the resistance,” Putin said.
The president also commented on Kiev’s military units that are currently surrounded and blocked by anti-government militia. According to the latest data, Kiev has refused to try and negotiate safe passage for them to retreat.
“I think this is a colossal mistake that will lead to a lot of human casualties,” Putin said.
The Ukrainian leadership has demonstrated its inability to bring the situation under control, the Russian president said, urging talks between Kiev and the country’s east.
“Our partners’ position is clear to me,” he said. “Yes, there should be talks, but in the mean time we need to let Ukrainian troops to do a bit of shooting – maybe they will get the situation under control.”
Putin added that it was time to acknowledge that attempts to resolve the crisis by force have failed and it is “necessary to make Ukrainian authorities to begin negotiation and not over technical issues… but over the core issues.”
The main topic on the agenda should be the rights of the people living in the Donetsk and Lugansk regions, the Russian president said.
Putin said he understood why the leadership of the self-proclaimed Donetsk Republic described their military actions against Kiev troops as a “humanitarian operation.”
“I can quite understand the self-defense forces of the southeast – Donbass, Lugansk – why they call this a military-humanitarian operation, what’s the point in their today’s actions – to drive artillery and cascade bombing systems away from the cities, so that they could do no harm to people,”
An average of around 36 people are being killed every day in Ukraine, according to estimates from the Office of the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights.
The agency’s Friday report says around 2,600 people – many of them civilians – have died in eastern Ukraine since the start of the Kiev’s military operation against anti-government forces there started in mid-April.
The Ukrainian Security Council estimates 789 Ukrainian servicemen are among those dead in the conflict.
On Friday the Council’s spokesman said that only over the preceding 24 hours 10 Ukrainian servicemen were killed and 30 injured.
An American political commentator says there are hundreds of US troops or CIA agents with the ISIL in Iraq and Syria to help the terrorist group.
Don DeBar, an anti-war activist and radio host in New York, made the remarks in a phone interview with Press TV on Wednesday while commenting on a recent report which says there are as many as 300 American nationals fighting alongside ISIL members.
Senior US officials have told The Washington Times that the US government is currently tracking and gathering intelligence on American militants who could return to the homeland and commit terrorist attacks with skills obtained abroad.
DeBar said the ISIL
“group is a construct of the US military intelligence. This is a terrorist cell that was organized by the US in order to destabilize Syria and perhaps other countries – they even made a threat against Saudi Arabia whether that’s just to make them look like they are on a particular ideological plane, or if it’s an actual threat, it’s a proxy threat from the US to Saudi Arabia.”
“My belief is that there are Americans that are a part of ISIL/ISIS with the knowledge of the US government and an assignment by the US government,”
DeBar stated that there are perhaps 300 Americans fighting with ISIL
“and then hundreds more US regulars, with CIA or whatever military formation they have, under the direction of US intelligence, that are a part of this. It doesn’t require that they are American nationals, of course, just that their paycheck is signed in Washington or Langley.”
“If you look at the outcomes of every action that this group has taken, they facilitate actions that the United States has wanted to take, has declared that it wanted to take a number of times, or has taken when it could, but it can’t get the authority from the [UN] Security Council to approve because they violate the integrity and sovereignty of either Iraq and/or Syria, and also would enable actions that violate a resolution that just passed the House of Representatives massively, last week or the week before, that attempt to constrains, at least on paper, the president from making anymore wars without specific authority from Congress,”
“So, it’s no surprise for me that there are Americans in their units. There would be a surprise to me if they were all dupes and unemployed kids, who got duped, sucked into fight over there with a bunch of the crazies. It wouldn’t surprise me if you had good portion of units, including command and control, that would direct employees of the Pentagon and/or Langley,”
ISIL controls large parts of Syria’s northern territory. The group sent its fighters into neighboring Iraq in June, quickly seizing large swaths of land straddling the border between the two countries.
The US military has begun planning for airstrikes against ISIL targets in Syria after last week’s beheading of American journalist James Foley. The US has launched a limited air campaign against the terrorist group in Iraq since August 8.
The Israeli Broadcast Authority and the Israeli Supreme Court knew in advance what the reaction would be to a radio advertisement reading out the names of children killed in Gaza, and that’s why they banned it.
By doing so they’ve taken a bit of our freedom.
Muhammad Malakeh, two years old; Siraj ‘Abd al-’Al, eight years old; Sarah al-’Eid, nine years old; Saher Abu Namus, four years old; Ahmad Mahdi, 15 years old.
Some facts should not be permitted to be broadcast in public. Merely hearing them is dangerous: It could cause people to have thoughts, doubts or compassion. If this danger comes to pass, what would become of us?
Safaa Malakeh, six years old; Muhammad ‘Arif, 10 years old; Nidal Nawasrah, four years old; Muhammad Nawasrah, two years old; Miriam al-’Arja, 10 years old.
What sort of thoughts would enter the minds of those who hear even a few names from that forbidden list? It’s difficult to estimate. As a matter of fact, it is a complete mystery as to how humans would respond upon hearing the names of foreign children, Palestinian children – more than 500 under the age of 15 – who were killed in Gaza in the past few weeks. This mystery is part of what makes us free. When that mystery is solved in advance by the government, a part of what allows the public to be free is taken away. It is no longer a mystery, it is propaganda.
Abdallah Abu Ghazal, five years old; Yasmin al-Mutawaq, four years old; Abd a-Rahman Khatab, five years old; Anas ‘Alaa al-Batsh, 10 years old; Amal al-Batsh, two years old.
Image: Palestinians prepare the body of a baby in Kamal Edwan Hospital’s morgue after an attack on Beit Hanoun elementary school killed at least 17 people, Jabalyia, Gaza Strip, July 24. The school was being used as a shelter by 800 people at the time (photo: Anne Paq/Activestills)
Without being able to hear for ourselves, we have no choice but to rely on the thoughts of those who appointed themselves the deciders of what we can and cannot hear: the lawyers of the Israeli Broadcast Authority (IBA), the attorney general of Israel and a few Supreme Court judges, who disqualified the broadcast of a B’Tselem radio advert [Hebrew]:
Here is the rumination of the appeals committee of the IBA: “The emphasis of the ‘Palestinian children’ issue alone may strengthen the Palestinian claim that Israel is responsible for their deaths, while Israel’s stance is that Hamas is responsible for the death of civilians.”
In other words, stating the facts creates guilt. Psychologists would perhaps call this the “return of the repressed.”
When the attorney general listened to the names, thoughts entered his mind: “The advert in question voices a message and a stand, and not just mere facts – in light of its content, how it is delivered and read quietly and slowly…” That is to say, perhaps a cheerful reading of the dead children’s names, in a manner that would not provoke forbidden thoughts, is, in fact, the appropriate solution?
In conclusion, Supreme Court Judge Elyakim Rubinstein says: “This is the place to clarify in a lucid voice first that, as human beings, we frown upon the death of innocents in Gaza, let alone children.”
Later on the court decision follows: “Israel is aware, and must be aware, of the distress of innocents on the other side – children included… as an attorney general myself, I have dealt with that quite often.”
It is interesting to listen to the “lucid” voice of a supreme court judge, the coherent and deciding voice that rules whether other tones – sober, complex, relaxing or agitating – will be heard, or not; the voice that itself admits that for years and years it has held a position devoid of repression or guilt, since it is never our fault and there must never ever be any doubt, contemplation or empathy on the matter.
Hussein Kaware’, 13 years old; Basem Kaware’, 10 years old; Muhammad Kaware’, 13 years old; Abdallah Kaware’, 12 years old; Qasem Kaware’, 12 years old.
That’s the reality we live in nowadays, and here is the bottom line: There is no one in Israel who will enable the reading of the names of Siraj, Nidal, Sarah or Amal. More than anything, this is an appalling and heartbreaking statement on the current state of affairs.
“And Reuben returned unto the pit; and, behold, Joseph was not in the pit; and he rent his clothes. And he returned unto his brethren, and said, The child is not; and I, whither shall I go?” (Genesis, 37:29)
And we, whither shall we go?
Hagai El-Ad is the CEO of B’Tselem. (Translated by Hadas Leonov)
We bring to the attention of our readers this incisive and carefully documented 2005 article by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. published by Rolling Stone, first posted on Global Research in July 2009.
The article sheds light on the collusion between Big Pharma and the US government and the dangers associated with vaccines produced by major pharmaceutical companies. This article is of particular relevance to the current debate on the H1N1 swine flu virus and plans by the WHO, The Obama Administration and Big Pharma to develop a swine flu vaccine.
The article by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. documented ”the government’s efforts to conceal alarming data about the dangers of vaccines.”
This article is of particular relevance in the light of recent revelations concerning CDC Vaccine Research Fraud.
Michel Chossudovsky, August 29, 2015
Vaccinations: Deadly Immunity
Government Cover-up of a Mercury/Autism Scandal
by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Rollingstone.com, 20 July 2005
In June 2000, a group of top government scientists and health officials gathered for a meeting at the isolated Simpsonwood conference center in Norcross, Georgia. Convened by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the meeting was held at this Methodist retreat center, nestled in wooded farmland next to the Chattahoochee River, to ensure complete secrecy. The agency had issued no public announcement of the session — only private invitations to fifty-two attendees. There were high-level officials from the CDC and the Food and Drug Administration, the top vaccine specialist from the World Health Organization in Geneva and representatives of every major vaccine manufacturer, including GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Wyeth and Aventis Pasteur. All of the scientific data under discussion, CDC officials repeatedly reminded the participants, was strictly “embargoed.” There would be no making photocopies of documents, no taking papers with them when they left.
The federal officials and industry representatives had assembled to discuss a disturbing new study that raised alarming questions about the safety of a host of common childhood vaccines administered to infants and young children. According to a CDC epidemiologist named Tom Verstraeten, who had analyzed the agency’s massive database containing the medical records of 100,000 children, a mercury-based preservative in the vaccines — thimerosal — appeared to be responsible for a dramatic increase in autism and a host of other neurological disorders among children. “I was actually stunned by what I saw,” Verstraeten told those assembled at Simpsonwood, citing the staggering number of earlier studies that indicate a link between thimerosal and speech delays, attention-deficit disorder, hyperactivity and autism. Since 1991, when the CDC and the FDA had recommended that three additional vaccines laced with the preservative be given to extremely young infants — in one case, within hours of birth — the estimated number of cases of autism had increased fifteenfold, from one in every 2,500 children to one in 166 children.
Even for scientists and doctors accustomed to confronting issues of life and death, the findings were frightening. “You can play with this all you want,” Dr. Bill Weil, a consultant for the American Academy of Pediatrics, told the group. The results “are statistically significant.” Dr. Richard Johnston, an immunologist and pediatrician from the University of Colorado whose grandson had been born early on the morning of the meeting’s first day, was even more alarmed. “My gut feeling?” he said. “Forgive this personal comment — I do not want my grandson to get a thimerosal-containing vaccine until we know better what is going on.”
But instead of taking immediate steps to alert the public and rid the vaccine supply of thimerosal, the officials and executives at Simpsonwood spent most of the next two days discussing how to cover up the damaging data. According to transcripts obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, many at the meeting were concerned about how the damaging revelations about thimerosal would affect the vaccine industry’s bottom line. “We are in a bad position from the standpoint of defending any lawsuits,” said Dr. Robert Brent, a pediatrician at the Alfred I. duPont Hospital for Children in Delaware. “This will be a resource to our very busy plaintiff attorneys in this country.” Dr. Bob Chen, head of vaccine safety for the CDC, expressed relief that “given the sensitivity of the information, we have been able to keep it out of the hands of, let’s say, less responsible hands.” Dr. John Clements, vaccines advisor at the World Health Organization, declared that “perhaps this study should not have been done at all.” He added that “the research results have to be handled,” warning that the study “will be taken by others and will be used in other ways beyond the control of this group.”
In fact, the government has proved to be far more adept at handling the damage than at protecting children’s health. The CDC paid the Institute of Medicine to conduct a new study to whitewash the risks of thimerosal, ordering researchers to “rule out” the chemical’s link to autism. It withheld Verstraeten’s findings, even though they had been slated for immediate publication, and told other scientists that his original data had been “lost” and could not be replicated. And to thwart the Freedom of Information Act, it handed its giant database of vaccine records over to a private company, declaring it off-limits to researchers. By the time Verstraeten finally published his study in 2003, he had gone to work for GlaxoSmithKline and reworked his data to bury the link between thimerosal and autism.
Vaccine manufacturers had already begun to phase thimerosal out of injections given to American infants — but they continued to sell off their mercury-based supplies of vaccines until last year. The CDC and FDA gave them a hand, buying up the tainted vaccines for export to developing countries and allowing drug companies to continue using the preservative in some American vaccines — including several pediatric flu shots as well as tetanus boosters routinely given to eleven-year-olds.
The drug companies are also getting help from powerful lawmakers in Washington. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who has received $873,000 in contributions from the pharmaceutical industry, has been working to immunize vaccine makers from liability in 4,200 lawsuits that have been filed by the parents of injured children. On five separate occasions, Frist has tried to seal all of the government’s vaccine-related documents — including the Simpsonwood transcripts — and shield Eli Lilly, the developer of thimerosal, from subpoenas. In 2002, the day after Frist quietly slipped a rider known as the “Eli Lilly Protection Act” into a homeland security bill, the company contributed $10,000 to his campaign and bought 5,000 copies of his book on bioterrorism. The measure was repealed by Congress in 2003 — but earlier this year, Frist slipped another provision into an anti-terrorism bill that would deny compensation to children suffering from vaccine-related brain disorders. “The lawsuits are of such magnitude that they could put vaccine producers out of business and limit our capacity to deal with a biological attack by terrorists,” says Dean Rosen, health policy adviser to Frist.
Even many conservatives are shocked by the government’s effort to cover up the dangers of thimerosal. Rep. Dan Burton, a Republican from Indiana, oversaw a three-year investigation of thimerosal after his grandson was diagnosed with autism. “Thimerosal used as a preservative in vaccines is directly related to the autism epidemic,” his House Government Reform Committee concluded in its final report. “This epidemic in all probability may have been prevented or curtailed had the FDA not been asleep at the switch regarding a lack of safety data regarding injected thimerosal, a known neurotoxin.” The FDA and other public-health agencies failed to act, the committee added, out of “institutional malfeasance for self protection” and “misplaced protectionism of the pharmaceutical industry.”
The story of how government health agencies colluded with Big Pharma to hide the risks of thimerosal from the public is a chilling case study of institutional arrogance, power and greed. I was drawn into the controversy only reluctantly. As an attorney and environmentalist who has spent years working on issues of mercury toxicity, I frequently met mothers of autistic children who were absolutely convinced that their kids had been injured by vaccines. Privately, I was skeptical.
I doubted that autism could be blamed on a single source, and I certainly understood the government’s need to reassure parents that vaccinations are safe; the eradication of deadly childhood diseases depends on it. I tended to agree with skeptics like Rep. Henry Waxman, a Democrat from California, who criticized his colleagues on the House Government Reform Committee for leaping to conclusions about autism and vaccinations. “Why should we scare people about immunization,” Waxman pointed out at one hearing, “until we know the facts?”
It was only after reading the Simpsonwood transcripts, studying the leading scientific research and talking with many of the nation’s pre-eminent authorities on mercury that I became convinced that the link between thimerosal and the epidemic of childhood neurological disorders is real. Five of my own children are members of the Thimerosal Generation — those born between 1989 and 2003 — who received heavy doses of mercury from vaccines. “The elementary grades are overwhelmed with children who have symptoms of neurological or immune-system damage,” Patti White, a school nurse, told the House Government Reform Committee in 1999. “Vaccines are supposed to be making us healthier; however, in twenty-five years of nursing I have never seen so many damaged, sick kids. Something very, very wrong is happening to our children.”
More than 500,000 kids currently suffer from autism, and pediatricians diagnose more than 40,000 new cases every year. The disease was unknown until 1943, when it was identified and diagnosed among eleven children born in the months after thimerosal was first added to baby vaccines in 1931.
Some skeptics dispute that the rise in autism is caused by thimerosal-tainted vaccinations. They argue that the increase is a result of better diagnosis — a theory that seems questionable at best, given that most of the new cases of autism are clustered within a single generation of children. “If the epidemic is truly an artifact of poor diagnosis,” scoffs Dr. Boyd Haley, one of the world’s authorities on mercury toxicity, “then where are all the twenty-year-old autistics?” Other researchers point out that Americans are exposed to a greater cumulative “load” of mercury than ever before, from contaminated fish to dental fillings, and suggest that thimerosal in vaccines may be only part of a much larger problem. It’s a concern that certainly deserves far more attention than it has received — but it overlooks the fact that the mercury concentrations in vaccines dwarf other sources of exposure to our children.
What is most striking is the lengths to which many of the leading detectives have gone to ignore — and cover up — the evidence against thimerosal. From the very beginning, the scientific case against the mercury additive has been overwhelming. The preservative, which is used to stem fungi and bacterial growth in vaccines, contains ethylmercury, a potent neurotoxin. Truckloads of studies have shown that mercury tends to accumulate in the brains of primates and other animals after they are injected with vaccines — and that the developing brains of infants are particularly susceptible. In 1977, a Russian study found that adults exposed to much lower concentrations of ethylmercury than those given to American children still suffered brain damage years later. Russia banned thimerosal from children’s vaccines twenty years ago, and Denmark, Austria, Japan, Great Britain and all the Scandinavian countries have since followed suit.
“You couldn’t even construct a study that shows thimerosal is safe,” says Haley, who heads the chemistry department at the University of Kentucky. “It’s just too darn toxic. If you inject thimerosal into an animal, its brain will sicken. If you apply it to living tissue, the cells die. If you put it in a petri dish, the culture dies. Knowing these things, it would be shocking if one could inject it into an infant without causing damage.”
Internal documents reveal that Eli Lilly, which first developed thimerosal, knew from the start that its product could cause damage — and even death — in both animals and humans. In 1930, the company tested thimerosal by administering it to twenty-two patients with terminal meningitis, all of whom died within weeks of being injected — a fact Lilly didn’t bother to report in its study declaring thimerosal safe. In 1935, researchers at another vaccine manufacturer, Pittman-Moore, warned Lilly that its claims about thimerosal’s safety “did not check with ours.” Half the dogs Pittman injected with thimerosal-based vaccines became sick, leading researchers there to declare the preservative “unsatisfactory as a serum intended for use on dogs.”
In the decades that followed, the evidence against thimerosal continued to mount. During the Second World War, when the Department of Defense used the preservative in vaccines on soldiers, it required Lilly to label it “poison.” In 1967, a study in Applied Microbiology found that thimerosal killed mice when added to injected vaccines. Four years later, Lilly’s own studies discerned that thimerosal was “toxic to tissue cells” in concentrations as low as one part per million — 100 times weaker than the concentration in a typical vaccine. Even so, the company continued to promote thimerosal as “nontoxic” and also incorporated it into topical disinfectants. In 1977, ten babies at a Toronto hospital died when an antiseptic preserved with thimerosal was dabbed onto their umbilical cords.
In 1982, the FDA proposed a ban on over-the-counter products that contained thimerosal, and in 1991 the agency considered banning it from animal vaccines. But tragically, that same year, the CDC recommended that infants be injected with a series of mercury-laced vaccines. Newborns would be vaccinated for hepatitis B within twenty-four hours of birth, and two-month-old infants would be immunized for haemophilus influenzae B and diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis.
The drug industry knew the additional vaccines posed a danger. The same year that the CDC approved the new vaccines, Dr. Maurice Hilleman, one of the fathers of Merck’s vaccine programs, warned the company that six-month-olds who were administered the shots would suffer dangerous exposure to mercury. He recommended that thimerosal be discontinued, “especially when used on infants and children,” noting that the industry knew of nontoxic alternatives. “The best way to go,” he added, “is to switch to dispensing the actual vaccines without adding preservatives.”
For Merck and other drug companies, however, the obstacle was money. Thimerosal enables the pharmaceutical industry to package vaccines in vials that contain multiple doses, which require additional protection because they are more easily contaminated by multiple needle entries. The larger vials cost half as much to produce as smaller, single-dose vials, making it cheaper for international agencies to distribute them to impoverished regions at risk of epidemics. Faced with this “cost consideration,” Merck ignored Hilleman’s warnings, and government officials continued to push more and more thimerosal-based vaccines for children. Before 1989, American preschoolers received eleven vaccinations — for polio, diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis and measles-mumps-rubella. A decade later, thanks to federal recommendations, children were receiving a total of twenty-two immunizations by the time they reached first grade.
As the number of vaccines increased, the rate of autism among children exploded. During the 1990s, 40 million children were injected with thimerosal-based vaccines, receiving unprecedented levels of mercury during a period critical for brain development. Despite the well-documented dangers of thimerosal, it appears that no one bothered to add up the cumulative dose of mercury that children would receive from the mandated vaccines. “What took the FDA so long to do the calculations?” Peter Patriarca, director of viral products for the agency, asked in an e-mail to the CDC in 1999. “Why didn’t CDC and the advisory bodies do these calculations when they rapidly expanded the childhood immunization schedule?”
But by that time, the damage was done. At two months, when the infant brain is still at a critical stage of development, infants routinely received three inoculations that contained a total of 62.5 micrograms of ethylmercury — a level 99 times greater than the EPA’s limit for daily exposure to methylmercury, a related neurotoxin. Although the vaccine industry insists that ethylmercury poses little danger because it breaks down rapidly and is removed by the body, several studies — including one published in April by the National Institutes of Health — suggest that ethylmercury is actually more toxic to developing brains and stays in the brain longer than methylmercury.
Officials responsible for childhood immunizations insist that the additional vaccines were necessary to protect infants from disease and that thimerosal is still essential in developing nations, which, they often claim, cannot afford the single-dose vials that don’t require a preservative. Dr. Paul Offit, one of CDC’s top vaccine advisers, told me, “I think if we really have an influenza pandemic — and certainly we will in the next twenty years, because we always do — there’s no way on God’s earth that we immunize 280 million people with single-dose vials. There has to be multidose vials.”
But while public-health officials may have been well-intentioned, many of those on the CDC advisory committee who backed the additional vaccines had close ties to the industry. Dr. Sam Katz, the committee’s chair, was a paid consultant for most of the major vaccine makers and was part of a team that developed the measles vaccine and brought it to licensure in 1963. Dr. Neal Halsey, another committee member, worked as a researcher for the vaccine companies and received honoraria from Abbott Labs for his research on the hepatitis B vaccine.
Indeed, in the tight circle of scientists who work on vaccines, such conflicts of interest are common. Rep. Burton says that the CDC “routinely allows scientists with blatant conflicts of interest to serve on intellectual advisory committees that make recommendations on new vaccines,” even though they have “interests in the products and companies for which they are supposed to be providing unbiased oversight.” The House Government Reform Committee discovered that four of the eight CDC advisers who approved guidelines for a rotavirus vaccine “had financial ties to the pharmaceutical companies that were developing different versions of the vaccine.”
Offit, who shares a patent on one of the vaccines, acknowledged to me that he “would make money” if his vote eventually leads to a marketable product. But he dismissed my suggestion that a scientist’s direct financial stake in CDC approval might bias his judgment. “It provides no conflict for me,” he insists. “I have simply been informed by the process, not corrupted by it. When I sat around that table, my sole intent was trying to make recommendations that best benefited the children in this country. It’s offensive to say that physicians and public-health people are in the pocket of industry and thus are making decisions that they know are unsafe for children. It’s just not the way it works.”
Other vaccine scientists and regulators gave me similar assurances. Like Offit, they view themselves as enlightened guardians of children’s health, proud of their “partnerships” with pharmaceutical companies, immune to the seductions of personal profit, besieged by irrational activists whose anti-vaccine campaigns are endangering children’s health. They are often resentful of questioning. “Science,” says Offit, “is best left to scientists.”
Still, some government officials were alarmed by the apparent conflicts of interest. In his e-mail to CDC administrators in 1999, Paul Patriarca of the FDA blasted federal regulators for failing to adequately scrutinize the danger posed by the added baby vaccines. “I’m not sure there will be an easy way out of the potential perception that the FDA, CDC and immunization-policy bodies may have been asleep at the switch re: thimerosal until now,” Patriarca wrote. The close ties between regulatory officials and the pharmaceutical industry, he added, “will also raise questions about various advisory bodies regarding aggressive recommendations for use” of thimerosal in child vaccines.
If federal regulators and government scientists failed to grasp the potential risks of thimerosal over the years, no one could claim ignorance after the secret meeting at Simpsonwood. But rather than conduct more studies to test the link to autism and other forms of brain damage, the CDC placed politics over science. The agency turned its database on childhood vaccines — which had been developed largely at taxpayer expense — over to a private agency, America’s Health Insurance Plans, ensuring that it could not be used for additional research. It also instructed the Institute of Medicine, an advisory organization that is part of the National Academy of Sciences, to produce a study debunking the link between thimerosal and brain disorders. The CDC “wants us to declare, well, that these things are pretty safe,” Dr. Marie McCormick, who chaired the IOM’s Immunization Safety Review Committee, told her fellow researchers when they first met in January 2001. “We are not ever going to come down that [autism] is a true side effect” of thimerosal exposure. According to transcripts of the meeting, the committee’s chief staffer, Kathleen Stratton, predicted that the IOM would conclude that the evidence was “inadequate to accept or reject a causal relation” between thimerosal and autism. That, she added, was the result “Walt wants” — a reference to Dr. Walter Orenstein, director of the National Immunization Program for the CDC.
For those who had devoted their lives to promoting vaccination, the revelations about thimerosal threatened to undermine everything they had worked for. “We’ve got a dragon by the tail here,” said Dr. Michael Kaback, another committee member. “The more negative that [our] presentation is, the less likely people are to use vaccination, immunization — and we know what the results of that will be. We are kind of caught in a trap. How we work our way out of the trap, I think is the charge.”
Even in public, federal officials made it clear that their primary goal in studying thimerosal was to dispel doubts about vaccines. “Four current studies are taking place to rule out the proposed link between autism and thimerosal,” Dr. Gordon Douglas, then-director of strategic planning for vaccine research at the National Institutes of Health, assured a Princeton University gathering in May 2001. “In order to undo the harmful effects of research claiming to link the [measles] vaccine to an elevated risk of autism, we need to conduct and publicize additional studies to assure parents of safety.” Douglas formerly served as president of vaccinations for Merck, where he ignored warnings about thimerosal’s risks.
In May of last year, the Institute of Medicine issued its final report. Its conclusion: There is no proven link between autism and thimerosal in vaccines. Rather than reviewing the large body of literature describing the toxicity of thimerosal, the report relied on four disastrously flawed epidemiological studies examining European countries, where children received much smaller doses of thimerosal than American kids. It also cited a new version of the Verstraeten study, published in the journal Pediatrics, that had been reworked to reduce the link between thimerosal and autism. The new study included children too young to have been diagnosed with autism and overlooked others who showed signs of the disease. The IOM declared the case closed and — in a startling position for a scientific body — recommended that no further research be conducted.
The report may have satisfied the CDC, but it convinced no one. Rep. David Weldon, a Republican physician from Florida who serves on the House Government Reform Committee, attacked the Institute of Medicine, saying it relied on a handful of studies that were “fatally flawed” by “poor design” and failed to represent “all the available scientific and medical research.” CDC officials are not interested in an honest search for the truth, Weldon told me, because “an association between vaccines and autism would force them to admit that their policies irreparably damaged thousands of children. Who would want to make that conclusion about themselves?”
Under pressure from Congress and parents, the Institute of Medicine convened another panel to address continuing concerns about the Vaccine Safety Datalink Data Sharing program. In February, the new panel, composed of different scientists, criticized the way the VSD had been used in the Verstraeten study, and urged the CDC to make its vaccine database available to the public.
So far, though, only two scientists have managed to gain access. Dr. Mark Geier, president of the Genetics Center of America, and his son, David, spent a year battling to obtain the medical records from the CDC. Since August 2002, when members of Congress pressured the agency to turn over the data, the Geiers have completed six studies that demonstrate a powerful correlation between thimerosal and neurological damage in children. One study, which compares the cumulative dose of mercury received by children born between 1981 and 1985 with those born between 1990 and 1996, found a “very significant relationship” between autism and vaccines. Another study of educational performance found that kids who received higher doses of thimerosal in vaccines were nearly three times as likely to be diagnosed with autism and more than three times as likely to suffer from speech disorders and mental retardation. Another soon-to-be published study shows that autism rates are in decline following the recent elimination of thimerosal from most vaccines.
As the federal government worked to prevent scientists from studying vaccines, others have stepped in to study the link to autism. In April, reporter Dan Olmsted of UPI undertook one of the more interesting studies himself. Searching for children who had not been exposed to mercury in vaccines — the kind of population that scientists typically use as a “control” in experiments — Olmsted scoured the Amish of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, who refuse to immunize their infants. Given the national rate of autism, Olmsted calculated that there should be 130 autistics among the Amish. He found only four. One had been exposed to high levels of mercury from a power plant. The other three — including one child adopted from outside the Amish community — had received their vaccines.
At the state level, many officials have also conducted in-depth reviews of thimerosal. While the Institute of Medicine was busy whitewashing the risks, the Iowa legislature was carefully combing through all of the available scientific and biological data. “After three years of review, I became convinced there was sufficient credible research to show a link between mercury and the increased incidences in autism,” says state Sen. Ken Veenstra, a Republican who oversaw the investigation. “The fact that Iowa’s 700 percent increase in autism began in the 1990s, right after more and more vaccines were added to the children’s vaccine schedules, is solid evidence alone.” Last year, Iowa became the first state to ban mercury in vaccines, followed by California. Similar bans are now under consideration in thirty-two other states.
But instead of following suit, the FDA continues to allow manufacturers to include thimerosal in scores of over-the-counter medications as well as steroids and injected collagen. Even more alarming, the government continues to ship vaccines preserved with thimerosal to developing countries — some of which are now experiencing a sudden explosion in autism rates. In China, where the disease was virtually unknown prior to the introduction of thimerosal by U.S. drug manufacturers in 1999, news reports indicate that there are now more than 1.8 million autistics. Although reliable numbers are hard to come by, autistic disorders also appear to be soaring in India, Argentina, Nicaragua and other developing countries that are now using thimerosal-laced vaccines. The World Health Organization continues to insist thimerosal is safe, but it promises to keep the possibility that it is linked to neurological disorders “under review.”
I devoted time to study this issue because I believe that this is a moral crisis that must be addressed. If, as the evidence suggests, our public-health authorities knowingly allowed the pharmaceutical industry to poison an entire generation of American children, their actions arguably constitute one of the biggest scandals in the annals of American medicine. “The CDC is guilty of incompetence and gross negligence,” says Mark Blaxill, vice president of Safe Minds, a nonprofit organization concerned about the role of mercury in medicines. “The damage caused by vaccine exposure is massive. It’s bigger than asbestos, bigger than tobacco, bigger than anything you’ve ever seen.”
It’s hard to calculate the damage to our country — and to the international efforts to eradicate epidemic diseases — if Third World nations come to believe that America’s most heralded foreign-aid initiative is poisoning their children. It’s not difficult to predict how this scenario will be interpreted by America’s enemies abroad. The scientists and researchers — many of them sincere, even idealistic — who are participating in efforts to hide the science on thimerosal claim that they are trying to advance the lofty goal of protecting children in developing nations from disease pandemics. They are badly misguided. Their failure to come clean on thimerosal will come back horribly to haunt our country and the world’s poorest populations.
NOTE: This story has been updated to correct several inaccuracies in the original, published version. As originally reported, American preschoolers received only three vaccinations before 1989, but the article failed to note that they were innoculated a total of eleven times with those vaccines, including boosters. The article also misstated the level of ethylmercury received by infants injected with all their shots by the age of six months. It was 187 micrograms – an amount forty percent, not 187 times, greater than the EPA’s limit for daily exposure to methylmercury. Finally, because of an editing error, the article misstated the contents of the rotavirus vaccine approved by the CDC. It did not contain thimerosal. Salon and Rolling Stone regret the errors.
An earlier version of this story stated that the Institute of Medicine convened a second panel to review the work of the Immunization Safety Review Committee that had found no evidence of a link between thimerosal and autism. In fact, the IOM convened the second panel to address continuing concerns about the Vaccine Safety Datalink Data Sharing program, including those raised by critics of the IOM’s earlier work. But the panel was not charged with reviewing the committee’s findings. The story also inadvertently omitted a word and transposed two sentences in a quote by Dr. John Clements, and incorrectly stated that Dr. Sam Katz held a patent with Merck on the measles vaccine. In fact, Dr. Katz was part of a team that developed the vaccine and brought it to licensure, but he never held the patent. Salon and Rolling Stone regret the errors.
CLARIFICATION: After publication of this story, Salon and Rolling Stone corrected an error that misstated the level of ethylmercury received by infants injected with all their shots by the age of six months. It was 187 micrograms ? an amount forty percent, not 187 times, greater than the EPA’s limit for daily exposure to methylmercury. At the time of the correction, we were aware that the comparison itself was flawed, but as journalists we considered it more appropriate to state the correct figure rather than replace it with another number entirely.
Since that earlier correction, however, it has become clear from responses to the article that the forty-percent number, while accurate, is misleading. It measures the total mercury load an infant received from vaccines during the first six months, calculates the daily average received based on average body weight, and then compares that number to the EPA daily limit. But infants did not receive the vaccines as a ?daily average? ? they received massive doses on a single day, through multiple shots. As the story states, these single-day doses exceeded the EPA limit by as much as 99 times. Based on the misunderstanding, and to avoid further confusion, we have amended the story to eliminate the forty-percent figure.
Correction: The story misattributed a quote to Andy Olson, former legislative counsel to Senator Bill Frist. The comment was made by Dean Rosen, health policy adviser to the senator. Rolling Stone and Salon.com regret the error.
Copyright: Rolling Stone and Salon, 2005
Kennedy Report Sparks Controversy
“Deadly Immunity,” our story about the link between mercury in vaccines and the dramatic rise in autism among children [RS 977/978], sparked intense reaction from the medical establishment and several leading news organizations. The story, by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — part of an ongoing collaboration with Salon.com — documented the government’s efforts to conceal alarming data about the dangers of vaccines.
What is most striking is the lengths to which major media outlets have gone to disparage the story and to calm public fears — even in the face of the questionable science on the subject. In a segment on World News Tonight titled “A Closer Look,” ABC pointed out that Kennedy is “not a scientist or a doctor” and dismissed his extensive evidence as nothing more than “a few scientific studies.” The network also trotted out its medical editor, Dr. Timothy Johnson, to praise the “impeccably impartial Institute of Medicine” and to again state that Kennedy is not a scientist.
The New York Times, in a front-page story on the subject, devoted only one line to Kennedy’s article, which it said accused public-health officials and drugmakers of “conspiring” to hide the data on autism — a word that our story neither used nor implied. (The Wall Street Journal, in an op-ed attacking the article, was even more misleading, using the word “conspiracy” four times.) The Times then went on, for more than a full page, to portray concerns over vaccines as nothing more than the misguided fears of parents who suffer from “scientific illiteracy,” unable to understand the medical studies that prove immunizations to be safe. It depicted studies reviewed by the Institute of Medicine as definitive without even bothering to address the host of serious questions raised about their validity: conflicting diagnoses of autism, mixed-up data from HMOs and research skewed to exclude many sick kids.
Rolling Stone and Salon fact-checked the article thoroughly before publication, insisting on primary documentation for every statement in the story, and posted links to the most significant materials online to enable readers to judge for themselves. The final article contained six errors. These ranged from inadvertently transposing a quote and confusing a drug license for a patent to relying on a figure that incorrectly calculated an infant’s exposure to mercury over six months, rather than citing the even more dangerous amount injected on a single day. (The mistakes were corrected online as soon as they were discovered and can be viewed in detail at both RollingStone.com and Salon.com.)
It is important to note, however, that none of the mistakes weaken the primary point of the story. The government’s own records show that it has failed to do the science necessary to put to rest reasonable concerns about vaccines. If the scientists had simply done their job rather than covering their tracks, there would be no controversy today. Instead, the government cannot even provide a definitive figure of the number of cases of autism among American children — a number obviously critical to any serious scientific investigation — and yet expects the public to believe that it has ruled out any link between vaccines and an illness it does not even track.
“Science,” as one doctor in our story insisted, “is best left to scientists.” But when the scientists fail to do their job, resorting to closed-door meetings and rigged studies, others in society have not only a right but a moral obligation to question their work. In the coming years, further research may indeed demonstrate that mercury in vaccines is not responsible for the rise in autism. For now, though, we can only raise a very real and legitimate alarm — and hope that the government’s well-documented mishandling of its own research did not needlessly jeopardize the health of hundreds of thousands of children.
The United Kingdom as a rogue state and a danger to the world, a former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray said.
“The British Government is deeply, deeply immoral. They don’t care how many people they kill abroad if it advances them. Anybody who votes No [to Scottish independence] is voting to support a pathological state which is a danger in the world, a rogue state and a state prepared to go to war to make a few people wealthy,”
Murray said in a speech made ahead of an historic vote on Scottish independence to be held in just three weeks.
He told an open public meeting in St Andrews that the actions he witnesses as a senior diplomat had changed his “world view” and said it was now “impossible to be proud of the United Kingdom.”
“I think it is impossible to be proud of the United Kingdom. I think when we invaded Iraq we did to the United Nations what Hitler and Mussolini did to the League of Nations,” Murray added.
“I think what we have done since where the truth is often much hidden, if you look at Libya it is a disaster now we bombed it and we killed 15,000 people when NATO bombed Sirte, something they never told you on the BBC. Did we make it better? No,”
“I’ve seen things from the inside and the UK’s foreign interventions are almost always about resources. It is every bit as corrupt as others have indicated. It is not an academic construct, the system stinks,” a former British Ambassador said.
Murray, who is a member of “English for independence” a group of English born residents living in Scotland who back Scottish independence, said that although he had once been proud to be British, the UK’s involvement in rendition, torture and the invasion of Iraq had altered his allegiance.
“I was a British diplomat for 20 years. I was always very patriotic to be British and I was very, very proud of it,” he stated.
“When I first became a British Ambassador and first went out in my own flag car with the Union Jack flying on the front I had a lump in my throat. It was a proud moment for me. It was only six months after that I discovered that in the country where I was Ambassador we and the Americans were shipping people in order for them to be tortured. Some of them were tortured to death,” Murray added.
“Now as you may imagine, my world view changed,” he added.
“It was at the same time, a month later, that we invaded Iraq against the will of the Security Council. Not just without the permission of the Security Council but in the full knowledge that if it had gone to the Security Council we would have been voted down,”the former diplomat said.
“I know for certain – as I used to be head of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office unit that monitored Iraqi weapons of mass destruction – I know for certain that they knew there weren’t any. It wasn’t a mistake, it was a lie,” Murray concluded.
Former Secretary General of NATO, Lord George Robertson earlier warned Scottish independence would have a “cataclysmic” impact on the world.
Robertson, a former British MP, told an audience in the United States, that “the loudest cheers for the break-up of Britain would be from our adversaries and from our enemies. For the second military power in the West to shatter this year would be cataclysmic in geopolitical terms.”
Voters in Scotland will go to the polls on 18th September and will be asked one question, “Should Scotland become an independent country?”
And it emerged today that they did so very consciously. A spokesperson for the paper told The Morning Star that the “decision to run any display advertisement in the Guardian is made on a case-by-case basis and there was a full discussion about accepting the advert in question.”
The decision to run this virulently anti-Palestinian ad is symptomatic of a relatively recent turn at The Guardian. The Jewish anti-Zionist blog Jews Sans Frontieres Saturday looked at several recent problematic pieces there and concluded someone is “pulling out all the stops to place The Guardian firmly in the Zionist camp.”
I saw no evidence during my week in Gaza of Israel’s accusation that Hamas uses Palestinians as human shields. I saw men from Hamas on street corners, keeping an eye on what was happening. They were local people and everyone knew them, even the young boys. Raji Sourani, the director of the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights in Gaza, told me that Hamas, whatever you think of it, is part of the Palestinian DNA.
Like so many Zionist propaganda accusations against the Palestinian people, the “human shields” calumny is a projection.
A statement signed by more than one hundred Jewish survivors and descendants of survivors of the Nazi holocaust condemns “Elie Wiesel’s abuse of our history … to promote blatant falsehoods used to justify the unjustifiable: Israel’s wholesale effort to destroy Gaza and the murder of nearly 2,000 Palestinians.”
Circulated by the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network yesterday, organizers are hoping to be able to raise enough money to run the statement as an ad in The New York Times, which published the Elie Wiesel ad.
Image: “Child Sacrifice: We’re Not So Different Today” — screenshot from a modern evangelical website.
The dog whistle in the ad will be clear to anti-Palestinian religious fundamentalists from the language used. The reference to alleged “Canaanite practices of child sacrifice to Moloch” is explicit.
In the Hebrew Bible, known to Christians as the Old Testament, the Canaanites were people who lived in the land before the mythical figure Joshua drove them out. The Bible depicts this as a bloody genocide.
(Most modern biblical scholars consider these accounts of genocide and ethnic cleansing to be mythical. The ancient Hebrew people of history arose gradually from a Canaanite milieu.)
Leviticus 20:2 says: “Any Israelite or any foreigner residing in Israel who sacrifices any of his children to Molek [another way to transliterate Moloch] is to be put to death. The members of the community are to stone him.”
Jeremiah 49 warns, “Ai is destroyed! Cry out, you inhabitants of Rabbah! … for Molek will go into exile, together with his priests and officials.”
The story goes that Ai was a Canaanite city Joshua burned to the ground, leaving “a permanent heap of ruins.” After defeating its armed forces, Joshua “returned to Ai and killed those who were in it. Twelve thousand men and women fell that day — all the people of Ai.”
The implication of all this is clear: the Canaanites deserved to die, because they killed their own children.
This racist ad makes an explicit parallel between these ancient myths and modern-day Palestine, casting the Palestinian people as the modern-day Canaanites.
“The Canaanite practices of child sacrifice to Moloch are forever left behind … Except they are not,” the ad reads. “I call upon the Palestinian people to find true Muslims to represent them.”
Cries for genocide
While the ad is ostensibly addressed to “Hamas,” the implication is clear: the hundreds of Palestinian children that Israel has killed were actually “sacrificed” by Hamas. Israel must have been forced to kill them.
“Native land of enduring patience, The land of the Russian people!”
(Fyodor Tiutchev,(1803-1873), Romantic poet, second to Pushkin)
All things Russian have always seemed exotic, strange and incomprehensible to Westerners. Russians themselves have long debated the question as to who they are: Westerners or Asians? Or are they something else? In any case, as reflected in current Russian foreign policy, the history of Russia is also inextricably bound up with Eurasia, the territory between Europe and Asia.
Though of primary importance to Russia, the borders with Europe have always been far more rigid that those open borders with Asia itself. Asia for Russia remains an open space. That historical reality is of fundamental significance today in the dispute over Ukraine (which ignorant policy makers in the USA aim at sucking into Europe) as well as in Russia’s recent about-face and its search for primary relations with Asia and the creation of an exchange currency that is no longer Western.
In the same light, again today, Western peoples in general are perplexed by the Russia-Ukraine question. What does it mean? Just who are these “ethnic Russians” living in Ukraine anyway? If they don’t like it there, shouldn’t they move to Russia?
On this site, Mike Whitney produced an excellent interview with Russian President Putin’s advisor and friend, Sergei Glaziev, under the title of “Understanding Ukraine in 15 minutes”. Well, that title appears to me a bit of a journalistic exaggeration for the answers to these questions are complex and reach far back into the history of the Slavic peoples.
Here I have sketched out some of the related problematics, offered a scant historical background to the Slavic question, and taken a closer look at just who these Russians and Ukrainians really are.
The short answer is that they do not know themselves who they are. Russians wonder if Russia is an European country or whether she is not an extra-European country, westernized artificially and hastily by an elite of Peter the Great and to the detriment of her true values. Russians intellectuals too have long been puzzled by the problem. “Westernizers” in Russia saw the salvation of their country in a rapid assimilation of western culture; the so-called “Slavophiles” believed Russia could only be true to herself by maintaining and strengthening all that separated her from the West, by remaining loyal to her past values, and the development of a culture in opposition to the culture of the West. The struggle has gone on for eons, marked and distinguished by the Great Russian Revolution.
Today’s disputed country of Ukraine lies between Russia to its East and Poland to its West. One should keep in mind that Russians and Ukrainians, together with the Byelorussians of Byelorus just north of Ukraine, are historically one people, each however with its linguistic and cultural differences. For over three millennia these peoples, the Slavs, have inhabited parts of the enormous territory now known as Russia extending from the Black Sea eastwards across two continents nearly to Alaska, and from the North Pole to Persia in the South, an area bigger than the entire North American continent and one-sixth of the world’s land surface. Those peoples are known by the linguistic name of East Slavs. (The West Slavs are chiefly Poles and Czechs, the South Slavs Serbs, Croatians and Bulgarians).
However, as has been said, “geography may set the stage for history; men make history.” (Nicholas Riasanovsky, A History of Russia.) And what men made Russia’s history! Giants of men. Throughout the ages and across these great lands, hundreds of non-Slavic nationalities and cultures, European and Asian, Mongol and Persian, ancient Sumerians and the Iranian-speaking Asiatic Scythians from Central Asia have intermingled. Two of the most international rail stations in the world are Moscow’s Yaroslavsky and Kazansky stations serving hundreds of such peoples from Europe to Asia.
Who are the Russians? you still ask. Telling, the answer of the great Russian poet, Alexander Blok, who wrote: “Yes, we are Scythians. Yes, we are Asiatics. With slanting and greedy eyes.”
Image: Russian tanker crews parade in victory celebration over fascism (2013). Note that while technically living under capitalism, they still honor Communist emblems.
My close friend, a Russian painter and originally an ethnic Russian from Kkarkov in today’s Ukraine, ( I find it difficult to write the Ukrainian Kharkiv) now for forty years in New York, has those slanting eyes, as do his two children, and to a minor degree, his grandchildren. Scythians, Russians, Ukrainians, Europeans, Americans? As much as my Russian-speaking friend tries to speak Ukrainian just to show off, I who do not know Ukrainian as such understand him perfectly. It’s like hearing English with a thick French accent.
Yet Russia shows that continuity is the real stuff of history. Events like the arrival of Christianity in Russia in the 9th century, the Mongol domination over Russian lands from the early 13th century to the late 15th, the Napoleonic invasion in 1812 and the burning of Moscow, World War I and II, and the Russian Revolution each brought about great change at enormous loss in Russian lives.
In the light of these confusing and historically tremendous occurrences the thinking person is made aware that it is the relationship of the present with the past that makes a given present meaningful. Without continuity in the histories of Europe, in Russia, China, and also in America, each new generation would have to start over again and again, as, say, in a typical story invented by Jorge Borges. Myths, anecdotes and stories about the Mongol (Tatar) domination abound in Russian literature. The period extending from the Tatar invasion to the unification of Russia by the Moscow ruler Ivan III appears like a black hole in Russian history that historian D.S. Mirsky labels Russia’s “Dark Ages”. The saying ‘Scratch a Russian and find Tatar’ is valid, if only in those slanting eyes of my dear friend.
Here we are most interested in the so-called East Slavs, that is, those peoples who remained in their original territories north of the Black Sea after the Slavs split into three groups in the mid First millennium A.D., some moving south, others more westwards. The East Slavs speak the Eastern variety of the common Slavic. Russian speakers, the Great Russians, have always dominated the East Slavs. Their descendants remain today among those “ethnic Russians” in southeast Ukraine, in Crimea, the country of Moldova and the Transdnestr Republic, whom their brothers in Kiev, seduced by promises of gold from the West, want to expel or exterminate. And their language and culture are Russian.
It is an irony of history that the city of Kiev, today’s Ukrainian capital situated west of a more Asian Russia, was the first Russian state. Kiev, the city where this year the USA first ruthlessly overturned Ukraine’s legally elected Russian-friendly government and ignorantly installed a puppet government to rule over a phony state with the phony goal of becoming part of he European Union, A phony and impossible state in any case because Ukraine for Russia is like Texas or Midwestern states are to the United States. Russia would never surrender it totally to the West. Enough today for Moscow to turn off the oil spigots to re-establish the order the Slavs have always needed.
Mystery surrounds the establishment of the Kievan state. Its origins are connected with a tribe of people called “Rus”, from which the word Russian derives. Some historians claim the quarrelling Slavs called in Varangians (Swedes) to come and rule over their lands and create order out of chaos. According to many historians the Rus were one of those Varangian tribes; other theories link the Rus to Slavic tribs or people in northern lands or even in the south of Crimea and surrounding territories. Although the name Rus, many historians have discovered, was previously unknown in the West, the name stuck. Rus became identified with the Kievan East Slavic-speaking state. In any case, the Rus formed a large group among them, most certainly Slavic, spoke a language that soon became Russian and established themselves from Kiev northwards to the heart of traditional Russian lands—like Novgorod, Vologda, Vladimir-Suzdal. And finally Moscow—which because of the city’s central position and because its great river, the Moskva, was a principle trade route—became the center of the future Russian empire.
I try not to stray from the subject of who these modern day Russians are but this minor and limited incursion into the complex story of the origins of Slavs and their state is necessary in order to know what we are talking about. Suffice it to say here that the Kievan state has the place in Russian history as does, say, the thirteen original colonies in the formation of the USA. An important and influential world capital in those times appears today as a second-class, boring puppet city-state controlled by a failing and waning US world power, a power with no concept of the significance of history.
As Kievan Russia—the future Russia itself—developed and expanded its borders ever farther eastwards, and became an important state, a new element was introduced into its culture: Christianity. Riasanovsky writes that by the early eleventh century Kiev had become a new Christian civilization, a civilization that added “literary and artistic attainment to the political power and high economic development characteristic of the age.”
Kiev’s rulers over pagan Russians first studied the major religions and according to legend decided against Islam—it forbade alcohol—because “drink is the joy of the Russian”—and against Judaism because it reflected beliefs of a defeated people without a state. Kievan Rus chose to become the Eastern version of Christendom, opening Russia to Byzantine culture and the Christian world at large, thus early on belying its reputation of a closed civilization. However, lest one forget, Christianity came to Russia from Byzantium, not from Rome. Since the break between the two churches the controversy between Roman Catholicism and Russian Orthodoxy remains today.
During the late Soviet period I had occasion to speak with Alexis II, the Metropolitan of the Russian Orthodox Church, at a historic meeting of eleven heads of the various Eastern churches held in Istanbul. To my question about attempts to mend the millennium old separation of the Eastern and Western churches and of relations with the Vatican, Alexis said clearly: “We are after all Russians.”
With that background fixed in mind, we leap over centuries of wars and pestilence, the Tatar invasion, serfdom, to the last stages of Tsardom. Prior to the Russian Revolution, the ex-serfs were still linked in an economic vise to the land and large property owners from which they had been officially emancipated. While their desire for their own property plots drove the serfs, the Revolution itself opposed the very idea in the name of collectivization. Collectivization in agriculture was not one of the successes of the new Socialist state because the serfs of this traditionally agricultural land, resisted and wanted their own private plots of land. As a result of collectivization in agriculture, the number of families on the land diminished from 26,000,000 to 21,000,000 which meant that 5,000,000 abandoned the land, (Riasanovsky), some moving to urban areas, others to the Far East or elsewhere. In any case, the price was too high and was never really recovered, contrary to Socialist theory and expectations.
After centuries of silence, Kiev, as the capital city of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, became an agricultural giant and regained some small part of its former luster. The Donbas (the Donetz-Basin) in East Ukraine became a major Soviet industrial center. Populated by “ethnic Russians”, it is today the region of the “rebels”, the “terrorists” in American political lingo, the Russian-Ukrainians who have separated from the Kiev puppet state and without which Kiev cannot survive economically.
Though Kiev was one of Soviet Russia’s most important cities, it was already sinking into provincialism. The second rate glory of THE Ukraine, the “bread basket” of former Soviet Russia, ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Especially since the Russian Revolution, the Ukraine has been one thing, Kiev another.
History itself opposes the dream of newfound Kievan glory instigated by the USA. That ahistorical dream is destined to boomerang against the rest of Europe itself. For Russia is present … ever present.
Talk about a battle between East and West for Ukraine’s soul is simply linguistic terminology, and at its worst political propaganda. An impossible quandary. Ukraine (the word means “borderlands”- like, say, New Mexico or Southern California in the USA. Ukraine is a geographical term. As such it has no soul. Only a handful of maverick, sold-out Ukrainians (Borderland Russians or Little Russians as they have long been called) can sell their souls. But not Ukraine itself which would be a contradiction of terms. As discussed above, Ukraine IS Russia. Its people are the original Russians. They are basically the same. Many Great Russians to the East do not recognize this as a historical-geographical-demographical reality. Borderlands have no fixed borders. In that sense it is farcical to even speak of Ukraine’s eastern borders. American imperialistic-military planners as well as West Europeans, do not, can not grasp the real Ukrainian story. How can Americans know when they do not even know exactly where Ukraine is and who its people are? Ukraine’s Nazis and Fascists who collaborated with the German Nazi invaders in WWII do not, can not reflect the real Ukraine.
Moscow responds to Western economic sanctions with counter-sanctions that already loom dramatic for economies of West Europe, especially the major economies of Germany, France, and Italy. Germany’s industrial exports to Russia amount to 36 billion Euros; and over 400,000 German workers are employed in companies exporting to Russia. The sanctions have cost Italy over $1 billion in lost exports, especially agricultural producers whose crops are already rotting in the fields. Big Italian energy companies, with major investments in Russia, face even bigger losses. With the sanctions Italy’s sick economy has lost any chance for recovery. Spanish farmers stand to lose 158 million Euros from the sanctions against their fresh fruit and nuts, or 22% of their total exports to non-EU countries; Greek farmers will lose 107 million Euros. Spanish meat exporters will lose 111 million Euros.
Much of this age is bedeviled by the sheer toxicity of the so-called Anglo-American alliance.
The West cuts industrial exports to Russia, Russia answers: no more Western automobiles to Russia; we’ll use our own; we’ll also eat our own cheese and drink our own beer. And they will. (I’ve drunk a lot of Russian beer and eaten a lot of Russian cheese and was perfectly satisfied.)
The question ordinary Europeans ask is: Why does Europe not rebel against America’s selfish and base diktats? And that, dear readers, is a key question. It is true that Europe is in decline and that the future is in Asia and elsewhere. Yet Europe is still Europe, the cultural home of many of us, and a continent-market of 450,000,000 persons, who export to and import from Russia. So what Europe does in this circumstance is not secondary.
At the same time many Russians want to be part—even if peripherally—of Europe. Even the old de Gaulle dream of a Europe extending from the Atlantic Ocean to Russia’s Ural Mountains and on to Vladivostok is no longer valid; a renaissance of the European idea and resumption of normal Russo-Europe relations has more economic-cultural-demographic sense than a Europe deprived of Russia and hanging —abjectly—onto America’s coattails. Although in this turnaround no small shame attaches to the leaders of France, Italy and Germany, the lion’s share of the blame belongs with the utterly cynical role played by Britain, which has clearly chosen a complicit—if second-banana— position at the feet of the US empire than a more rational integrationist posture with the rest of Europe, including Russia. In that sense, much of this age is tarnished by the sheer toxicity of the so-called Anglo-American alliance.
I have a number of Facebook Russian “friends”, some among ethnic Russians in Ukraine, others scattered here and there across Russia. One I read frequently is Sergey Zelenin, a free lance writer in the very Russian city of Vologda, called “the cultural capital of the North”, a city of 300,000 located between Moscow and St. Petersburg. Zelenin often posts entire articles on Facebook in which he describes what is happening and what is being discussed in Russia. In a recent article he portrayed the internal histories of the United States and Russia as more similar than I would guess 99% of Americans and Russians realize.
Zelenin examines salient points of the similarity of the formation and development of the two nations by comparing each of their bloody fratricidal wars that created their social character and brought about dramatic changes in each. I have both translated and interpreted his interesting article and his points of view and have added my own comments.
Under Russia’s internal wars the writer lists:
1. The “Time of Troubles” (Smutnoye Vremya) of 1598-1618), a bloody internal war that brought chaos and devastation to the country and resulted in the birth of the Romanov dynasty of the Tsars and the empire it created.
2. The Civil War of 1917-1922, another terrible, fratricidal carnage, brought down the Romanov tsardom which was then replaced by the new Soviet (Socialist/Communist) system. “And only by God’s Providence,” writes Zelenin, “was Russia spared a repetition of the same slaughter in the early 1990s after the fall of Communism in Russia when there were only local hotbeds of instability.”
Zelenin then devotes more space to the historical formation of the United States of America than to Russia, with which country Russians are much more familiar than are Americans with Russia.
1. The Revolutionary War (1775-1783) like Russia’s wars above pitted Americans against Americans, or rather, as Zelenin notes, “English loyalists to the British Empire against English fighting for independence”, that is for self-determination, as are ethnic Russians in southeast Ukraine today against a foreign imposed regime in the nation’s capital of Kiev. In any case the result of that war was the birth of the American nation, that is, the United States of America. (Today we witness the birth of the Donetsk People’s Republic and similar entities in Novorossiya.)
2. The Civil War (1861-1865) the now clearly Americans fought against other Americans. A ferocious war allegedly to free the black slaves but in reality for the rights of the southern states to indulge and expand their “way of life” and the unity of the country. “Though the conflict had a constitutional character, the situation of Black slaves did not bother anyone excessively. I, (Zelenin) would place their liberation on one table together with the Homestead Act, which together attracted Abe Lincoln to their side.” The Russian writer explains that decisions for the benefits of Blacks and farmers were not only of momentary interest; they affected the subsequent history of the USA as a whole. Thus the frontier moved forward and by the 1890s the American pioneers stopped only at the Pacific Ocean. However, the real freedom of the Blacks had to wait 100 years more. Here Zelenin notes that the liberation of Russia’s serfs came about earlier. Their freedom then became full rights after the 1917 Communist Revolution when all the restrictions and harassment they had suffered were eliminated.
Zelenin thus raises not only historical but political-ideological questions. By implication, he asks, which system—that imposed by the American pioneers free to own lands as far as the eye could see or the Socialism born with the idea of a classless society based on social equality—offers society more?
Many Americans—the Exceptionalists, Libertarians, the self-made men, the me-for-me people, the Capitalists, the 1%, the piously religious—believe the former. People of the Left, unfortunately not the majority in the USA but, like the huge majority of the “real” peoples of the world, the truly spiritual, believe the latter.
Zelenin, I believe, wanted to say also that pragmatic, cool American thought is diametrically opposed to the Russian mirovozreniye, their world outlook, which has a spiritual quality. American thought has a purely religious outlook which is hardly the same thing.
So how are these Russians, so like and at the same time so unlike Western peoples? Most certainly Russia itself is different. Different as the elements in Russia are different. Russians have a strong sense of nature which also acquires a spiritual significance. Russians are a spiritual people. Russians are conscious of belonging to nature and are strongly aware of nature’s beauty. A sense of the beauty of nature that is reflected in its art, especially in the pictorial arts. In fact Russia decided upon Greek Orthodoxy because of the beauty of its liturgy; they were convinced that God lay in that beauty. Their affinity with that beauty is reflected in the beauty of their ecclesiastical buildings, the shapes and colors of their elaborately decorated churches. For the Russian Orthodox—believers and clergy alike—Christ’s life on earth is less important than the idea of a reigning Christ-God. They prefer the resurrection to the crucifixion. The humanity of Jesus on earth creates an uneasy feeling in Russian believers. For the spiritual person Christ shouldn’t be too human, nor weak and depraved like Dostoevsky’s characters.
The dominant trend in Russian literature and thought has been ethical since the times of the Kievan state. The problem for Russian literature and its creative writers has been how to live and what to do for one’s salvation. (Again, see Dostoevsky, whose whole work was an idea.) That the answer was sought more in a moral life than in the sacraments constitutes a cutting difference between Russian and Western religious minds.
Many Americans—the Exceptionalists, Libertarians, the self-made men, the me-for-me people, the Capitalists, the 1%, the piously religious—believe in a society based in the “rights” of unlimited property, with terrible consequences for humanity.
The dominant Russian ethical attitude is to be found in charity. Not fear of God or other men, but charity. In Russian history neither purity nor the law is morally dominant. Even justice is an application of charity. Russian charity is the strongest among blood kin, the extended family (the rod) which for Russians is as powerful as the Italian family. This charity-love comes to embrace all fellowmen worldwide.
And thus, charity becomes the common denominator of Russian ethics. All men are brothers! One grasps without further explanation the connect between charity and love for one’s brother and all fellowmen with the basic concepts of Socialism/Communism.
The Russian in more normal times is allergic to hierarchy. I saw and experienced this myself in Russia and with Russians in the world. According to his spiritual make-up he is severe with his superiors and humble toward social inferiors. This too you read in Dostoevsky. Formality is one thing, love for one’s fellowman another.
Somewhere in this personality picture is concealed the Russian’s power of resistance, his instinct to survive and to win. As in the siege of Leningrad in WWII. As in the battle of Stalingrad. As in his resistance to the severity of the elements, to the cold of winters, to the madness of his fellowmen. And in turn to his proverbial patience: the image of the Russian soldier buried for days under ice and snow to emerge at the very moment the enemy appears in his sights. His ability to retreat into himself in wait of the propitious moment to emerge and to win … or to lose.
I like the metaphor of Russian rain. There are maybe a dozen Russian words to describe the types of rain. I think of Moscow rain as the German rain I lived under for many years that once it begins wants to stay with you. An affectionate rain. Unlike Rome rains—thunderous, magnificent, threatening, romantic, terrifying and electrifying, like an unbearable orgasm that you hope never ends—Russian rains are relentless, constant, rains that harden the people receiving it like a purifying gift from terrestrial skies and instill tenacity and resistance to hardships. Rains that then soon turn to snow and bring the cold of the Russian winter that has many times frustrated invaders and saved Russia.
And then there are the cold winds. Asian Russia-Siberia produces the winds that still chill Romans as they did Roman centurions two millennia ago. The Siberian winds change names several time as they sweep southwards; by the time they reach central Europe and Trieste on the Adriatic they are the “Bora”, winds that a few hours later freeze Rome overnight.
Or Russian faces, stern, curious, serious faces that like the rain only break and smile when there is a reason to smile.
And then there are the superstitions and customs that help define a people:
Russian travelers and those seeing them off sit for some moments in silence, allegedly to think if anything has been forgotten but in reality a quiet formality of goodwill that I’ve done hundreds of times. Then, you don’t clean the room of the departed until they have safely arrived. Handshakes across the threshold are absolutely forbidden: no Russian will ever offer his hand across the threshold. Looking at oneself in a broken mirror brings bad luck as does a boast about a future, hoped for success; silence reigns until success is achieved, then the celebration begins. Then, when you drink alcohol you must finish the whole bottle; home bars in a Russian house are rare. You buy a bottle, you drink it. And you must absolutely eat something with each drink, but careful to cut bread with a knife instead of breaking it by hand.
Such are these Russians, complex, unsmiling (be wary of a smiling Russian unless he has a reason to smile), superstitious, tenacious, curious, an expert on all the plants and animals of the world, tendentious with an opinion on everything, staunch, uncomplaining, more ready to be your brother than your enemy, generous (Russians hardly distinguish between what is a loan and what a gift), adaptable to the most extreme circumstances, the Russian, however loud and boisterous and tasteless as a tourist, is a spiritual creature aware of the entire world around him and in search of how to live best and sometimes a reason to live.
I will conclude this introduction to Russia and Ukraine with an article by the Russian writer, Egor Prosvirnin, as far I can ascertain a far rightist writing for a big far rightist website:
My name is Egor Prosvirnin, I am the chief editor of the Russian site www.sputnikipogrom.com which advocates European values.
I’ve heard that one of the aspects of life that Europeans, and Germans especially cherish is history. If we were to recall recent history, we would remember that a vast army of 300,000 Soviet troops along with 5,000 tanks, 1,500 aircraft and 10,000 artillery pieces (including tactical nuclear weapons) simply left the then just-united Germany without firing a shot.
It was an operation unprecedented in scope and brevity, when the entire Soviet army withdrew literally to open fields. Tens of thousands of Soviet officers, obeying the orders of the supreme command, went from their warm barracks to live in moldy tents set up in the middle of sodden snow-covered fields. In many instances along with their families.
For hope. Hope that the dark pages of history between our two countries were finally and forever past. Hope that we no longer have to keep armies of tanks in the center of Europe, and that Europe would respect and consider our interests. Hope that in a united Germany we would have a good friend and ally, with whom Russia would fulfill the dream of Charles de Gaulle of a united Europe stretching from Lisbon to Vladivostok.
When our armies were leaving Germany, our soldiers were told that Germany had recognized and redeemed its mistakes of the past, there were no undecided issues with Germany, and that we would no longer hear German voices calling for retribution against Russia, therefore we did not need our Army of tanks positioned in the middle of Europe.
From that moment, Russians and Germans were friends, and friends have no need for vast armadas of armor and tanks. Russians should cease being afraid of a united Germany and disarm.
And we disarmed. And for 20 years we felt that we did the right thing, that the past is forgotten forever, and that the Germans appreciated how readily we closed all the bases and brought all the troops home (although there are American bases in Germany to date).
In good times our friends know us; in troubled times we come to know our friends; and troubled times did come via the Ukrainian crisis. It became clear that the Germans do not remember the good. It turned out that the Germans did not learn the lessons of history, it seems that the Germans viewed the voluntary dismantling and withdrawal of our war machine not as humanism and goodwill, but weakness.
It turns out that when the Americans spoke loudly and sharply with the German chancellor, whom they for all these years have kept under surveillance like some sticky-fingered housemaid, the entire German society leaped up like a submissive dog running obediently to its American master…. even when the conflict with Russia goes against German economic and political interests. It seems therefore that if one blunts their sword, removes their armor, ceases the Soviet-era preparations for World War III, and is reaching out to the Germans, the Germans will spit in your extended hand at the first opportunity.
It turns out that Russians are yet again “Untermensch”, who can be savaged with impunity on the pages of the German press and punitive sanctions demanded from the rostrum of the Bundestag, while disallowing an opportunity for Russia to openly and equitably argue its case. It turns out, however, that the Ukrainian government can without any liability prohibit the Russian language, jail Russian activists, target residential neighborhoods with volleys of artillery, kill thousands of civilians who happen to be mostly Russian – and that’s OK. It is OK because it’s a “democracy”, and it suits Germany because Russians are “Untermensch”, because Russians are Jews whose blood for Germans is worth nothing. And what’s more, for trying to defend themselves, for attempting to return fire against the Ukrainian armed forces, Russians should be punished, publicly harassed, their will to resist broken, and then forced into an international Russian ghetto.
Then burn that ghetto, as the Trade Unions building in Odessa was burned with 49 pro-Russian protesters inside. Do you know how the Ukrainian social networks responded to this holocaust? By referring to the dead as “Colorado Shishkebabs”(*) – this is what tens of thousands of people in the Ukrainian social networks wrote, including indecent sayings copied into photos of the charred bodies.
We are again the subhumans, we are again nothing but animals that Ukrainian Nazis may kill with impunity, creating a “Russian-frei Ukraina”.
According to the data collected by Human Rights Watch, only during this past July the Ukrainians killed one thousand one hundred fifty PEACEFUL RUSSIANS in the eastern part of the country, and these killings continue daily. Where are your protests, Germany? Where are your sanctions against Ukraine? Where is your vaunted humanism that you profess to have learned since 1945 by recognizing the errors from your past?
Saur-Mogila, which is located on strategic heights and is a memorial to Russian soldiers who died there 70 years ago during a fierce battle with the Wehrmacht, has once again been stormed. This time by the Ukrainian battalion “Azov” wearing their Wolfsangel patches, a symbol of the 2nd, 4th and 34th SS divisions, and you are silent! Russian militia are ducking behind the granite statues of Soviet soldiers from neo-Nazi bullets fired by “the National Guard” of Ukraine, and you dare to agree with the American nonsense about “Russian aggression”! Ukrainians shoot cities with ballistic missiles, leaving craters in places homes once stood, and you impose sanctions not against Ukraine but against Russia!
Again, troops are killing unarmed Russian civilians, and you are debating whether it is time to start delivering weapons to these murderers so that they can kill more Russians? All of your vaunted “politics of memory” and “learning from the past” is simply a pile of dog shit, as again before your eyes unarmed civilians are butchered, and you applaud this and promise these Ukrainian murderers fresh financing.
You have not learned humanism, you Germans. You have not learned responsibility. You have not learned to resist Evil and tell that Evil clearly to its face, “No, you are the killer, I will not help you, you must stop the killing immediately.” You have not learned to be a responsible, independent, free people, who are capable of giving good in return for good.
You are slaves who think good is a weakness.
In 1934, Hitler drove you like sheep, and in 2014 Obama is your shepherd. If tomorrow in Germany, the Americans open a concentration camp for Russians, half of you will immediately submit their curriculum vitae for jobs as operators of the gas chambers, and your press will start to explain how this camp is patriotic and good for the German economy. It would then follow that killing these Russian “Untermensch”, crafting lampshades out of their skin for daring to resist, and sending this nicely packaged to Washington to please your American ally.
Germans have failed their test. When Evil has returned again to Europe, you do not even attempt to resist it, and immediately fall prostrate at its feet like a slave after the eagerly-awaited, long delayed return of your master. Serve Evil, impose sanctions, support the murder of Russians, supply weapons to the killers of Russians, justify this genocide – the end of your story will be familiar, because Evil cannot win.
I will conclude this text with a popular quote from the famous American stateswoman Ms. Victoria Nuland, who obviously makes the decisions in Ukraine instead of your Chancellor:
“F**k the EU”.
Like it or not, but admit that the Americans are a smart people capable of accurately determining the “price” of a united Germany and a united Europe.
Senior Editor Gaither Stewart’s latest book is RECOLLECTION OF THINGS LEARNED: Remembering Socialism (Punto Press). His trilogy of novels a la Carré about Cold War-style espionage [The Trojan Spy, Lily Pad Roll, Time of Exile (forthcoming)] incorporate a lucid panorama of what Western intel services do, and the criminal wrong-headedness of US Foreign Policy. Stewart is an expert in Eastern European culture.
In a recent op-ed, a former CIA official suggested the removal of Russian President Vladimir Putin, by assassination if necessary, should be the primary objective of the Obama administration in its strategy for Ukraine.
Herbert E. Meyer, who served as a Special Assistant to the Director of Central Intelligence under the Reagan administration, said the goal of U.S. sanctions against Russia “should be to get the Russians who’ve been keeping Putin in power, or tolerating Putin in power, to throw that knockout punch.”
“If Putin is too stubborn to acknowledge that his career is over, and the only way to get him out of the Kremlin is feet-first, with a bullet hole in the back of his head — that would also be okay with us,” he stated.
To ensure Putin’s removal, Meyer suggested, the Obama administration should strike a wedge between the Russian business elite and the Kremlin that could serve as a catalyst for an attempt on Putin’s life.
“That’s why the sanctions will work if the president and his European counterparts will keep tightening the screws; if they keep making commerce more difficult for Russia’s serious business executives, for instance by blocking their access to capital, and if they keep making life more miserable for Russia’s playboy oligarchs, for instance by canceling their credit cards and denying landing rights to their private jets,”
“And if the president and European leaders keep telling these Russians – bluntly and publicly – that all this will end the moment Vladimir Putin leaves the Kremlin for good.”
The former CIA official is describing a centuries-old tool of statecraft in which a foreign power creates discontent between the nobles of another country and their ruler to ensure the eventual overthrow of that ruler.
But given today’s explosive increase in tensions between Russia and Ukraine, which could very well lead to another world war, Meyer’s suggestion is particularly disturbing considering is it likely that current Western intelligence officials also share similar views.
And the destabilization of the Russian government with the loss of Putin will only create chaos in the East, chaos which can be exploited by the global financial elite who hold no allegiance to any nationality.
“Every major international crisis for the past century or more has ended with an even greater consolidation of world power into the hands of the few, and this is no accident,” journalist Brandon Smith wrote.
After 17,000 buildings – including schools, hospitals, clinics and even ICU’s – have been destroyed in Gaza by Israeli troops using US-supplied missiles and warplanes, the reconstruction will cost many billions. It is assumed that both the US and Israel will bear the full costs of rebuilding the infrastructure after the incursion and will NOT expect either the United Nations, or the EU to pay.
As for the 1470 civilian killed by the Israelis, nothing can compensate for the result of this lethal military adventure. But action can be taken by the United Nations and the International Criminal court to indict those alleged guilty of war crime.
In addition to the extensive costs of reconstruction, it is now essential that both a deep sea port and an international airport are built in Gaza, to compete with Haifa and Tel Aviv, after over half a century of Israeli illegal occupation, blockades and protectionism.
If the Netanyahu government continues its obstruction to peace and continues its land-grabs in the Occupied Territories, then all bilateral trade between Israel and Europe should cease until such time as it decides to adhere to international law and to comply with the resolution of the United Nations.
A stunning new interview with Dr. Andrew Wakefield conducted by Gary Franchi of the Next News Network has just been posted. This interview is the first video interview with Dr. Wakefield following the admission of scientific fraud by a top CDC scientist named Dr. William Thompson.
“The autism community has been deceived for a period of 13 years,” says Dr. Wakefield in the interview.
“These children have gone untreated and relatively neglected by the government and others; the parents [were] dismissed, vilified and humiliated when they tried to say my child was damaged by this vaccine. …The CDC have been covering this up. It’s an utter disgrace. For me, it’s a sadness that this has come to pass. It’s a tragedy. Yes, it vindicates the [theory] that we put forward to the CDC originally… [the CDC] has been covering it up since 2001.”
More importantly, share this video everywhere in the name of saving children from vaccine violence. The corrupt, corporate-controlled mainstream media absolutely refuses to cover this story, hoping they can bury the truth about vaccines in exactly the same way the CDC buried the data.
Here’s another very important video to view, covering Dr. Thompson’s public confession of vaccine research fraud at the CDC:
Israel’s Operation Protective Edge (OPE) was well-planned premeditated aggression.
It had nothing to do with Hamas rockets. It wasn’t about crushing Palestine’s legitimate government.
Israel needs enemies. When none exist, they’re invented. They’re blamed for Israel’s crimes.
OPE was about preventing Palestinian self-determination. It was to maintain occupation harshness. It was to keep stealing Palestinian land.
It was to expand settlements exponentially. It was to control all valued parts of Judea and Samaria.
It was to keep Palestinians confined on isolated bantustans on worthless scrubland. It was to steal their resources.
It was to assure diaspora Palestinians don’t return. It was to maintain Gaza’s blockade while pretending otherwise when hostilities ended.
It was to have Jerusalem as Israel’s exclusive capital. It was to undermine Fatah/Hamas unity.
It was to give Israel sole prerogative to commit high crimes against peace with impunity.
It was to show Palestinians they’re defenseless against overpowering Israeli might.
It was to wage aggressive wars any time against invented enemies for whatever reasons Israel invents.
It was to enlist popular homeland support for what demands condemnation.
Each side claimed victory. Netanyahu said Hamas was “hit hard and got none of its demands.”
He threatened an even tougher response should there be so much as a “sprinkle” of rocket fire from Gaza.
A late August Shiluv Millward Brown poll on whether Israelis support him showed he plunged from a record 82% high in July to 38% now.
Yedioth Ahronot is Israel’s largest circulation daily. According to columnist Alex Fishman:
“Both sides did not exactly want this campaign. Both sides made all possible errors dragging them into it, and both sides find themselves today returning to square one, where they were at the start of the warfare.”
Hamas military wing spokesman Abu Obeida said:
“Gaza achieved victory because it has done what major armies failed to do. It forced the enemy to retreat.”
“We must know that no voice is louder than the voice of the resistance.”
Hamas political head Khaled Meshal said his organization has many rockets left. Tunnels remain.
“If necessary, if the negotiations fail, we will return to resistance until our goals are achieved,” he said.
Asked how he could claim victory after accepting the same Egyptian-brokered terms he rejected weeks earlier, he said:
“Our demands were just, but in the end we had the Palestinian demands on the one hand and the pain of Gaza’s civilian population on the other.”
“So we agreed to the cease-fire in the knowledge that the siege will be lifted, that the other issues like the seaport and airport will be on the negotiating table in another month, and that the weapon in the hands of the resistance are the guarantees that its goals, above all the building of an airport and seaport, along with the release of the prisoners, will be achieved.”
“This military campaign revived resistance as a realistic possibility for the Palestinian people.”
“This is not the end of the battle to liberate the land. We presented the Palestinian national issue and the siege of Gaza before the international community.”
“The (earlier) peace talks improved Israel’s image in the world, but now the resistance has exposed (its) true face.”
“Israel can no longer present itself as the victim. It has become a burden on the world.”
“We shattered the idea of the (Israeli) army that never surrenders. That’s already happened before, but this time it happened to an unprecedented degree.”
“We succeeded in creating mutual, equal deterrence on the basis of pain vs. pain.”
As for disarming, he added:
“No power on earth can disarm the resistance. Israel is not interested in international decisions because Netanyahu is not interested in a political solution.”
Addressing the Israeli public, he said:
“Your leadership lies to you, and acts in the name of its self-interest to survive politically.”
“You need to understand that there is no security as long as the occupation goes on.”
“We are not enemies on account of religion. We respect every religion. Our enemy is the occupation.”
Days before the ceasefire, longtime Israeli collaborator Mahmoud Abbas met secretly with Netanyahu in Amman, Jordan.
It was their first face-to-face meeting since September 2010. No confirmation from either side followed. Netanyahu’s office declined to comment.
Senior PA official Nabil Shaath said Washington pressured Israel into halting hostilities even though terms announced omitted demanding Hamas disarm.
Days earlier, Netanyahu said Israel was pursuing a new diplomatic “horizon.” He declined to elaborate.
Last Sunday, Abbas said he would reveal a “surprise” diplomatic initiative Washington wouldn’t like. It won’t matter.
According to Shaath, the PA wants a Security Council resolution ending Israel’s occupation. It wants a timetable to accomplish it.
Given a certain US veto if this type resolution is presented, Palestinian officials will petition the International Criminal Court (ICC) to prosecute Netanyahu and Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon for war crimes.
The ICC is a longtime Western imperial tool. It targets victims. Perpetrators like America and Israel operate freely.
They do so with impunity. Don’t expect this time to be different.
Throughout over seven weeks of conflict, Washington supported Israel’s killing machine.
Its posture belied its rhetorical highminded concern for human rights, democratic values and rule of law principles.
It showed Israel can commit high crimes against peace with impunity. Thousands of mostly civilian Palestinian casualties didn’t matter.
They attest to Israel’s barbarity. They’re considered legitimate targets. International law affirms otherwise.
Large parts of Gaza lie in ruins. Billions of reconstruction dollars are needed. Where will funding come from?
How many years are required to complete an overwhelming job? How will affected Gazans cope in the meantime?
Will concern for them fade when headlines disappear? Will reconstruction matter after virtually certain future Israel aggression destroys what’s rebuilt?
Without unconditionally lifting Gaza’s siege, ending occupation, assuring Palestinian self-determination within June 1967 borders, and holding Israel fully accountable for genocidal mass murder and destruction, will anything else really matter?
After long denied justice, Palestinians remain isolated on their own. Western leaders able to help do nothing.
They support Israeli genocide. Palestinian suffering doesn’t matter. Premeditated Israeli aggression is considered self-defense.
Big Lies substitute for hard truths. Fundamental rights aren’t important. Wars are glorified in the name of peace.
Israel gets away with genocidal crimes of war and against humanity because nations able to act do nothing.
Expect nothing different this time. Business as usual continues.
Expect long denied Palestinian injustice to persist. Expect future Israeli aggression. Expect Palestinians blamed for its crimes.
The Journal Environmental Science & Technology – published by the American Chemical Society –reported last year that airborne levels of radioactive cesium were raised by 100 to 1,000 times (what scientists describe as two to three “orders of magnitude“):
Before the FDNPP accident, average 137Cs levels were typically of 1 μBq m−3 in Central Europe and lower average values (<0.3 μBq m−3) were characteristic of northern, western and southern Europe.
During the passage of contaminated air masses from Fukushima, airborne 137Cs levels were globally enhanced by 2 to 3 orders of magnitude.
The French government radiation agency – IRSN – released a video of Fukushima cesium hitting the West Coast of North America. EneNews displays a screenshot from the IRSN video, and quantifies the extreme cesium spikes:
Cesium-137 levels in 2010: 0.000001 mBq/m³ of Cs-137 (blue writing)
Cesium-137 levels in Mar. 2011: 1 to 10 mBq/m³ in Western U.S. (orange plume)
Cs-137 levels increased 1,000,000 – 10,000,000 times after Fukushima
The radioactive half life of cesium 137 is usually 30 years. But scientists at the Savannah River National Laboratory say that the cesium at Chernobyl will persist in the environment between 5 and 10 times longer – between 180 and 320 years.
With a handful of exceptions, a shroud of silence has been drawn by the international media regarding the fate of Malaysian Airlines MH17, which crashed over Ukraine nearly six weeks ago.
Immediately after the plane crash on July 17, leading US officials, with Secretary of State John Kerry at the fore along with sections of the US and European media, alleged, without a shred of evidence, that the passenger jet had been shot down by a Russian missile fired by pro-Russian separatists operating in eastern Ukraine. The completely unfounded allegations were then used to create a frenzied political climate to justify the imposition of wide-ranging sanctions by the US and the European Union against Russia.
Since the crash there has been deliberate stalling on the part of Western authorities in releasing relevant information. At the start of this month Dutch investigators leading the inquiries announced they would release a preliminary report “in a few weeks.” Now, with only days before the end of the month, no such report has been issued. This is despite the fact that the Dutch co-ordinator for the struggle against terrorism admitted in parliament that the Dutch authorities already have extensive data from the black boxes and other sources in their possession.
One article which has raised questions regarding the silence surrounding the crash appeared recently in the German magazine Der Spiegel.
The magazine has played a particularly vile role in the US-led propaganda campaign to blame Russia for the crash. On the cover of its July 28 editionDer Spiegel featured photos of MH17 victims with the prominent red lettered text “Stop Putin Now!”. In its latest edition, the magazine again raises the banner of German militarism in a lead article deploring the state of the German army and arguing for a massive increase in military sending.
However, in one article on the crash, headlined “The strange silence of the investigators”, the magazine attempts to backtrack somewhat and at least intimate there are good reasons to doubt the official line put out by Washington and Brussels. The article refers to a letter sent to Barack Obama at the end of July by a group of former US intelligence officers. In their letter the group, known as VIPS, accused Secretary of State Kerry of attempting to use the crash to blacken Russia, recalling other blatant provocations by the Obama administration, such as the claim that Syria was responsible for chemical weapon attacks. The Obama administration has never responded to the allegations made in the VIPS letter.
The Spiegel article then goes on to quote reports in the Malaysian newspaperNew Straits Times, which charge Ukraine with responsibility for the crash, citing one journalist who writes: “It is farcical that the country known for overseeing the world’s most sophisticated and far-reaching surveillance capabilities has sunk to citing grainy YouTube videos to justify its policy decisions.”
Noting that Dutch authorities already have considerable information about the details of the crash which they have undoubtedly shared with their German counterparts, the Spiegel article warns that it is unlikely that the black box recordings will ever be released in full. The Dutch investigation team recently announced that there were alleged legal grounds for withholding evidence from the boxes.
The failure of the media to raise the issue of the fate of MH17 prompted Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov to query on Monday why the plane’s black box recordings had not been released publicly. It appears, Lavrov said, that apart from Russia, “everyone else has lost interest in the investigation.”
Lavrov also asked why Ukraine had not yet provided recordings of conversations between air traffic controllers in the nearby airport of Dnepropetrovsk. Kiev has up until now persistently refused to publish the recordings of the conversations between the MH17 pilot and Ukrainian air traffic controllers.
Lavrov noted that Russia had contacted the International Civil Aviation Organisation, the United Nations aviation agency, and offered to provide its own information on the crash, but noted that “so far there is nothing transparent to be seen there either.”
Lavrov concluded: “We must not allow the investigation of the MH17 crash to be manipulated into oblivion as already happened to investigations of many Ukrainian tragedies, including the sniper assault against civilians in Kiev in February, massacres in Odessa and Mariupol in May, and others.”
Bearing in mind the leading role played by the US in utilizing the crash of MH17 to create the conditions for a confrontation with Russia, there can be no doubt that the administration in Washington and US intelligence services are in close contact with the Dutch authorities and are complicit in the efforts to bury the truth about what really took place on July 17.
The Obama administration and NATO officials on Thursday escalated threats against Russia over the alleged incursion of two columns of Russian tanks and troops into eastern Ukraine. Moscow has denied accusations that its troops are actively involved in the country.
In an afternoon press conference, US President Barack Obama declared that Russian actions were further confirmation that Moscow was fomenting the unrest and has “routinely violated the territorial integrity of Ukraine.” While he refrained from characterizing Russia’s actions as an invasion, he said that it was a “continuation” of the sort of Russian intervention in eastern Ukraine that has been occurring for the last several weeks.
“These separatists are backed, trained, armed, financed by Russia,” Obama declared. “Throughout this process we’ve seen deep Russian involvement in everything that they’ve done.” The US president pledged “additional steps” to punish Moscow for supporting the separatists, including new economic sanctions coordinated with Europe.
In fact, it was not Russia that stoked the conflict in Ukraine but rather the United States, along with Germany, which funneled billions of dollars to opposition groups, backing a right-wing coup in February with the support of fascist forces. The White House is strongly backing the Ukrainian government of President Petro Poroshenko as it carries out a brutal war against predominantly Russian-speaking cities in the east.
More than 2,249 people have been killed and more than 6,000 injured in military operations in the Donbass region of Ukraine. The American government has supported the military siege of two major European cities, Donetsk and Luhansk, cutting off electricity and running water to hundreds of thousands of civilians. Residential neighborhoods and hospitals have been subjected to artillery fire from Ukrainian armed forces.
The shelling of the eastern cities of Donetsk by Ukrainian forces continued on Thursday, injuring 15 people and destroying several homes and businesses. Over the course of the previous day, 16 civilians were killed and a further 22 injured by continued shelling.
The latest developments in eastern Ukraine have opened up a new front in the conflict in eastern Ukraine between pro-Russian separatists and Ukrainian armed forces and further raised the possibility of war between the United States and Russia.
While stating that “we are not taking military action to solve the Ukrainian problem,” Obama provocatively declared that “a number of those states who are close” to Ukraine and Russia are members of NATO, “and we take our Article Five commitments to defend each other very seriously—and that includes the smallest NATO members as well as the largest.”
Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, many former Warsaw Pact countries in Eastern Europe joined NATO, including Poland and the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Since the coup in February, the US and NATO have moved to increase their military presence in all these countries. Article Five of the treaty states that an armed attack on any NATO country is considered an attack on all members.
As a means of justifying a further military buildup of NATO forces in Eastern Europe and the imposition of ever more harsh economic sanctions, the United States and its European allies have very consciously sought, at every point, to force Russia to respond.
The United States is seeking to turn Ukraine into a NATO outpost for threatening Russia. This is highlighted by the fact that Poroshenko will be the only non-NATO head of state attending the NATO summit in Wales next week. Proshenko is also scheduled to meet with President Obama at the White House next month.
These military moves have been coupled with the implementation of harsh austerity measures in Ukraine itself, targeting the entire working class.
Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin called Thursday for pro-Russian separatists to open up a corridor to allow Ukrainian troops to flee into Russia. Putin called on the rebels to, “avoid meaningless victims and provide them with the opportunity to freely withdraw from the battlefield area.” At least five Ukrainian National Guard battalions were reported to have been surrounded since Tuesday, when pro-Russian separatists engaged in a fierce battle to retake the town of Ilovaisk.
NATO released satellite images that it claims shows Russian artillery and other equipment well inside Ukrainian territory. A senior NATO officer, Brigadier General Nico Tak, stated that the images, “provide additional evidence that Russian combat soldiers, equipped with heavy weapons, are operating inside Ukraine’s sovereign territory.”
One image purportedly shows Russian self-propelled artillery moving on a road near Krasnodon, Ukraine on August 21 just across the border from the Russian city of Donetsk. Another image shows the same artillery set up in firing positions outside of Krasnodon, while the several other images released by NATO show artillery and military units deployed on the Russian side of the border.
Tak also said that NATO had evidence that more than 1,000 Russian soldiers were fighting with the rebels in Ukraine. Aleksandr Zakharchenko, the head of the Donetsk People’s Republic, said on Thursday that between three and four thousand Russian volunteers are fighting alongside the Ukrainian separatists, and that many of these were military men on leave. He stated, “There is no secret that among the volunteers from Russia there are many military men. They are fighting together with us because they understand that it’s their duty.”
Poroshenko responded to the developments in the east by canceling a scheduled trip to Turkey. “The situation is certainly extremely difficult and nobody is going to simplify it. Still, it is controlled enough for us to refrain from panic,” Poroshenko said.
Ukrainian security council spokesman Andriy Lysenko accused Moscow of sending troops and tanks across the border in a bid to create a land bridge to the territory of Crimea, which Russia annexed in March. Lysenko also announced that the security council had made a decision to reintroduce compulsory military service starting in the fall.
By hook or by crook or by carrots or sticks, the US and its NATO and regional allies will not stop targeting Syria and Iran until they vanquish both. The crisis in Iraq is just a new phase in those objectives.
The anti-government forces ravaging Iraq and Syria are mostly the same overzealous or gung-ho head choppers, rapists, extortionists, thugs, and cannibals that were pillaging and senselessly devastating the Syrian countryside with the aim of occupying Damascus in 2011. These ever morphing and constantly name changing groups are not new at all. They have just been rebranded.
Some may recall the leaks about the training facilities and secret headquarters that the US and its allies erected for the Syrian insurgents in Jordan, where the buffoon King Abdullah II pretends to manage his discontent subjects while the US and Israel really run the show. The groups marauding Iraq have been trained in these not-so-secret Jordanian facilities.
But this is where the plot thickens. The US was using sticks for the last few years against the Syrians and Syria’s staunch ally Iran. That has changed. Poisonous carrots are now in use.
It just so happens that the Irbil-based autonomous Kurdistan Regional Government made a de facto military annexation of Kirkuk. The Kurdistan Regional Government did this by sending its peshmerga forces into the oil-rich city when the so-called Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL/DAISH) caliphate was being carved out of northern Iraq, and northern Iraq was in disarray as the Iraqi military and security forces were repositioning themselves.
What is very telling is that there were very few clashes, if any, between the peshmerga and the DAISH/ISIL forces. Iraq was being carved into three chunks. Although the process did not take place overnight, the country was literally divided into an autonomous Kurdistan region waiting in the wings to declare its independence from Iraq, a pseudo-caliphate enveloping the areas of Iraq predominately inhabited by Sunni Muslim Arabs, and the federal territories enveloping the predominately Shiite Muslim Arab parts of Iraq in a matter of days. This division fell exactly into line with America’s Biden Plan and Israel’s Yinon Plan.
It also so happened that the mendacious Masoud Barzani, president of the Kurdistan Regional Government, said that the Iraqi Kurds were preparing to declare their independence. It was no mere coincidence that Israel also announced it was high time for Iraq to dissolve with the secession of Iraqi Kurdistan. No wonder there were reports from Baghdad that Israeli forces were assisting both the ISIL/DAISH forces and the Kurdish peshmerga in northern Iraq.
Nor should it be a surprise that American and Israeli weapons have been reported to be used by the pseudo-caliphates forces.
When the pseudo-caliphate was being carved in Iraq, the US declared that it was going to openly aid the insurgents in Syria. Looking past the Orwellian doublespeak, what this meant was that the US was going to help the pseudo-caliphate. The calculus is simple: insurgents in Syria are the same people that have helped takeover Mosul and carve the pseudo-caliphate in Iraq against the people of Iraq, particularly the Christians.
AFP Photo / Ahmad AL-Rubaye
Sending weapons to help or to divide Iraq?
When it was declared that the not-so-covert US-supported pseudo-caliphate in northern Iraq was fighting the Kurdistan Regional Government, the US and its NATO partners wasted no time in calling for more arms shipments to be sent to Iraq. Not wishing to be indicated, the US let France take the lead in this.
The trickery lies here. Instead of sending arms to the national military of Iraq, the calls were for sending weapons to the Kurdistan Regional Government. Under the cover of a new crisis in Iraq, the Kurdistan Regional Government is being militarily armed and supported so that it can break away from Iraq.
When the US started bombing Iraq, it was not going after Abu Baker Al-Baghdadi’s forces. No man’s land was being bombed. The Pentagon was demarcating northern Iraq between the pseudo-caliphate and Iraqi Kurdistan. In other words, boundaries were being drawn out for both sides.
Destroying plurality and diversity
Consistently in the backdrop of the crises in Iraq and Syria, there has been persecution of minorities and deliberate sectarianism aimed at creating sedition. It is no coincidence that Yazidis and Christians are systematically being targeted in Iraq, just like how Christians, Alawies, and Druze have been targeted in Syria.
It should be mentioned that while minority groups are being systematically targeted, the majority of people being killed by groups like ISIL/DAISH, Al-Nusra, and the Free Syrian Army are actually the innocent Sunni Muslims that oppose these troublesome militant groups.
The Foreign Minister of Lebanon, Gebran Bassil, made an interesting connection between the Israeli war crimes against Palestinian civilians of Gaza and the ISIL/DAISH murder of Iraqis in Mosul. For Foreign Minister Bassil, himself a Maronite Catholic Christian, the connection was clear. Both Israel and ISIL/DAISH are working to redraw the ancient region by destroying all traces of plurality and diversity. This is why Bassil and the Lebanese government sent a request to the International Criminal Court to investigate the crimes of Israel against the Palestinians and the crimes of the ISIL/DAISH.
Using the crisis in Iraq to co-opt Iran and to attack Syria?
The US is still holding a stick behind its back. Washington could use its intervention in Iraq to open a gateway for intervention against Syria as a means of shifting the balance of power against the Syrian government.
Washington is now talking about intervening in Syria to bomb the same troublesome groups that it is supposedly fighting in Iraq. Pentagon military honcho, General Martin Dempsey, has stated that the ISIL/DAISH “cannot be defeated unless the United States or its partners take on the Sunni militants in Syria” on August 21, 2014. Speaking about the Pentagon strikes in Iraq, General Dempsey stated: “Can they be defeated without addressing that part of the organization that resides in Syria? The answer is no.”
At the same time Washington, London, Paris, and their cohorts are dangling carrots too. The US and its allies are talking about cooperating with Iran and Syria to fight the groups that the US and its allies have created and unleashed in Iraq and Syria.
AFP Photo / Ahmed Deeb
The Independent newspaper in London had this to report about the British government’s position on August 17, 2014: “Britain must prepared to ally itself with Iran to combat the ‘shared threat’ of Sunni Islamist extremists in Iraq and Syria who want to create ‘a terrorist state’ that could extend to “the shores of the Mediterranean,” David Cameron has said.”
What the US and its allies are dangling in front of Tehran and Damascus is not fully known yet.
Cooperation, however, is a poisoned chalice that neither Iran nor Syria should drink from. The whole world knows what happened to Muammar Qaddafi and the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya when Tripoli cooperated with the US, Britain, and France. Cooperation was used to infiltrate the Jamahiriya and to buy out officials. In the end it ended up in regime change in Tripoli and the murder of Colonel Qaddafi by NATO-controlled Libyan militants.
Nor should it be discounted that Washington wants to turn Tehran against Moscow. Iran and Russia are important partners for one another in bypassing sanctions, and the US is very unhappy with the oil-for-goods deal that has been authored by the two sides.
So on the one hand Washington holds its stick whereas on the other hand it dangles its poisonous carrots.
Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Hussein Amir-Abdollahian, however, has dismissed the chatter about cooperation with the US and its allies, saying that Iran sees no need to cooperate with the US and British governments to fight the terrorists plaguing Iraq that both the US and Britain have helped create.
This article was originally published by RT on August 28, 2014.
Approximately four months after Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 (MH370) disappeared in March 2014, while en route from the Malaysian capital of Kuala Lumpur to the Chinese capital of Beijing, another incident took place with a Malaysian passenger plane. This time Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 (MH17), en route from the Dutch capital of Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur, was shot down on July 17, 2014 over the contested airspace of the breakaway Donetsk People’s Republic. The incident took place over Torez near the Russian-Ukrainian border while the authorities in Kiev were busy militarily assaulting the separatist armed forces of Novorossiya, that is the soldiers of the breakaway Donetsk People’s Republic and Donetsk’s sister-breakaway republic in East Ukraine, the self-proclaimed Lugansk People’s Republic.
Blaming Russia and the Donetsk People’s Republic for the MH17 Crash
The downing of MH17 in East Ukraine was quickly blamed on the Donetsk People’s Republic. One way or another, the Russian Federation was also blamed by the puppet authorities in Kiev and its supporters in the US and the European Union. Salivating with another opportunity to demonize Russia and justify its existence, NATO also pointed the finger in the same direction towards Moscow. As part of the continuous anti-Russian hysteria, NATO governments and media networks lined up to blame Russia for the downing of the Malaysian passenger plane over Donetsk.
Starting in late-February 2014 with the EuroMaidan coup, for the last six months or half a year, all types of accusations have been made and directed towards Russia and its federal government in Moscow. Blaming the Kremlin for the attack on MH17 was just a continuation of the Russophobic trend that Washington and its European Union allies had unleashed with the simmering crisis in Ukraine.
Valentyn Oleksandrovych Nalyvaichenko, the post-EuroMaidan head of the Security Service of Ukraine (SSU/SBU) and an Orangist that left Viktor Yushchenko to join Vitali Klitschko in 2012, claimed that the attack MH17 was a Russian-linked false flag that went wrong. Interfax Information Service Group’s branch in Ukraine reported on August 9, 2014 that the SSU/SBU chief claimed that the Donetsk People’s Republic was planning on bombing a Russian airliner from Aeroflot that was supposed to fly south to the Mediterranean Sea from Moscow to the Greek Cypriot city of Larnaca. The SSU/SBU released an official statement on August 7, 2014 claiming that the plan was to give the Russian Federation a pretext for invading and occupying Ukraine.
The US government and its high-ranking officials joined their puppets in Kiev in trying to ultimately lay the blame on Russia for the downing of MH17. US officials made numerous public statements that were designed to pin the blame on the Russian Federation for the MH17’s crash. The US government launched an international information campaign in this regard that utilized its diplomatic missions, the internet, social media, and the mainstream media networks.
When Washington was challenged for proof about Russian involvement and the source of the attack on MH17, in the tradition of US Secretary of State Colin Powel’s weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq presentation at the United Nations the US government presented doctored evidence which was debunked immediately. The US government released doctored satellite images that from an examination of the location of physical objects and atmospheric conditions were clearly taken days after MH17 was shot down. After embarrassingly being exposed for presenting false evidence to support its claims, Washington refused to provide anymore of its so-called evidence under the justification of not revealing data sources. In reality, Washington was lying again and had no evidence to support the ridiculous claims that Moscow had masterminded the downing of MH17. Not long after this, US officials admitted that they had no tangible evidence against Russia. Then they and their NATO allies began to look like they were losing interest in even investigation the MH17 crash in Donetsk.
The Facts Come into View: What were Kiev’s Fighter Jets Doing?
The narrative of the US and the puppet authorities in Kiev was feeble and horribly put together from the start. Not only was there an absence of evidence that the Donetsk People’s Republic or Russia were behind the attack on MH17, which killed all two hundred and eighty-three passengers and fifteen crew members on board (a total of two hundred and ninety-eight people), but the evidence indicated the US-supported puppet Ukrainian authorities in Kiev as the culprits responsible for the downing of the Malaysian passenger jet.
Within moments before the MH17 crash, a Spaniard employee working as an air traffic controller at Ukraine’s largest airport, Borispol (Boryspil) International Airport (not to be confused with Kiev International Airport in Zhulyany, southwest Kiev), using his Twitter account (Carlos @spainbuca),refuted the claims of the Ukrainian puppet authorities in Kiev and their backers in Washington. Carlos would write at 11:48 am on July 17, 2014 that MH17 was «escorted by 2 fighters of Ukraine until minutes before disappearing from the radar» screen at the air traffic control tower. What Carlos meant by fighters was Ukrainian fighter jets. Carlos also wrote, at 1:29 pm, that the Interior Ministry of Ukraine, which is heavily politicized and under the control of the ultra-nationalist forces behind the EuroMaidan coup, knew what the Ukrainian fighter jets were doing next to MH17 whereas the Ukrainian military knew very little and, at 1:36 pm, that the Ukrainian military confirmed that Kiev had downed the Malaysian passenger jet (please see the annex for what was exactly written). It would only be at 3:17 pm that the air traffic control tower would be told officially that a missile had shot MH17 down over Donetsk. Carlos wrote at 4:06 pm that Ukrainian military air control officials had said that the missile was one of their own. Because of his revelations, eventually the Spaniard’s Twitter account was blocked and deleted.
Contradicting the rhetorical claims of Washington and its puppets in Kiev, the federal government of Russia provided valid data that could be analyzed with a high level of confidence. Among the data that Moscow produced, was information that a Ukrainian Sukhoi SU-25 fighter jet had intercepted MH17. The puppet authorities in Ukraine declined to explain why a Ukrainian military jet had been sent to intercept MH17. While calling for an international investigation to be conducted by an impartial team from the United Nations, Moscow also called for the puppet authorities in Kiev to publicly release the communication records that took place between MH17 and Ukrainian air traffic control.
Even the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), which has been negatively biased towards Russia during the entire crisis in Ukraine, contradicts the allegations of the US government. Michael Bociurkiw, a Canadian citizen of Ukrainian descent, investigating the crash as an OSCE monitor contradicted the claims made by the US-supported puppet authorities in Kiev. The OSCE monitor reported that no missile was used against MH17 from the OSCE’s initial studies. Not only was no missile used, Bociurkiw mentions that it looks like MH17 looked like it was downed by bullets. In Michael Bociurkiw’s own words, he told the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) the following on July 29, 2014: «There have been two or three pieces of fuselage that have been really pockmarked with what almost looks like machine-gun fire, very very strong machine-gun fire».
As soon as photographs of the crash became available, it was noticed by many people that it looked like the Malaysian jet has been fired on (in addition to any possible missile penetration). Specifically, the MH17’s cockpit looks like it was fired at from both sides, with both entry and exit bullet holes. This means that the MH17 was either shot at from two different angels or that the ammunition that was fired on it ricocheted outwards. Taken that the ammunition of the Ukrainian Sukhoi SU-25 is cannon ammunition is armour-piercing and made to destroy heavy armoured military vehicles, this makes a lot of sense.
OSCE monitor Michael Bociurkiw has been criticized for using non-technical language, specifically referring to thirty millimeter caliber cannon ammunition as «machine-gun fire» while talking about the MH17 attack. The point, however, should not be lost. It looks like a Ukrainian Sukhoi SU-25 fighter jet had fired on the MH17 (in addition to any possible missile penetration of the Malaysian passenger plane). All the evidence about the downing of MH17 points in the direction of the authorities in Kiev.
Hiding the Facts via Information Censorship
The voice of Carlos, contradicting the US and its allies, would be just one of many. The Information Telegraph Agency of Russia (ITAR-TASS) also confirmed his story on July 18, 2014. ITAR-TASS reported as follows: «This information is confirmed by eyewitnesses in the Donetsk region who saw Ukrainian warplanes near the passenger jet. They say they heard sounds of powerful blasts and saw a Ukraine warplane shortly before the crash.» Even the Russian-language service of the state-owned British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) News would corroborate the account put forward by Carlos and eyewitnesses in East Ukraine. The BBC’s Olga Ivshina (Ivshyna) interviewed four residence of the area near the crash, which all said that they saw warplanes next to MH17. One eyewitness told Ivshina that the military jet «was flying under it, we could see it. It was going underneath the civilian one».
The BBC would censor Olga Ivshina’s report, because it contradicted the separatist missile attack narrative and it fit perfectly with what the Spanish air traffic controller and the Russian government claimed. After being caught red handed, the BBC responded to deleting its own report and put back a modified version of it on July 25, 2014. Yan Leder, the managing editor for BBC News’ Russian service explained that there was no «self-censorship» and that the report was removed as it contained «mistakes» and was not in «compliance of the editorial values of BBC.»
The BBC’s censorship was only the tip of the iceberg. Facebook and Twitter began to block posts linked to articles about MH17 and the claims made by Carlos. Posts involving what happened to MH17 over East Ukraine were becoming unavailable or failing to open on social media. Enough people noticed and complained about this that warnings and explanations were offered about why the posts about MH17 were being blocking.
Tacitly, Matthew Peckham provides the dubious rationale of social media for restricting posts in a Time article titled «Facebook and Twitter Users: Don’t Fall for MH17 ‘Actual Footage’ Scams» on July 22, 2014. Peckham reports the following: «If you run across Facebook pages touting pictures of Malaysia Airlines MH17 crash victims, or tweets linking to reports on the disaster, warning: they may be fakes, harbor malware or redirect you to pornographic websites.» Then his article tacitly explains that such links have been removed from Facebook. In other words, the rationale being presented is that posts covering the MH17 crash can be censored or blocked to protect readers from scammers, malware, and software viruses.
Despite the reasoning behind any possible blocking of articles and posts about MH17, the rationale given does not explain why Carlos was censored or why Twitter deleted his account (Carlos @spainbuca). The Spaniard would also do an interview with RT en Español (RT Spanish) or RT Actualidad from Madrid on May 8, 2014. Hiding his identity because of death threats he had received in Ukraine, the Spanish air traffic controller would explain that he and his family were deported from Ukraine to Spain by the puppet authorities in Kiev.
The US is the one that Downs Passenger Planes, Not Russia
The US government is the one that attacks and downs civilian passenger planes, either directly with its own military forces or through state-sponsored terrorism. When US Secretary of State John Kerry was pointing the finger at Russia, no one asked him about Cuban (Cubana de Aviación) Flight 455 (CU455) and Iran Air Flight 655 (IR655). While flying from Barbados to Jamaica, CU455 was brought down on October 6, 1976 by a CIA-linked double C-4 bomb attack. IR655, on the other hand, was shot down by a US warship over Iranian territory, while flying on its regular route from Tehran to Dubai in the UAE, on July 3, 1988.
The bombing of the CU455 was carried out by the US-supported and CIA-trained Coordination of United Revolutionary Organizations (CORU). CORU also worked out of US territory and all its actions were coordinated with the US government. Orlando Bosch, Luis Posada Carriles, and Michael Vernon Townley, the key figures involved are known to have been financed by the CIA and to have worked with it and other US agencies in a terrorist campaign against Cuba aimed at securing regime change in Havana. Townley as a professional assassin for the US helped kill Latin American figures opposing US influence in their countries.
Although the US claims that it was not involved, it has been behind a terrorist campaign that has been attacking Cuban infrastructure after the Cuban Revolution in 1959. The Cubans reacted by reporting the US to the United Nations in 1960 and by providing the United Nations Security Council with detailed records of multiple US-sponsored terrorist attacks, which included the names of registered pilots, plane identification numbers, data on the flight routes coming from the US, and physical evidence. Washington, however, continued to deny that it was involved in the terrorist attacks on the Cubans. Not only did the US continue to lie, but it launched the invasion of the Bay of Pigs in 1961.
The terrorist bombing of CU455 would be a national tragedy for all Cuban society. After winning gold medals for their country, Cuba, at the 1976 Central American and Caribbean Championships, all twenty-four members of the entire Cuban national junior fencing team would be killed in CU455. Most of the Cuban fencers were teenagers. The other passengers were Cuban fishing and sports officials and Guyanese medical students going to Cuba to study medicine.
IR655 was shot down directly by the USS Vincennes in a clear act of aggression against a passenger airliner. The attack on IR655 took place in Iranian territory as the airplane was flying through Iranian airspace towards Dubai. All two hundred and ninety passengers and sixteen crew members were killed.
In both cases the US government lied or provided excuses about what happened. Washington’s actions, however, spell its position and intentions out clearly. Despite the US government’s shameless claims not to have supported the bombing of CU455, the US gave asylum and sanctuary to the figures behind the murder of all seventy-eight passengers onboard the Cuban passenger plane. In regards to IR655,the crew of the USS Vincennes was awarded for their ship’s actions and received combat-action ribbons for the tour of the Vincennes in the Persian Gulf. Captain (N) William C. Rogers III was awarded the Legion of Merit for his service as the commanding naval officer of the Vincennes from 1987 to 1989 whereas Lieutenant-Commander Scott Lustig, the warships’ air-warfare coordinator, received the Navy Commendation Medal for «quickly and precisely complete the firing procedure.»
Lie after lie, the modus operandi of the US government is the same. How much credence can people give to John Kerry and the US government when they claimed that the Syrian government was behind the chemical attack on Ghouta in late-2013, but the facts proved that it was the US-supported insurgents that were behind the chemical attack?
Minutes before reporting about the Ukrainian military’s involvement, at 11:13 am on July 17, 2014, Carlos wrote on Twitter that he was wondering why foreign personnel entered his air traffic control tower with Kiev authorities to gather information. The Spaniard later reported at 12:00 pm, interestingly minutes after the military authorities in Kiev had notified his air traffic control tower that MH17 was downed over Donetsk, that the air traffic control tower was filled with foreign personnel. Who were these foreign personnel? Most probably they were from NATO countries and, more specifically, from the US. There is no question that the US had a role in the downing of MH17; at the very minimum Washington has knowingly and criminally worked to distort the picture of what happened to MH17. It is also important to note that Carlos described divisions among the Ukrainian soldiers in Kiev through what appeared to be upset and disgusted faces by those soldiers who reported that Kiev was responsible for the downing of MH17 whereas the Ukrainian military personnel and authorities accompanied by foreigners were busy lying and trying to spin the attack on MH17. The downing of MH17 is not the crime of Ukraine, but an act committed by US and EU proxies, embezzlers, and fanatics.
One way or another, the US government and the European Union do not have clean hands. The US accuses others of committing the actions that it itself commits. It is not Russia that bombs civilian passenger airplanes, but the United States. History is a witness to this.
Commemorative photos of the victims of the terrorist attack on CU455; notice the CIA is mentioned in the banner.
A photo of the victims of the US downing of IR655; a large portion of the victims were children.
ANNEX: CHRONOLOGY OF TWITTER COMMENTS BY CARLOS ON JULY 17, 2014
• The Tweets (Twitter comments) are in original Spanish followed by translations.
• The time is presumed to be Eastern European Time (EET)
• The time is given in both 24-hour and 12-hour clock formats
Autoridades de kiev, intentan hacer que pueda parecer un ataque de los pro-rusos
Kiev Authorities, trying to make seem like an attack by pro-Russians
Ojo! Que puede ser un derribo B777 Malaysia Airlines en ukraine, 280 pasajeros
Pay attention! It can be a downing of Malaysia Airlines B777 in Ukraine, 280 passengers
Cuidado! Kiev tiene lo que buscaba
Careful! Kiev has what it sought
Vuelven a tomar la torre de control en Kiev
They have returned to take the control tower in Kiev
El avión B777 de Malaysia Airlines desapareció del radar, no hubo comunicación de ninguna anomalia, confirmado
The Malaysia Airlines B777 airplane disappeared from the radar, there was no communication of any anomaly, confirmed
Avión derribado, derribados, derribado no accidente
«Airplane shot down, shot down, shot down, no accident»
Kiev, tiene lo que buscaba, lo dije en los primeros tw, kiev es responsable @ActualidadRT
Kiev has what it wanted, I said in the first tw [Tweet], Kiev is responsible @ ActualidadRT
Un accidente muy normal no es, no están amenazando en la misma torre del aeropuerto de kiev,
An accident that is not quite normal, they are threatening us in the same tower of Kiev airport»
Nos van a quitar, nuestros tlf y demás de un momento a otro
We will take from our tel. [telephones] and others stuff at any moment
Antes de que me quiten el tlf o me rompan la cabeza, derribado por Kiev
Before they remove my phone or they break my head, shot down by Kiev
Nosotros tenemos la confirmación. Avión derribado, la autoridad de kiev, ya tiene la información, derribado, estamos tranquilos ahora
We have confirmation. Airplane downed, Kiev authorities already got the information, downed, we are calm now
Que hace personal extranjero con autoridades de kiev en la torre? Recopilando toda la información
What are doing foreigner personnel doing with Kiev authorities in the tower? Gathering all the information
Cuando sea posible sigo escribiendo
When possible I keep writing
El avión B 777 voló escoltado por 2 cazas de ukraine hasta minutos antes, de desaparecer de los radares,
The B777 airplane flew escorted by 2 fighter [jets] of Ukraine until minutes before disappearing from the radar, [sic.]
Sí las autoridades de kiev, quieren decir la verdad, esta recogido 2 cazas volaron muy cerca minutos antes , no lo derribo un caza
If Kiev authorities, want to tell the truth, it is recorded that 2 jet fighters flew very close minutes before, was not downed by a fighter
Nada más desaparecer el avión B 777 de Malaysia Airlines la autoridad military de kiev nos informo del derribo, como lo sabían?
Just as the Malaysia Airlines B777 airplane disappeared the Kiev military authority informed us of the downing, how did they know?
A los 7:00 minutos se notificó el derribo, más tarde se tomó la torre nuestra con personal extranjero q siguen aquí
7:00 minutes after crash was reported, our tower was overtaken with foreigner staff, they are still here
En los radares esta todo recogido, para los incrédulos, derribado por kiev, aquí lo sabemos y control aéreo militar también
All this is gathered in radars, for unbelievers, shot down by kiev [sic.], here we know it and military air traffic control also [knows]
Aquí los mandos militares manejan y admiten que militares a otras órdenes, pudieron ser, pero no, los pro-rusos
Here the military commanders administer and suppose it could be the military following other orders, but could be the pro-Russians
El ministro del interior si conocía que, hacían los cazas en la zona, el ministro de defensa no,
Interior minister knew what the fighters were doing in the area, the defence minister did not.
Militares confirman que fue ukraine, pero se sigue sin saber de donde vino la orden
Military confirms that it was Ukraine, but still does not know where the order came from
Hace dias lo dije aquí, militares de kiev querían alzarse contra el actual presidente, esto puede ser una forma, a las órdenes de timoshenko
Days ago I said here, kiev [sic. ]military wanted to rise against the current president [Petro Poroshenko], this may be a way [to oust him], ordered by [Yulia] Tymoshenko
Los cazas volaron cerca del 777, hasta 3 minutos antes de desaparecer de los radares, solo 3 minutos
The fighters flew close to 777, up to 3 minutes before disappearing from the radar, just 3 minutes
Se cierra el espacio aéreo
Se cierra el espacio aéreo, por miedo a más derribos
Airspace is closed, more downings feared
Control militar entrega ahora mismo de forma oficial que el avión fue derribado por misil
Military control now officially [say] the plane was shot down by missile
15:23/ 3:23 PM
El informe oficial firmado por las autoridades militares de control de kiev ya lo tiene el gobierno,,,, , derribado
«Government has the official report signed by the military control authorities in kiev [sic.],,, , [sic.] [the airplane was] blown»
En el informe se indica de donde abría salido el misil, y se especifica que no proviene de las autodefensa en las zonas rebeldes
The report indicates where the missile had originated, and specified it is not self-defence from the rebel areas
Los radares militares si recogieron los datos del misil lanzado al avión, los radares civiles no
Military radar collected data from missile fired to the plane, civilian radars did not
15:36/ 3:36 PM
Los altos mandos militares no ordenaron el lanzamiento del misil, alguien se le fue la mano en nombre de ukraine
The military high command did not give the order to fire the missile, someone did it in the name of ukraine [sic.]
Para el que no lo sepa, digamos así, hay militares a las órdenes del ministro de defensa y militares a las órdenes del ministro del interior
For those who do not know, let us say, there are soldiers under the orders of the defence minister and soldiers under the orders of the minister of interior
15:38/ 3:38 PM
Los militares a las órdenes del ministro del interior conocían en cada momento lo que sucedió
The soldiers under the orders of minister of interior knew what happened the whole time
Mandos militares aquí (ATC) torre de control, confirman que el misil es del ejercito de ukraine,
Military commanders here (ATC) control tower, confirm that the missile is from the army of [sic.] ukraine,
Mandos militares que si lo sabían y otros mandos que no,
«[There are] military commanders that knew it and others that did not,
290 personas inocentes muertas. Por una guerra inútil, donde el patriotismo se compra con dinero
290 innocent people dead. What a useless war, where patriotism is bought with money
La forma de tomar la torre de control minutos después sabiendo todo los detalles, rápido nos hizo pensar que habían sido ellos
The way the control tower was taken minutes after and knowing all the details, quickly made us think that they [did it]
La cara de los militares que llegaron más tarde diciendo pero que habéis echo, no dejo dudas
«The faces of the soldiers who came later saying [what you just did], no chance for doubts»
Es tal la decadencia que los militares acompañados de extranjeros que llegaron primero nos llegaron a pedir que dijéramos su versión
Such is the decadence that the soldiers who came first accompanied by foreigners came to us asking us to tell their version [of the MH17’s downing]
Nuestra respuesta, fue, estos radares no recogen el lanzamiento de misiles, los militares si, ya no quedaban dudas
Our response was, these radars do not collect the launching of missiles, the military ones does, there were no doubts
The latest Washington lie, this one coming from NATO, is that Russia has invaded Ukraine with 1,000 troops and self-propelled artillery.
How do we know that this is a lie? Is it because we have heard nothing but lies about Russia from NATO, from US ambassador to the UN Samantha Power, from assistant secretary of state Victoria Nuland, from Obama and his entire regime of pathological liars, and from the British, German, and French governments along with the BBC and the entirety of the Western media?
This, of course, is a good reason for knowing that the latest Western propaganda is a lie. Those who are pathological liars don’t suddenly start telling the truth.
But there are even better rasons for understanding that Russia has not invaded Ukraine with 1,000 troops.
One reason is that Putin has invested heavily in diplomacy backed by unprovocative behavior. He would not risk his bet on diplomacy by sending in troops too few in number to have a decisive effect on the outcome.
Another reason is that if Putin decides he has no alternative to sending the Russian military to protect the Russian residents in eastern and southern Ukraine, Putin will send in enough troops to do the job quickly as he did in Georgia when the American and Israeli trained Georgian army invaded South Ossetia and was destroyed in a few hours by the Russian response. If you hear that 100,000 Russian troops accompanied by air cover have invaded Ukraine, it would be a more believable claim.
A third reason is that the Russian military does not need to send troops into Ukraine in order to stop the bombing and artillery shelling of the Russian populations by Washington’s puppet government in Kiev. The Russian air force can easily and quickly destroy the Ukrainian air force and artillery and, thereby, stop the Ukrainian attack on the secessionist provinces.
It was only two weeks ago that a fabricated report spread by the UK Guardian and the BBC that a Russian armored convoy entered Ukraine and was destroyed by the Ukrainian Military. And two weeks prior to that we had the hoax of the satellite images allegedly released by the US State Department that the corrupt US ambassador in Kiev spread around the world on social media allegedly showing that Russian forces were firing into Ukraine. One or two weeks from now we will have another lie, and another a week or two after that, and so on.
The cumulative effect of lie piled upon lie for most people is to build the view that the Russians are up to no good. Once this view is established, Western governments can take more serious moves against Russia.
The alleged entry of 1,000 Russian soldiers into Ukraine has been declared by NATO Brigadier General Niko Tak to be a “significant escalation in Russia’s military interference in Ukraine.” The champion liar Samantha Power told the US Security Council that “Russia has to stop lying.” The UK ambassador to the UN said that Russia was guilty of “a clear violation of sovereign Ukrainian territory.” UK prime minister Cameron warned Russia of “further consequences.” German chancellor Merkel announced that there would be more sanctions. A German Security Council advisor declared that “war with Russia is an option.” Polish foreign minister Sikorski called it Russian aggression that required international action. French president Hollande declared Russia’s behavior to be “intolerable.” Ukraine’s security council imposed mandatory conscription.
This suicidal drive toward war with Russia by Europe’s leaders is based entirely on a transparent lie that 1,000 Russian troops crossed into Ukraine
Of course the Western media followed in lock-step. The BBC, CNN, and Die Welt are among the most reckless and irresponsible.
The mountain of lies piled up by Western governments and media has obscured the true story. The US government orchestrated the overthrow of the elected government in Ukraine and imposed a US puppet in Kiev. Washington’s puppet government began issuing threats and committing violent acts against the Russian populations in the former Russian territories that Soviet leaders attached to Ukraine. The Russian people in eastern and southern Ukraine resisted the threat brought to them by Washington’s puppet government in Kiev.
Washington continually accuses the Russian government of supporting the people in the territories who have voted their separation from Ukraine. There would be no war, Washington alleges, except for Russian support. But, of course, Washington could easily stop the violence by ordering its puppet government in Kiev to stop the bombing and shelling of the former Russian provinces. If Russia can tell the “separatists” not to fight, Washington can tell Kiev not to fight.
The only possible conclusion from the facts is that Washington is determined to involve Europe in a war with Russia or at least in an armed standoff in order to break up Europe’s political and economic relations with Russia.
Europe’s leaders are going along with this because European countries, except for Charles de Gaulle’s France, have not had independent foreign policies since the end of World War II. They follow Washington’s lead and are well paid for doing so.
The inability of Europe to produce independent leadership dooms Russian President Putin’s diplomacy to failure. If European capitals cannot make decisions independently of Washington, there is no scope for Putin’s diplomacy.
Notice that the very day after Putin met with Washington’s Ukrainian vassal in an effort to resolve the situation, the new lie of Russian invasion was issued in order to ensure that no good can come of the meeting in which Putin invested his time and energy.
Washington’s only interest is in hegemony. Washington has no interest in resolving the situation that Washington itself created in order to bring discomfort and confusion to Russia. With the caveat that the situation could be resolved by Ukrainian economic collapse, otherwise the longer Putin waits to resolve the situation by force, the more difficult the task will be.
“The aim, of the unfolding events, – is an internal Slavic war, the final solution to the Russian question.”
The events in Ukraine and around the Crimea – “dust” from a long-running project – are part of a plan to eliminate Russia as the only barrier to the North Atlantic elites scheme to dominate the world. Those are the deductions of Andrew Fursov, the director of the Centre of the Russian Studies of MGU (Moscow State University), the director of the Systematic-Strategic analysis Institute, the scholar of the International Academy of Science (Austria), the main editor of the magazine “Востоковедение и африканистика” (“Orientalism and Africanism”), an often guest lecturer in European and American Universities.
(This is a slightly earlier interview with A.I.Fursov, but it goes into a lot more detail about the events in Ukraine. Please note that half a year has passed, and he was right and accurate, about the events which had already happened and are still unfolding – MR)
Q: Andrey Iliych, the main geopolitical question of today is the Russian geopolitics in Ukraine. Let’s start our conversation with the analysis of that situation. What happened there?
A: The situation in Ukraine, I would put on a par with the situation in Syria. And if the Syrian question was met with conflicting views – the leaders of the world Capitalism, the Elite, did not want an escalation of the conflict in Syria and its transformation into a regional war – the Ukrainian question was met by the West as one. It is obvious that, economically, Ukraine is of no interest to the northern-Atlantic Elite. It is, rather, a geopolitical necessity to tear Ukraine from Russia, to turn it into an anti-Russian foothold.
The separation of Ukraine, from Russia, is a long-time geopolitical project of the West – Germans, Britons, Americans. We often quote the words of Zbignew Brzezinski: “deprived of the reunion with Ukraine, Russia is not destined to reclaim the status of a great power”. “Long Zbig” is wrong: Russia can reclaim that status without Ukraine, but it will be more difficult and take longer. The thing is, Brzezinski is not original; he repeats the words of a German General Paul Rohrbach, who stated, in the beginning of the XX century: “to diminish the threat of Russia to Europe, and especially to Germany, you must completely remove Ukrainian Russia from Muscovy Russia”. Please note that to a German General both – Ukraine and Muscovy – are Russia; and he speaks of creating an internal, Russian, split. He evokes the ideas of the German politicians of the last third of the XIX century, principally Otto Eduard Leopold von Bismarck-Schönhausen, who not only insisted on the necessity of such a split, but defined the means.
Many German politicians outlined the need to oppose Ukraine to Russia, incite the people; in order to do so, it is necessary to cultivate, among the Russian Ukrainians, people with a consciousness, so perverse, that they will begin to hate everything Russian. Thus, it was the psycho-historical operation, with information and psychological sabotage aimed at the creation of Slavic-Russophobes as a psycho-cultural type and a political power. Edakii Orcs in the service of Western Saruman . They were to sever Ukraine from Russia and to oppose it, as a final “anti-Russian Russ”, as a “free and democratic” alternative to the Empire. All this was originally moulded as a Galician project, which was worked on, first, by Austro-Hungarian intelligence and Kaiser’s Germany; then taken over by the Third Reich and inherited, in the second half of the XX century, by the CIA and the BND.
After the “Orange Revolution” (in 2004) it appeared, to the West, that the task was almost complete – but they were wrong. By the end of 2013 it again appeared so; it seemed that the EU clamp was firmly around Yanukovych’s neck, tightening over Ukraine. But, the position of Russia (and possibly, China) played a lead role, and Yanukovych, deciding on his own, unknown, game, bolted. It was at this instant that the West wrote-off, firstly, Yanukovych, and, secondly, the peaceful “Orange” path of separating Ukraine from Russia. Instead they bet on the “Banderovtsy”, on the Ukrainian neo-Nazi Russophobes; the product of that very psycho-historical operation, started by the Germans one hundred and fifty years ago. Then during the second world war, the Nazis picked up the baton, creating the “Galichina” SS Division, and since 1990 ‘s, the heirs of the Third Reich – the Americans – were to establish a new world order (what a coincidence terminology!).
During the current situation with Ukraine, the USA and the EU showed a clear, unashamed demonstration of double standards, hypocrisy and Russophobia. That is the only explanation for their “tolerant” behaviour towards the Ukrainian Nazis, who marched through the streets of Kiev, to the SS mantras. The logic is simple: if the Ukrainian Nazis (and the Baltic ones) are against Russia, let them be. On the other hand, this is nothing new for the Americans. Actively aided by the Russophobic Vatican throughout 1945-46, they did everything to get the Nazis away from justice (even those guilty of “war crimes”); to smuggle them into USA or Latin America, and actively utilise them against the USSR. The Ukrainian events are a clear example, of who we are dealing with.
Q: Who exactly are we dealing with?
A: In Kiev, on the 19-21 of February, there occurred a Bandera neo-Nazi revolt, inspired by the collective West, primarily by the US. It was the Americans, who exploited the stupidity and greed of Yanukovych (and his entourage), who altered the situation, by halting the anti-terrorist operation of the Ukrainian government at the start. If the operation had been given the green light, Maidan would have been over (as it had already began to dissolve). But the result was as it happened. The long years of work of the US intelligence with the Ukrainian leaders, who keep their money in the American banks, with the SBU (the Ukrainian secret service), with the Bandera underground, which was reinvented and activated, paid off.
It is significant that during the two deciding days, the American ambassador took on the “role” of the Rada (Parliament) Speaker, dictating the conditions to the leaders of the “nezalezhnoi” (independent) Ukraine. But, how can we even mention the constitutional “nezalezhnost” (independence)? The quasi-state of Ukraine has always been prominently steered by the external influence; here, such was revealed most visibly, cynically and impudently. It was done so to demonstrate who runs the “show” – and who steers the events – of the Rada (Parliament) and of Maidan; to demonstrate whose will directs the neo-Nazi scum. The American-Bandera revolt could prominently change the geopolitical situation in Eastern Europe, Eurasia and the world.
Q: But, did the Kiev protest not represent the real, honest, discontent of Yanukovich’s regime?
A: Yanukovich’s clan, without a doubt, is mafia-oligopolistic. But the West – and the pro-western powers within the Ukraine – abused, for self-profit, the natural discontent of the Ukrainian population.
Q: What are their aims?
A: At a minimum, the creation of a West Slavic Bandera neo-Nazi Reich. A constant pressure upon Russia, with numerous methods of provocation, including sabotage. And, if receiving an adequate response – replicating in the world’s media the image of ” a free and democratic Ukraine, which is being molested by the imperially motivated Russia. In short, poor little Ukraine – a victim of the big Russia, following the proven Yugoslavian scheme: “poor Albanians – victims of the evil Serbs”.
A maximum program, identical to the one in 1930’s, with the creation of the German Nazi Reich: the creation of a force, which, if necessary for the West, will take on the deciding role in a war with Russia, resulting in a maximum Russian exhaustion, self-destruction. In other words, the final solution to the Slavic/Russian question, carried out by the Slav/Russians themselves, with a subsequent division of Russia/northern Eurasia and the allocation of the natural resources and land. It must be remembered: the current separation of Ukraine from Russia is planned to result in an opposition, to pressure or to punch Russia with the strength of the Bandera neo-Nazi regime.
This, among other factors (such as the power struggle among the American leadership, Obama’s shaky position after the stale 2013, the American-German disagreements, the Chinese games in Eastern Europe and so on), is the USA’s reply to the actions of Russia, during 2013. It appears that they (the current administration and the clans behind it), obliged to save face, are commencing active action. The elections are in two years’ time, and the Democrats desperately don’t want to leave the White House, meaning that Obama is forced to work for the next, probably white, President. Whoever that will be – maybe Madam Clinton (who spent the whole of December 2012 fuming over the Customs Union, claiming it to be the re-Sovietisation of the post-Soviet territory and demanding that the US must oppose it with all means), Biden or someone else – is of no importance. What is of importance is the fact that Russia should not expect anything pleasant from this segment of the American Elite, while an attack is possible.
But, as the heroes of the movie “Chapaev” stated about the enemy attack: “Psychic? Screw it, let’s go mental.” On paper, everything was smooth. History – is Queen of the insidious; it is enough to remember how it ended for those, fuelled by the desire to find a permanent solution to the Russian question. This is not to mention the fact that there is East and South-East of Ukraine.
Q: Could it be that you are exaggerating?
A: I’d really love to be wrong, I want time to prove that I was exaggerating. Never the less, I have spent decades studying the international power struggle, information and resources; analysing the aims and the actions of the north-Atlantic Elites. I repeat: Russia, even in its current state, is still the only obstacle in the way of the full world domination, the creation of a “New World Order”. This is why one of the last commanders of the Soviet intelligence, Leonid Shebarshin, stated: “the West needs one thing from Russia: for it not to exist.” Strategically, geo-historically – to not exist. In order to organise such “non-existence” a battering-ram is needed – like Hitler. That is why we must always be ready for an attack: we have been warned. I would rather exaggerate and be wrong, than to allow for a repeat of the 22nd of June 1941; especially, taking into account the fact that, the northern-Atlantic Elites are an enemy much more dangerous than Hitler, with his Third Reich, who ended up alone, and opposed by almost the whole world. Today, we are the ones alone and opposed by, almost, the whole world; the RF (Russian Federation) is not the USSR, not so in terms of economic potential, and not so – most importantly, in the quality of the human resource.
Q: How do you see Ukraine after the collapse of Yanukovich’s regime?
A: Ruins. Nothing else is possible. A Partly destroyed, partly repressed, partly exiled Russian population. The infrastructure destroyed, the land bought by the West and, to a smaller extend, by China. It’s theoretically possible for a commotion, which will end with overturn of the Bandera regime. But, it is hard to overthrow the regime, which is sustained by the West. That was possible, when USSR existed in the world – a second Super Power, which could have supported the weaker of our world, the underdogs, in their struggle against the strong; against the iron foot of the “bourgeoisie”.
A more probable outcome: the regime and the West will attempt to direct the social rage of the masses at the eastern neighbour, declaring it to be the source of all sorrow, lashed by the, supposed, “whip of the Russian Empire”, “Soviet Totalitarism” and so on. Regrettably, the bout for Ukraine is lost, and most shabbily. Our ambassadors worked with the Ukrainian oligarchs, chasing their own gain, completely forgetting about the people, the population, some pro-Russian – for the dollar fogs the mind. At the same time the West worked with both, the oligarchs and the most active representatives of the anti-Russian forces, layers, groups. It was those groups that became the “Jokers”, with which the West beat the, so-called, pro-Russian oligarchs and their envoy, Yanukovych, with a criminal past.
Yet, I will repeat: history – is a cruel Queen. Everything can go by a different scenario. The future is not foretold, it is created from the struggle, from the collision of will and strength; thus, it depends on us, on our actions. Losing the bout, is not the same as losing the match, the match continues. But, to win, or, at least not to lose, merciless effort has to be applied to right the mistakes, to clean house. The loss of the “Ukrainian bout” is the result of internal problems, internal instability.
Q: You say the bout for Ukraine is lost. What about the Russian army in the Crimean territory?
A: The decision of the Russian administration, particularly Putin, completely destroys the scenario of the evolvement of the Bandera neo-Nazi revolt in Ukraine, inspired by the West, primarily by the USA. From that, we can state that the “face” of “Sasha Belyj” (Alexander Muzychko, a known Nazi, part of the post-revolt Ukrainian government, used to attend parliament meetings with an AK, was murdered, shot in the heart, 10 days after this interview – MR) is the reflection of President Obama and all those in the West, who pushed the neo-Nazis into power. Once the power was seized in Kiev, the radicals, after banning the use of the Russian language in their first Act, planned – reinforced and aided by the West – to push the Russian east and south-east into submission, onto their knees. But, it turned out that those regions had support, serious support – Russia. It turns out that a country, which has defeated Nazism before, stood-up to the neo-Nazis’ attempt at a Russian genocide.
The suppression of the east and south-east (it would have followed the same pattern, which was utilised to overpower the Serbs during the Yugoslavian affair, only the Albanians, who acted from below the NATO shields, would have been replaced by the western Ukrainians) is utterly necessary to the northern-Atlantic Elite – for they want the whole of Ukraine, not only the western part. Because, the western part alone is completely pointless, and can be used only as a second Kosovo.
This is why, the Russian position has enraged the western leaders, who, in turn, are not actually capable of any serious harm; only the winding up of the nerves, provocations, petty deceits and so forth. The words of Obama and Co, are lined with impotent fury. They wanted Russia to step aside and watch, to observe how the Russians would be stomped, how the Slavic neo-Nazi Reich would be formed on her western border. It is most educational to observe that the majority of the Russian Federation population supports the actions of the government. The majority, from which a small, but very loud, group is excluded: the “fifth column”, the one that started hissing straight away.
In general, the situation in Ukraine, and around it, perfectly exposes the “fifth column” – her vileness, her intellectual and professional squalor. An expert surfaced, from the Carnegie Fund, and began squeaking that all this reminds him of the arrival of the troops in Afghanistan. What does Afghanistan have to do with this? Did Afghanistan, prior to the introduction of the Soviet troops, house a Bandera neo-Nazi revolt, and did the persecution of the Russians begin? Was Afghanistan, inhabited by the citizens of Russia (then of the USSR)? Where is the logic? It appears that logic is redundant for an expert, the main thing is that the American “masters” heard him bark, loud and timely. On the other hand, if I were in place of the “owners”, I would have cut the pay cheque, of such a “servant”; how could an expert, so stupidly “guard” the interests of those who’d hired him? He should be more graceful, more meticulous.
That is the problem of the “fifth column”. You listen to their argumentation and wonder: are they that unprofessional or are we dealing with a basic case of imbecility?
One more question, why does our country still accommodate institutions such as the Carnegie Fund? Why is an agency, clearly of a foreign influence, so comfortable in our country? Yes, they are mostly rude and counterproductive, but it is a matter of principle. But, back to the surface. For example an outdated singer. Proudly announcing that our army, in the Ukraine, will nosedive, like it did in Czechoslovakia. Unfortunate, weak man, go read a book, if you can still read. The Soviet Army established control over Czechoslovakia (the third strongest army of Europe, following the USSR and East Germany) in 36 hours, with minimal losses – of its own and civilian ones. That operation was studied as a model in NATO centres. The current crisis will require trimming the “fifth column” of the media; you need to put hard political and legal barriers to its operations. And ignore the hypocritical cries of those who wallowed in the blood of Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, many countries, with blood, and are ready to drown Ukraine.
Overall, the West is increasingly interested in the Russian situation, in the post-Soviet region. Do they not have their own problems? If so, maybe such should be arranged? Why does the West operate, unpunished, in our zone? Why shouldn’t we start doing, what the Soviet Union did, actively working the foreign zones? Considering that there are more than enough feeble locations.
In any outcome, the Ukrainian crisis, provoked by the West to the backdrop of the national discontent with Yanukovich’s regime, is a marker in the history of Europe, Eurasia and international relations. The era, which started in 1991 with the August provocation and the betraying “belovezhskij” agreement (Belovezha Accords), is coming to an end. A new era is dawning. You can’t run away from time – and why would you? Time must be met, face first.
And, most of all, you must protect your own, fight for them, as Alexander Nevskij would have said “for friends of yours”. In the given situation, not only “for friends”, but for yourself – for the Russian existence and self-sufficiency in history.
The announcement by Barack Obama on July 31st to appoint John F. Tefft as the new U.S. ambassador to Russia is a warning to the Russian government of the intensions of western foreign policy planners. Tefft, who has worked for the State Department and the National War College in Washington, is an expert at planning colour revolutions to overthrow regimes targeted by the western elite. He is the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine where he was a key architect in preparing the Washington orchestrated coup in Kiev.
Colour revolutions are based upon a fusion of the Rand Corporations “swarming” technique invented in the 1960’s and Professor Gene Sharp’s guide to nonviolent struggle in the 1990’s. Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) act as an extension of western intelligence agencies to create artificial revolutionary movements in countries that oppose Anglo-American hegemony through the use of social networks and text messaging, resulting in the overthrow of unfavorable regimes. They always appear as organic demonstrations by a people against a corrupt ruling class, which is reinforced and sometimes manufactured by the mainstream corporate media, but in reality they are organised by foreign NGOs – like in the case of the Centre for Applied Nonviolent Actions and Strategies (CANVAS), a U.S supported Serbian based “revolution consultancy” group, which was operating in Ukraine during 2013-14. The 2000 coup in Serbia, the 2003 Rose Revolution in Georgia and the 2004 Orange Revolution in Ukraine are some of the most notorious coups where this technique has been used.
Along with fellow regime changing organisations such as George Soros’s Open Society Foundation (OSF) and U.S. Agency for International Development (U.S. AID), NED controls proxy organisations across the globe. One Russian based organisation is the ‘Freedom of Information Foundation’ (FIF), which was founded by Ivan Pavlov and is based in St. Petersburg, whose chief supporters are NED, OSF and U.S. Aid. On 19th August, the Russian government expelled the wife of Pavlov due to Russian allegations of her promoting the “overthrow of the constitutional order”. Putin himself has acknowledged the threat to Russian security presented by western NGOs in a speech to the Federal Security Service (FSB) in April, asserting than many NGOs serve “foreign national interests”. U.S. Aid was also expelled from Russia in 2012 due to what the Russian foreign ministry said were “attempts to influence political processes through its grants”.
Relations between Russia and the west are at their most strained since the height of the Cold War, with the Russian President coming under relentless attack by U.S. and EU politicians over Ukraine – Hilary Clinton went as far as to compare Putin to Hitler. It is clear that the western elite are determined to overthrow Putin in Moscow, and replace him with a more subservient, pliant and less nationalist leader who will be more willing to bow to the dictates of Washington, London and Brussels.
Putin’s Russia provides a counterweight to Anglo-American hegemony, although he has flirted with the western elite on occasion. I am no apologist for Putin or the Kremlin but the west has clearly been the belligerent force on the international stage since the collapse of the Soviet Union. The eastward expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) into former Warsaw Pact countries as part of a wider strategy of encircling Russia is a highly provocative tactic.
In a recent article titled ‘The Dangerous Mr. Putin’, neo-con war hawk and former State Department official David J. Kramer blames Putin for the crisis in Ukraine and he asserts that: “This makes Putin, and now even Russia, a serious threat”. Kramer is the President of Freedom House, an organisation which is connected to NED and has been involved in numerous colour revolutions across the planet in the past.
A Colour Revolution in Russia?
There is no doubt that western strategists have been considering instigating a second colour revolution in Russia, after the first attempt to meddle in Russian internal affairs failed in the run up to the 2012 presidential elections. In an article by French intellectual and the founder of Voltaire Network, Thierry Meyssan, he emphasises the importance of the relationship between Putin and Prime Minister, Dmitry Medvedev, in order to ensure Russia’s stability:
“It will be important for President Vladimir Putin to be able to trust his prime minister, Dmitry Medvedev, whom Washington hoped to recruit to overthrow him.”
Medvedev may be the weak link within the Russian establishment as he was the chair of the Institute of Contemporary Development Board of Trustees in 2008, an organisation that is part of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)’s ‘Council of Councils’ program. If Medvedev is still part of this organisation it could prove decisive in the coming years, as the CFR is America’s pre-eminent think tank which is filled with State Department and CIA officials.
Meyssan also links to a video by a Russian politician Evgeny Fedorov, titled: There will be a Maidan in St. Petersburg. Fedorov states that St. Petersburg has been targeted by the west as a strategic weak spot in Russia where unrest can be fomented and manufactured, with the Governor elections in September a potential opportunity to trigger protests:
“2-3 weeks ago the U.S. ambassador held a closed meeting in one of the theatres in Moscow, where he openly said the first blow will be struck in St. Petersburg during the elections in September.”
If protests erupt over the next few months or years in Russia, the source of the demonstrations and the nature of the NGOs working in the region will have to be closely investigated considering the history of organisations such as NED.
In its desire to topple Syrian President Bashar Assad, the US channeled arms and funds to the Syrian rebels, many of whom splintered off and formed the Islamic State, which is now giving the US far more problems than it had bargained for.
One year ago, it seemed certain that Washington would launch a military strike on Syria, bringing to its knees yet another undesirable government in the Middle East. However, at the eleventh hour, an incredible thing happened: President Barack Obama requested approval from Congress before using military force in Syria. While some were tempted to applaud the Democratic leader for doing something as radical as upholding the US Constitution, other factors played a role in the decision.
AFP Photo / Ahmad AL-Rubaye
One of the most convincing reasons for Obama balking on war (aside from Britain politely excusing itself from the expedition) could be summed up by damning comments by Texas Senator Ted Cruz, who famously remarked that the US military should not be serving as “Al-Qaeda’s air force.”
“We should be focused on defending the United States of America. That’s why young men and women sign up to join the military, not to, as you know, serve as Al-Qaeda’s air force.”
Suddenly, the American public was forced to fathom the unfathomable: In Syria the US was lending support to the rebels that were getting help from the same terrorist organization that attacked Manhattan and Washington on Sept. 11, killing some 3,000 citizens.
Needless to say, the political stakes involved in advocating on behalf of the Al-Qaeda-linked Syrian rebels suddenly got a lot riskier.
The Texas Senator said that of nine militant groups fighting against Syrian government forces “at least seven had direct connections to Al-Qaeda.” Arming and funding known terrorists in Syria “makes no sense whatsoever,” he said.
Cruz then reminded his colleagues on the basic rules of foreign policy.
“I’ll give you one of the simplest principles of foreign policy that we ought to be following: Don’t give weapons to people who hate you. Don’t give weapons to people who want to kill you.”
Reuters / Osama Al-dulaimi
Cruz’s comments attracted the wrath of American hawks, most notably from Republican Sen. John McCain, who last May secretly flew to Syria to meet with rebel leaders, including General Salem Idriss of the Free Syrian Army. McCain, suddenly characterized in the same league as Al-Qaeda, slammed Cruz’s claims as “totally uninformed.”
However, it was not only the Republicans, of course, beating the war drum for military action in Syria. Last year, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton went on record as saying: “We will work with like-minded states to support the Syrian opposition to hasten the day when Assad falls.”
Ultimately, critics of America’s activities in Syria proved right. Supporting the Syrian rebels without understanding the true nature and character of these individuals marked yet another US foreign policy setback in the region.
Islamic State rising
Almost overnight, many of the Syrian rebels – some of them Al-Qaeda members – working to overthrow the Assad regime broke away and formed what has come to be known as the Islamic State of Syria and the Levant, or Islamic State (IS) for short.
The dramatic rise of this group almost defies belief, but apparently its willingness to use extreme forms of violence explains part of their sudden popularity.
On the other hand, IS is said to be so cruel and vicious that it managed to get disavowed by Ayman al-Zawahiri, the leader of Al-Qaeda, the very same group of terrorists that thought nothing of flying commercial aircraft into the World Trade Center and Pentagon.
The latest victim of IS’ cruelty was James Foley, a freelance journalist who disappeared in Syria in November 2012. On August 19, a video briefly surfaced entitled, “A Message to America” that showed Foley kneeling at an unknown desert location. After delivering a brief statement that is critical of the United States government, the video fades out as an alleged IS militant is seen dragging a knife across Foley’s neck.
It should be mentioned that some analysts have questioned the legitimacy of the IS video on several accounts, namely the apparent censorship of the beheading: If IS is indeed so cruel and vicious why was the actual moment of the beheading concealed? Also, no Arabic is spoken in the video. Foley’s captor and apparent executioner delivers a brief address in the English language, which might be understandable since some IS members hail from Britain. And why is the video not of the grainy, shaky sort usually put out; why is it so polished? It is questions like these that have caused some to believe the video was a carefully staged event, although few doubt that Foley was indeed executed.
However, such questions are not hurting the membership drive of IS: according to one of Iraq’s most respected security experts the number of Islamic State recruits is much higher than that estimated by foreign observers – around 100,000. Foreign estimates put the figure between 20,000 and 50,000.
Meanwhile, the US government is tracking as many as 300 Americans reportedly in the ranks of Islamic State. Washington has expressed concern that these radicalized civilians could become a risk to the US if they return home with skills learned overseas to carry out attacks, anonymous US officials said, according to the Washington Times.
Reuters / Osama Al-dulaimi
“We know that there are several hundred American passport holders running around with ISIS in Syria or Iraq,” a senior US official said. “It’s hard to tell whether or not they’re in Syria or moved to Iraq.”
“ISIS now presents itself as an ideologically superior alternative to Al-Qaeda within the jihadi community and it has publicly challenged the legitimacy of Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri,” said Charles Lister, a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution, in a paper last month. “As such it has increasingly become a transnational movement with immediate objectives far beyond Iraq and Syria.”
The reason for the surge is that IS is quite effective at swallowing up other insurgent groups.
“[The] Islamic State didn’t come from nowhere,” according to Hisham al-Hashimi, who advises Iraq’s intelligence services and analyzes information gathered on the ground. The organization “is an extension of groups that existed before – historically and ideologically,” al-Hashimi told Mashable.
If the Islamic State’s sensational rise to power sounds familiar, that’s because it is. Back in the 1970s, the United States armed and trained the mujahedeen in Afghanistan to help fight against Soviet troops in the decade-long Afghanistan War (Dec. 1979 to Feb. 1989). Those fierce fighters, under the leadership of Osama bin Laden, eventually morphed into Al-Qaeda, which turned out to be the first foreign adversary of the United States to launch a successful attack on the US mainland.
Now IS too has threatened to bring the war to America’s front door.
A backdoor to war into Syria?
Ironically, the explosive rise of IS across a wide swath of Iraq and Syria is handing the Obama administration an opportunity for doing what it could not do one year earlier: Open a military offensive in Syria. Following the reports of decapitated Christian babies, and the beheading of the American James Foley, it will be harder for critics like Ted Cruz to question a military operation against IS – even in Syria.
In fact, the US media seems to be priming the American public for yet another Syrian showdown: “The Pentagon began preparing options for an assault on Islamic State fighters after the militants last week posted a gruesome video showing the beheading of American photojournalist James Foley. Deliberations by Obama’s national security team on expanding the campaign against Islamic State from Iraq into neighboring Syria gathered pace in recent days,” Reuters reported on Thursday, quoting unnamed officials.
“From unmanned armed drones to powerful Stealth bombers, a wide range of U.S. airpower is at Obama’s disposal, including possible missiles fired from warships at sea or from aircraft flying outside Syria’s borders.”
The obvious question is: Will a US military attack on IS positions in northern Syria eventually snowball into a full-blown war with Syria? President Assad has already warned that any foreign military actions on the territory of his country will be considered an act of war.
And that may be exactly what the hawks in Washington want to hear.
Robert Bridge is author of the book,Midnight in the American Empire, which discusses the dangerous consequences of extreme corporate power in the United States.
When Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 went down on July 17, 2014, we were immediately inundated with base propaganda trying to convince us that the shootdown could be traced back to the Kremlin. But what was this rush to judgement based on? What have we learned about the crash since then? Why has MH17 completely disappeared from the news cycle? And who really stood to benefit from the disaster? Find out the answers to these questions and more in this week’s edition of The Corbett Report.
Washington supported the Free Syria rebels who aligned themselves with the terrorist group called Al-Nusra to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad,
Then the Syrian rebels and other groups in Iraq form another terrorist organization who call themselves the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).
The consequences of Washington’s policies of aiding the Syrian rebels including ISIS have served a purpose. ISIS has spread to both Syria and Iraq gaining territory. ISIS has claimed it has executed 250 Syrian soldiers last weekend as they seized an airbase in the province of Raqqa.
Washington considers the advancement of ISIS a threat to its national security. As reported by the Associated Press, US surveillance planes were already deployed to pinpoint specific targets. The article titled ‘US surveillance planes fly over Syria, officials say’ stated that
“Two U.S. officials said Monday that Obama had approved the flights, while another U.S. official said early Tuesday that they had begun. The officials were not authorized to discuss the matter by name, and spoke only on condition of anonymity.”
Army Gen. Martin Dempsey did not comment on surveillance flights currently in use but did say that “Clearly the picture we have of ISIS on the Iraqi side is a more refined picture,” said Dempsey, using one of the acronyms for the Islamic State group. “The existence and activities of ISIS on the Syrian side, we have … some insights into that but we certainly want to have more insights into that as we craft a way forward.” Obama’s rationale is that ISIS is a direct threat to American citizens after the public execution of photojournalist James Foley. Republicans are willing to give the Obama administration an authorization to take military action against ISIS in Syrian territory. Historically, Both Republicans and Democrats have always agreed on foreign policy issues, especially when war is on the agenda:
Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee, ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, said Tuesday the administration “has not yet shared with us what their plans are.” He said he hoped the White House would go to the Congress with a request for an authorization to act.
“I think it’s our responsibility as elected officials to let the American people know where we stand with respect to national security matters,” Corker told MSNBC. “For the American people’s sake, Congress should weigh in. Congress should be a part of it”
Rest assured, Congress would vote for military action against Syria. They have an agenda that is multi faceted. First, it supports weapon’s manufacturers such as Boeing, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin and Raytheon in a time of war. An online guide to campaign contributions that influence politicians’ called opensecrets.org states that there were 227 Republicans and 188 Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives and 49 Democrats and 40 Republicans that received funding from the defense industry. Second, the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) has an interest in removing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad because of his diplomatic relations with several of Israel’s enemies including Iran.
Washington also has a keen interest of having a military presence in the Middle East to control the natural resources including oil and gas. Washington and its corporate partners want its military to stay in the Middle East for the long term. By supporting Israel (a U.S. watchdog in the region) and having their military bases in key areas in close proximity to oil producing facilities, it would guarantee the import of natural resources into US and European markets. China would then have limited capacity to obtain natural resources it needs for its economy. Now Washington’s favorite enemy, ISIS is in the picture. The Obama administration will obviously use this crisis as a way to prepare US forces for a future “blitzkrieg” against Assad’s forces. According to the Daily Beast, A mainstream media online news source stated the following:
One former senior U.S. diplomat who has consulted with the administration on the ISIS threat told The Daily Beast that he would expect Obama to be presented with an option similar to Vice President Joe Biden’s favored policy from 2010 for Afghanistan known then as counter-terrorism plus. This kind of approach would be a drone and air campaign against ISIS targets in Syria. The United States has conducted drone and airstrikes in Yemen, Pakistan, Iraq, Somalia, and Afghanistan. But in all of these cases the host government has requested them. This week, Syria’s foreign minister warned the United States not to enter Syrian air space
According to the Associated Press, Obama is concerned that if he orders airstrikes against ISIS, it would weaken the US position to topple the Assad government, because on the international stage it would solidify the fact that the U.S. and Syria has partnered to take out a common enemy “Administration officials have said a concern for Obama in seeking to take out the Islamic State inside Syria is the prospect that such a move could unintentionally help embattled Syrian President Bashar Assad.”
But it would also become an act of aggression on Syrian territory. The Obama administration has publically stated that it would not ask the Syrian government for permission to enter its air space. Why? Maybe Washington wants to raise tensions with the Assad government? “A top Syrian official said Monday any U.S. airstrikes without consent from Syria would be considered an aggression” the AP report said. It also stated the fact that “The Islamic State is among the groups seeking Assad’s ouster, along with rebel forces aided by the U.S.” So ISIS and the U.S. government has a common enemy?
Now let get this straight. Originally the Obama administration has repeatedly called for the removal of the Assad government. The Obama administration has consistently supported the Syrian rebels to remove Assad, but has failed because the Syrian government defeated the Western backed Free Syrian Army (FSA). Another question is why would the Syrian government allow the US to battle ISIS on its territory? Syria is more than capable of defeating ISIS as it did with the Syrian rebels. The Obama administration will not ask the Assad government for permission to launch airstrikes in Syria. Now let’s see who the enemies of all parties involved are. First, the U.S. Government’s enemy is clearly the Assad government who was recently re-elected by a majority of the people. ISIS is an enemy of the U.S. and the U.S. is an enemy of ISIS, especially after the brutal beheading of James Foley made it somewhat clear. Syria’s enemy is the U.S. government who has destabilized many areas of Syria resulting in the deaths of at least 160,000 people. The US has aided the FSA which resulted in the creation of Al-Nusra and ISIS, all considered enemies of Syria. Now all terrorist organizations operating in Iraq and Syria are supposedly enemies of each other. Lebanon’s Daily Star reported this past May that:
Al-Nusra Front and ISIS have in recent months fought intense, bloody battles against each other, particularly in eastern Syria on the border with Iraq. “We will follow the orders of… Ayman al-Zawahiri… to stop any attack from our side against ISIS, while continuing to respond whenever they attack Muslims and all that is sacred to them,” Al-Nusra said in a statement.
“The enemy of my enemy is my friend” is hard to comprehend. Syria is the enemy of the U.S. government and its terrorist organizations it has supported over the years. In this case, who is the enemy and who is the friend? The U.S. does not have a real friend in this fight because it already has what it wants, instability. All parties are expendable as we clearly seen with U.S. airstrikes targeting ISIS in Iraq. Washington has friends in the Middle East, and that is Israel and the Gulf state dictatorships. Syria is back in the spotlight. Washington is determined to oust the Assad government and create a fragmented state as they did to Libya. By supporting Israel and its Gulf states allies including Turkey and Jordan militarily and economically, U.S. interests would be secure. In a sense, it is order out of chaos.
The West is trying to turn the Russian humanitarian aid convoy “… into a duplicitous dangerous act because it would better fit with the kind of scenario that they have been putting forth about Russia being a predator or being the provocateur,” says renowned author Dr. Michael Parenti, a political scientist from Yale University, a historian, and a cultural critic, in an interview with Radio VR.
Dr. Parenti is the author of over 23 books whose works have been translated into 18 languages. He has given frequent lectures all over the world on a wide range of subjects and is the author of a college level political science textbook. Dr. Parenti’s working class roots may have figured into his motivation to be a defender of the little guy, the exploited and the victims of empire. He has proven himself to be a champion of the truth and a consistent defender of the underdog.
The Russian Federation recently sent a convoy of 270 trucks (with another convoy scheduled to depart in the near future) carrying more than 200,000 tons of humanitarian aid to provide much needed relief to the civilian population of the besieged Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics. Dr. Parenti stated that: “The caravan proved to be full of peaceful materials (food and medicine and things like that) and that doesn’t look good from their view. Their goal is to try to make the Russians look as bad as possible, to justify their own aggression against the eastern Ukrainian people and the Republic they tried to set up.”
The humanitarian mission and the Russian Emergency Situations Ministry (EMERCOM) met with an unprecedented icy reaction from the West. EMERCOM has even helped the United States on several occasions. The accusations levied at the relief trucks ranged from “covert weapons supplies” to “outright invasion”. Dr. Parenti believes that Kiev is attempting to “pacify” the eastern regions and “the way to pacify them is to terrorize them into submission.” All the while, the West has been saying: “… it is the Russians who are aggressing and who are threatening and who have these big terrible white trucks that may destroy us all!”
Russia’s humanitarian aid convoy leaves Izvarino border crossing point, moves to Luhansk
Members of the western media have even attempted to shed an ominous light on “empty space” in trailers, obviously showing their ignorance that trucks have a certain weight limit (approximately 40 metric tons). A trailer filled with toilet paper would be packed to the roof but one with baby food would only be loaded with pallets about waist high. Dr. Parenti shrugged off the idea that the trucks may be covertly supplying weapons, saying: “… the tanks and the artillery and the firepower and the white phosphate bombs, which burn people to pieces if they get touched by the stuff, all of that is being provided by Kiev.”
Dr. Michael Parenti, a political scientist from Yale University, a historian, and a cultural critic
While discussing the situation in Ukraine which he characterizes as the overthrowing of a “democratically elected government” with “a new government put in with Nazi and Right Wing groups playing a central role,” Dr. Parenti mentions
“… a memo from the Rand Corporation that was circulating among the Ukrainians and the Kiev Group that said things like: ‘… you move in on the people, cut off their electricity and water, try to discourage their food supplies and yes you may have to use and you will use non-conventional weapons.’”
Dr. Parenti says Kiev has done all of these things including the use of white phosphorous. He says:
“… the Rand Corporation is a ‘think tank’ that is in the pay of the Pentagon which comes up with suggestions and operational plans,” and that they (RAND): “… talked about what is to be done in this situation, and they have been doing it, using heavy artillery, heavy armor and they have been very destructive of various eastern towns.”
The reckless tactics of the Kiev military are touched upon by Dr. Parenti who says:
“They are not discriminating between armed soldiers and civilians and are rounding up any people who show signs of fighting, if they have any burns or bruises on their hands…”
He says we are seeing a “very mean spirited and brutal war against the Russian speaking eastern Ukrainians with almost 2,000 people having been killed and hundreds injured or made destitute after their homes have been blown up.”
The involvement of NATO in Ukraine is a topic which few talk about and in fact about which little is known and Dr. Parenti touchs on the issue by saying; “While this is going on (the punitive Kiev war) you have NATO waging a war of attrition against these people.”
Against the backdrop of the negative media campaign against the humanitarian convoys and the non-reporting of alternative narratives on the Ukraine crisis,
Dr. Parenti says that in the West
“We hear nothing from Putin. We never see a word of what he says, we never hear his statements or comments. All we have are these commentators speaking ironically and with alarm and disparaging tones” asks the question: “What exactly has Putin done that is so wicked and evil? He is not the one collaborating with Nazi groups. He isn’t the one who is killing eastern Ukrainians.”
Regarding Russian troops Dr. Parenti makes the point that if Russia was planning to invade there would be huge numbers not merely what is currently on the Russian border, as any country has the right to have troops on their own borders.
Dr. Parenti also says: “President Putin is not trying to dismember Ukraine but he has been giving some protection to people in eastern Ukraine, not just slaughtered out and out.”
The New York Times‘ Upshot section (8/26/14) put the headline “How Social Media Silences Debate” over a story about a new study that shows that the Internet “has diminished rather than enhanced political participation.”
Reporter Claire Caine Miller writes:
“Social media, like Twitter and Facebook, has the effect of tamping down diversity of opinion and stifling debate about public affairs.”
The study–or the Times recap, more to the point–is likely to get a lot of I-told-you-soattention from people who take a dim view of Twitter and the like. So it’s worth making two points.
For one, the study (Pew Research Internet Project, 8/26/14) is remarkably narrow, looking at whether people are hesitant about sharing differing political views with their family and friends. The survey asked about one topic–NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden–and apparently found that people said they were more likely to talk about government surveillance offline than online.
That’s right: There are people out there who might not want to talk on the Internet about the NSA’s surveillance powers–which include the ability to monitor what people are saying on the Internet.
The study’s authors note that at the time of the survey, the Snowden revelations were only about phone/email metadata–not specifically about monitoring the content of online communications, which came out in subsequent Snowden documents–so they don’t think it had a serious impact on the findings. They acknowledge, though, that “future research may provide insight into whether Americans have become more or less willing to discuss specific issues on- and offline as a result of government surveillance programs.”
In any event, I think it’s reasonable to say that it’s hard to draw very many conclusions from questions about this single topic.
But let’s ask the same question about a different kind of media–corporate media, such as the New York Times. What can we say about how it might be “tamping down diversity of opinion and stifling debate about public affairs”?
FAIR’s recent study of cable news shows a stunning lack of diversity. Our 2012 study of Sunday morning chat shows a strong tilt towards conservatives, white men and Republicans. The major op-ed pages strongly favor elite viewpoints. Unquestionably, radio talkshows are overwhelmingly dominated by conservative voices.
Discussions about major issues like immigration and the minimum wagealmost never include the people who are most affected by the policy debates. And that’s when they cover such issues at all; FAIR has found the major networks give scant time to covering issues like poverty.
We could go on like this for a while.
Using Twitter to get the message out from Ferguson
A more reasonable way to think about the political dialogue that happens in social media is that it expands the discussion to include voices and perspectives that are marginalized from corporate media. The events in Ferguson became national news afterTwitter–black Twitter, more specifically–drew attention to the case. For a more firsthand and unfiltered look at the Israeli attacks on Gaza, one had to go to Twitter.
It’s not hard to think of many similar examples of stories that bubbled up from social media to so-called “old” media.
The ability to share and produce journalism on the Internet is what draws so many people to it, and it is what has made Net Neutrality a galvanizing issue. Many of the millions of people who want to protect Internet freedom are so motivated because they don’t want the Internet to become like corporate media. And I suspect many of them would find it downright strange to argue that these new tools of communication are stifling debate.
Though perhaps not too surprising–coming from corporate media.
CNN just dropped the bomb many of us have been waiting for: pure denial. They have been waiting patiently for the journal – Transactional Neurodegeneration – which published the historical study on the link between autism and MMR vaccine to retract, redact and otherwise deny the truth of the study.
For the record, we contacted the editor-in-chief of Transactional Neurodegeneration, Professor Shengdi Chen tonight, with this communication:
Professor Shengdi Chen,
Your recent decision to remove Dr. Hooker’s article published in your journalTransactional Neurodegeneration online has been cause of great concern among stakeholders in the scientific, journalistic and legal community here in the U.S., due to a top CDC vaccine safety expert — William Thompson – confessing under the advice of legal counsel today that the CDC manipulated and/or omitted data used in Dr. Hooker’s study that falsified a link between African-American children and the diagnosis of autism in those receiving the MMR vaccine before 36 months of age versus those receiving it after 36 months.While it is feasible that you made the decision for scientific, ethical, and precautionary reasons, as you state on your journal’s website:
“This article has been removed from the public domain because of serious concerns about the validity of its conclusions. The journal and publisher believe that its continued availability may not be in the public interest. Definitive editorial action will be pending further investigation.”
…the decision raises concerns as to your culpability in a cover-up.
You should know that your decision is being perceived as a threat to the credibility of your journal and career as an esteemed scientist.
Given the legal implications of your decision to potentially collude with a now verified cover-up involving the falsification of scientific data related to vaccine science and autism, would you be willing to make a statement to defend your decision?
I have copied a wide range of legal, journalistic and scientific stakeholders in this communication, and hope you can clear up what appears to be a precautionary decision on your part, which I hope can be clarified in detail on your part.
Editor-in-Chief of Greenmedinfo.com
The CNN report, which while disturbing, is entirely consistent with their stance on promoting misinformation about the clearly documented dangers of vaccines, verifies the true gravity of this debacle.
They waited, patiently, to spin the story in a way that advocates for widespread, lemming-like obeyance to the CDC’s one-size-fits-all vaccination schedule, that has been linked to the U.S.’s abysmal infant mortality rate, not to mention burgeoning autism incidence, now afflicting 1 in every 68 children born in this country.
Tonight, we also sent the following communication to the Cheautism listserve, addressing our concerns about the link between the MMR and autism, titled “Confirmed: Wakefield/Hooker’s whistle blower and others at the CDC did falsify vaccine/autism data”:
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM W. THOMPSON, Ph.D., REGARDING THE 2004ARTICLEEXAMINING THE POSSIBILITY OF A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MMR VACCINE AND AUTISM
“My name is William Thompson. I am a Senior Scientist with the Centers for Disease Control andPrevention, where I have worked since 1998.
I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics. The omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism.
Decisions were made regarding which findings to report after the data were collected, and I believe that the final study protocol was not followed…
My concern has been the decision to omit relevant findings in a particular study for a particular sub group for a particular vaccine. There have always been recognized risks for vaccination and I believe it is the responsibility of the CDC to properly convey the risks associated with receipt of those vaccines.”
As those of you who have been following this unfolding story, covered only in the alternative media, are aware that there has not been a single mainstream or even hybrid media report on the topic thus far, adding to the growing suspicion that this coverup stretches far beyond the CDC to the global mainstream media. As revealed today, the very journal that published Dr. Hooker’s study on the 3.4 fold increase in risk of autism in African-American boys who received the MMR before 36 months of age vs. those who received it after 36 months – Transitional Neurodegeneration – removed the article entirely from its website, with the explanation:
This article has been removed from the public domain because of serious concerns about the validity of its conclusions. The journal and publisher believe that its continued availability may not be in the public interest. Definitive editorial action will be pending further investigation. [see journal comment]
Now that the link between MMR vaccine and autism has been thrust into public attention by one of the CDC’s own top vaccine scientists — at the very top of the evidence- and health authority food chain – and not just the growing number of parents who, after directly witnessing their infants or children undergo sudden neurodevelopmental regression during the most intense vaccination window in life (2-15 months) and who were subsequently slapped with an idiopathic, presumably genetically-based ‘autism’ or ‘autism spectrum disorder’ diagnosis by their pediatricians, the question must be refocused not on if but how the MMR vaccine causes autism.
Here are a few observations as to the cause:
MMR Vaccine May Cause Autoimmunity to the Central Nervous System: Since 2002, research began to emerge showing a clear link between MMR vaccine and the pathogenesis of autism, starting with a report published in the Journal of Biomedical Science showing that abnormal measles-mumps-rubella antibodies are linked to central nervous system (CNS) autoimmunity in children with autism.
The researchers hypothesized that autoimmunity to the CNS may play a causative role in autism, likely by causing the immune system to attack myelin basic protein (MBP) — the insulating sheath that protects the nerves — via a phenomenon known as molecular mimicry.
In order to prove this hypothesis, they took the blood serum of 125 autistic children and 92 control children who were tested for measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) and MBP autoantibodies – that is, antibodies that are directed not against pathogens but against self-structures. The study found the “presence of an unusual MMR antibody in 75 of 125 (60%) autistic sera but not in control sera.” This antibody was found to be immunopositive for a measles hemmagglutinin protein specific to the measles vaccine component of the MMR vaccine. They also found a strong association between MMR antibodies and CNS autoimmunity, noting “over 90% of MMR antibody-positive autistic sera were also positive for MBP autoantibodies.” The study concluded that autoimmune-mediated CNS damage could explain how MMR causes autism:
Stemming from this evidence, we suggest that an inappropriate antibody response to MMR, specifically the measles component thereof, might be related to pathogenesis of autism.”
Both Wild Type and Vaccine Strain Measles Can Cause Brain Damage
In 2009, a study published in the Annals of Clinical Psychiatry, analyzed the blood serum of autistic and normal children, as well as the cerebrospinal fluid of some autistic children. The results were reported as follows:
Many autistic children harbored brain myelin basic protein autoantibodies and elevated levels of antibodies to measles virus and measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine. Measles might be etiologically linked to autism because measles and MMR antibodies (a viral marker) correlated positively to brain autoantibodies (an autoimmune marker)–salient features that characterize autoimmune pathology in autism. Autistic children also showed elevated levels of acute-phase reactants–a marker of systemic inflammation.
The study clearly found that there is scientific evidence supporting virally driven (both via wild type and vaccine strain MMR) autoimmune mechanisms within a subset of autism patients – what they termed “autoimmune autistic disorder (AAD),” explained by the author’s speculative “neuroautoimmune (NAI) model for autism.” And that AAD can be identified through basic blood serum based immune tests.
MMR Vaccine May Cause Autoimmunity towards Gastrointestinal and Brain Targets
A 2003 paper published in Medical Hypotheses asked the question: “Does the MMR vaccine and secretin or its receptor share an antigenic epitope?” The researchers hypothesized that the MMR vaccine, which is believed responsible for causing a regressive autism-spectrum like condition in a subgroup of children, may produce autoantibodies that target secretin or its receptor, which is found in the gut as well as the brain, and would therefore cause both gastrointestinal distress and brain damage consistent with the “autistic entercolitis’ that Andrew Wakefield first identified in his subjects.
Obviously, this is only one of many potential mechanisms for MMR-caused or mediated autism pathogenesis. Another, commonly overlooked factor, which I would appreciate getting criticism or feedback on from the cheautism list community is:
Endogenous retroviruses (ERVs): the master seed stock for the MMR vaccine included cell lines – diploid and animal — which are now known to harbor a reservoir of proviruses capable of undergoing pathogenic reactivation into replication competent and virulent ERVs both through chemical (e.g. formaldehyde) and radiation exposure (e.g. gamma radiation) and through the attenuation process itself, which requires serial passage of the intended vaccine virulence factor – e.g. measles, rubella – through a wide range of biological fluids and cell types, providing ample opportunity for recombination, human cell line adaption and surreptitious activation of pathogenicity, including zoonosis — crossing over of an essentially benign ERV sequence in the native cell line to a cell from another species.
Indeed, when the original master vaccine seed stocks for many of the attenuated vaccines still in the present-day CDC vaccine schedule were being developed, the approximate 50% viral origin of the human and related animal genomes was not yet known, and reverse transcriptase was not even discovered until the 70′s. Publicly available WHO and CDC documents clearly reveal that a major concern at the time in vaccine development was the theorized existence of a ‘carcinogenicity factor’ in immortal cell (cancer) lines that, while being ideal candidates for vaccine development and manufacturing, due to the fact that they would not need to be replenished — as is the case for diploid cell lines that require refreshment with newly aborted fetal cells — and so, they made a conscious decision to use non-human animal cell lines to evade this perceived cancer threat. Since then, a wide range of oncogenic (and otherwise pathogenic) viruses have been discovered in simian (e.g. SV40), chicken (e.g. endogenous avian leukosis virus), mouse (e.g. mouse mammary tumor virus), pig (e.g. pig endogenous retrovirus; the major impasse towards porcine xenotransplanation in human medicine), and other animal species cell lines — all of which many presently contaminate live vaccines like the MMR, and any one of which may contribute to the pathogenesis of neurological conditions including ‘autism.’
Clearly, there a widespread coverup is underway. if it were not for the CDC scientist’s own statement, we would not have reason to raise such a high level of concern. And yet, William Thompson himself admits culpability and points to others at the CDC who were in collusion with covering up the autism-MMR link. The truth will prevail.
Sayer Ji is the founder of GreenMedInfo.com, an author, educator, Steering Committee Member of the Global GMO Free Coalition (GGFC), and an advisory board member of the National Health Federation.
He founded Greenmedinfo.com in 2008 in order to provide the world an open access, evidence-based resource supporting natural and integrative modalities. It is widely recognized as the most widely referenced health resource of its kind.
The claims concerning Russian troops entering Ukraine are groundless, Leonid Slutsky, the head of the State Duma Committee for CIS Affairs, said Thursday.
“Lies have become habitual for the so-called Ukrainian authorities, so [Ukrainian President] Poroshenko is not going to surprise anyone in Russia, or in the West. I can only say that there are no grounds for such claims,” Slutsky told RIA Novosti.
According to the official, Poroshenko’s cancelation of his scheduled visit to Turkey under the pretext of Russian troops crossing into Ukraine is nothing but a publicity stunt.
“I think that very soon the international community will make an objective assessment of the Kiev junta’s actions, and many countries, members of the European Council, the representatives of which we are constantly in touch with, are beginning to realize that Kiev is leaking lies,” Slutsky said.
Earlier, the Ukrainian president canceled his trip to Turkey and called an emergency meeting with the country’s security council due to the aggravation of the situation in Donetsk Region, as “Russian troops were actually brought into Ukraine.”
Russia’s envoy to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), Andrei Krelin, denied the claims that Russia had sent troops to help independence supporters in eastern Ukraine.
On August 24, Donetsk People’s Republic forces started to move south to the Sea of Azov on the Russian-Ukrainian border. Three days later, the republic claimed it had moved tanks into Novoazovsk on the Sea of Azov.
The United Nations says 43 of its peacekeepers have been detained by “armed elements” fighting in the Golan Heights, the Associated Press reports.
An additional 81 UN soldiers are “currently being restricted to their positions in the vicinity of Ar Ruwayhinah and Burayqah,” according to the office of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.
The “armed elements” in Syria consist almost exclusively of jihadist groups, most notably ISIS and al-Nusra. ISIS was trained by the United States and al-Nusra was armed by the CIA, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
On Wednesday ISIS and al-Nusra took control of the Quneitra crossing point at the demarcation line on the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights. The action puts the al-Qaeda inspired groups within 200 yards of territory captured by Israel during the Six Day War in 1967.
DEBKAfile, an Israeli intelligence asset, reports the ISIS and al-Nusra effort to wrest control of the border area away from the Syrian army was assisted by by Israel, Jordan and the United States:
Israel acted as a member, along with the US and Jordan, of a support system for rebel groups [ISIS, al-Nusra] fighting in southern Syria. Their efforts are coordinated through a war-room which the Pentagon established last year near Amman. The US, Jordanian and Israeli officers manning the facility determine in consultation which rebel factions are provided with reinforcements from the special training camps run for Syrian rebels in Jordan, and which will receive arms.
In December, it was reported by The National that a secret command center in Jordan, staffed by western and Arab military officials, provides support to jihadist groups fighting on Syria’s southern front. The intelligence center “channels vehicles, sniper rifles, mortars, heavy machine guns, small arms and ammunition to Free Syrian Army units.”
Large numbers of fighters from the Free Syrian Army have defected to al-Nusra over the last year. “Fighters are heading to al-Nusra because of its Islamic doctrine, sincerity, good funding and advanced weapons,” Abu Islam of the FSA’s al-Tawhid brigade in Aleppo told The Guardian in May, 2013.
Issam Jouda mourns during the funeral of his wife and four children in Jabaliya, northern Gaza, on 24 August. (Ezz al-Zanoun / APA images)
An elder cousin daubed the blood that dripped from a wound near Thaer Jouda’s left eye Tuesday afternoon as the nine-year-old lay in a bed in Gaza City’s al-Shifa hospital.
“He’s very good in English,” the cousin said. But Thaer, his face and body lacerated by shrapnel from an Israeli airstrike on Sunday and his right leg amputated at the knee, had little interest in talking.
The bombing, which injured Thaer and his eleven-year-old sister Rahaf, also killed his mother Rawiya (43 years old), his sisters Tasnim (14) and Raghida (13) and his brothers Muhammad (8) and Usama (6).
The five deaths made the Joudas, residents of Tal al-Zaatar in the northern Gaza Strip’s Jabaliya area, one of the hardest-hit of the 91 families counted by the Palestinian Ministry of Health who lost multiple members during single attacks during Israel’s 51-day military offensive.
An earlier list from the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, including some casualties not yet confirmed by the Ministry of Health, counted 140 families that had lost three or more family members in a single incident by 20 August.
Many families were killed by Israeli strikes on almost 190 mosques, more than 140 schools and other civilian institutions, some used as shelters for Palestinians displaced from their homes by Israeli military operations near the barrier that separates Gaza from present-day Israel.
The Al Mezan Center for Human Rights has recorded at least 990 people killed inside their homes in Israeli attacks, including 324 children. That’s almost half of all people killed in the Israeli assault. Israeli strikes affected at least 10,589 homes, 2,715 of which were completely destroyed, by 25 August.
“My ears broke”
In the hallway outside Thaer’s room, his father, Issam, recalled the airstrike that ended the lives of his wife and four children two days earlier.
“At 4:00 pm, I was inside the house,” he said. “All the rest of my family was sitting in the front hall. Their mother was standing in the middle of the boys. They were playing as they were accustomed. ”
“As Rahaf was coming inside, I heard a massive explosion. My ears broke. I saw a huge mass of dust in the area and shrapnel scattered all over the hall.”
“After the blast, my daughter Rahaf grabbed my neck. She was screaming ‘Father! Where is my mother? Where are my brothers?’”
After checking his surviving daughter for injuries, Issam said, he told her to leave the house quickly. Looking at the rest of his family in the hall, he said, “They lay with shrapnel everywhere and a pool of blood around them. It’s like they were swimming in it. There were six of them, five killed.
“I heard the voice of my son saying, ‘Dad.’ The others were scattered everywhere. You couldn’t distinguish between them because of the heavy shrapnel wounds in their faces.
“The voice was Thaer. I carried him and left the house quickly. I felt my body cut from the shrapnel as I carried him. Then our neighbors took him and the rest of our family to al-Awda hospital.”
At the hospital, Issam said, Thaer was alert, asking him for water. “In another bed, I saw my little boy, Usama. He was smiling in his sleep. I tried to hug and kiss him. There was no response.
“I tried to convince myself that he had returned my smile. And I refused to listen to anybody saying that he was dead.”
On Saturday, Issam said in passing, he had bought his youngest son a track suit for the winter.
In another bed, he recalled, “I saw my wife covered by a sheet. I removed it quickly, and saw that she was also dead.”
His other three children had been transferred to a separate hospital, Kamal Edwan. By the time he arrived to identify them, he said, staff had moved them into the refrigeration units used to store the dead before burial. “You could not recognize the features of their faces and heads.”
In an interview with Rania Khalek, published by The Electronic Intifada shortly after a ceasefire between Israel and Palestinian resistance groups was declared yesterday, Center for Constitutional Rights former executive director Michael Ratner called Israel’s ethnic cleansing and massacres of Palestinians “incremental genocide.”
Sitting outside his only surviving son’s hospital room, Issam said, “The international community must punish the Israeli war criminals and end the occupation as soon as possible.”
“Global society, which talks about justice and international law, must take responsibility to protect the Palestinian people from this massive destruction. These are war crimes.”
In a powerful 25 minute speech on his return home to Tromsø, Norway from 15 days treating the wounded in Gaza, the Norwegian emergency surgeon Dr Mads Gilbert said: “The heart of the Earth beats in Gaza now. It bleeds, but it beats.”
He went on to say: “The Palestinian people’s resistance in Gaza today is admirable, it is fair and it is a struggle for all of us. We do not want a world where raw power can be abused, to kill those who struggle for justice.”
Below is the first few minutes of the speech transcribed from the video which is subtitled in English. In an appeal to Norwegian citizens, he asks them to imagine what their country would be like today if they had not struggled for its liberation from German occupation.
I know you applaud for Gaza. I know you applaud for those who are there, the heroes of Gaza.
This will be no easy appeal to make, because I am now overcome by the mildness, the warmth, the safety, the absence of bombs, jets, blood and death. And then all that we’ve had to keep inside comes to the surface – so forgive me if sometimes I break.
I thought when I got home and met my daughters Siri and Torbjørn, my son-in-law and my grandkids Jenny and Torje, that it is such a mild country we live in.
It so good, with a kind of humanity in all relationships, because we actually built this country on respect for diversity, respect for the individual, respect for human dignity.
And imagine being back in 1945. And I beg to be understood when I say that I am not comparing the German Nazi regime with Israel. I do not.
But I compare occupation with occupation. Imagine that we in 1945 did not win the liberation struggle, did not throw out the occupier, could not see a bright future or believe our kids had a future. Imagine the occupier remaining in our country, taking it piece by piece, for decades upon decades. And banished us to the leanest areas. Took the fish in the sea, took the land, took the water, and we became more and more confined.
And here in Tromsø we were actually imprisoned, because here there was so much resistance to the occupation. So we are imprisoned for seven years, because in an election we had chosen the most resilient, those who would not accept the occupation.
Then after seven years of confinement in our city, Tromsø, the occupier began to bomb us. And they began to bomb us the day we made a political alliance with those in the other confined parts of occupied Norway, to say that we Norwegians would stand together against the occupier. Then they began to bomb us.
They bombed our university hospital, then the medical center, then killed our ambulance workers, they bombed schools where those who had lost their homes were trying to seek shelter. Then they cut the power and bombed our power plant. Then they shut off the water supply. What would we have done?
Would we have given up, waved the white flag? No. No, we would not. And this is the situation in Gaza.
This is not a battle between terrorism and democracy. Hamas is not the enemy Israel is fighting. Israel is waging a war against the Palestinian people’s will to resist. The unbending determination not to submit to the occupation!
It is the Palestinian people’s dignity and humanity that will not accept that they are treated as third, fourth, fifth-ranking people.
In 1938, the Nazis called the Jews “Untermenschen,” subhuman. Today, Palestinians in the West Bank, in Gaza, in the Diaspora are treated as Untermensch, as subhumans who can be bombed, killed, slaughtered by their thousands, without any of those in power reacting.
So I returned home to my free country – and this country is free because we had a resistance movement, because we said that occupied nations have the right to resist, even with weapons. It’s stated in international law.
You are permitted to fight the occupier even with weapons.
Israel’s military operation against Gaza, “Protective Edge”, has brought a terrible awareness to the world. With a long-term truce declared August 27th, the horrifying effects of a war on their right to exist will remain indelible in the minds of Gazans. These operations against Gaza are periodic. The normalcy of destruction and Israel’s insistence on the right to oppress are not tolerable yet the people of Gaza endure the bombing of their homes and deaths in their families. Gazans are refusing extinction. However badly Hamas resistance is damaged, it continues. Israel’s right to exist is endangered by refusing that right to Palestinians. The lasting result of operation “Protective Edge” is that Israel’s policy toward Gaza and Palestine is becoming widely recognized as a genocide.
The destruction of Gaza is slow to be processed as ‘genocide’ by most North American university programs or concerned NGO’s, who along with government policies are legally bound to the prevention of genocide. The destruction of Palestinian people continues to be ignored as it becomes more clear through these sixty years. Despite the policy implicit in Israel’s current operations, it’s difficult or impossible to find any mention of Israel or Palestine on the web pages of United to End Genocide, Canada’s All-Party Parliamentary Group for the Prevention of Genocide and Other Crimes Against Humanity, the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Genocide Watch, The Sentinel Project, the Montreal Institute for Genocide and Human Rights Studies, the Auschwitz Institute for Peace and Reconciliation, among other government allied or corporate organizations citizens with conscience might turn to.
The State of Palestine Ministry of Health reported Aug. 17th that since July 6, 2014 there have been at least 2016 martyrs and 19101 injured in Gaza. In an interview with Pernille Ironside of UNICEF’s Gaza field office, Democracy Now! reveals that of the 1.8 million residents of Gaza a million are children under 18, and these are permanently traumatized by Israeli actions. By Aug. 21, 2014 at least 467 children were killed, 3000 wounded, 1500 orphaned, and 25 schools destroyed. The United Nations Human Rights Council has opened an independent inquiry. Council President Baudelaire Ndong Ella of Gabon has appointed a panel of Canadian Professor William Shabas, Senegalese lawyer Doudou Diene, and Mary McGowan Davis, a New York judge, to investigate this recent round of war crimes.
There’s no public enthusiasm for this massacre from any quarter of the world. Operation “Protective Edge” was recognized as genocide by the President of Palestine. The Prime Minister of Pakistan Nawaz Sharif found the atrocities genocide. Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan , Cuba’s Fidel Castro, Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro, Bolivia’s Evo Morales, Ecuador’s President Rafael Correa, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina of Bangladesh, Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani, and the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, publicly faulted Israel for genocide. Nicaragua’s Ortega noted to Globovision “El primer ministro Netanyahu parece que tiene el demonio adentro.”
Very few mainstream North American journalists and editors are finding their voices. Actress Penelope Cruz and Javier Bardem signed an open letter by over a hundred notables in the Spanish film industry, to the European Union, finding the actions of Israel ‘genocide’. She’s threatened with not working again as Hollywood bitingly rushes to Israel’s defence. In an open letter printed in Haaretz, Archbishop Desmond Tutu addressed Israel’s civil society with the need for non-violence and the “boycott, sanctions and divestment,” used in South Africa’s rejection of apartheid.
Within Israel a group of Israeli citizens, Boycott from within! sent a letter to the UN Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide, demanding the office take action to stop the genocide destroying the Palestinian people. It joins a Palestinian call for boycott.
On August 2, Dr Joanne Maria McNally wrote a letter to the International Criminal Court notifying it of its obligations to prevent genocide of the Palestinian people.
In an advertisement in The New York Times over three hundred Holocaust survivors and their and victims’ descendants accused Israel of genocide and call for a full economic, academic and cultural boycott.
The Canadian Peace Movement and some socially conscious Americans openly refer to the Israeli actions as genocide. Chris Hedges ended his address to a NYC rally this way: “God weeps because the failure to condemn Israeli war crimes by our political establishment and our compliant media betrays the memory of those killed in other genocides, from the Holocaust to Cambodia to Rwanda to Bosnia. God weeps because we have failed to learn the fundamental lesson of the Holocaust, which is not that Jews are unique or eternal victims, but that when you have the capacity to stop genocide, and you do not, you are culpable.”
Andrew Abbass of Corner Brook Newfoundland filed a complaint with the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary in his town, charging Canadian Prime Minister Harper and Minister of Foreign Affairs John Baird with genocide. A local RCMP officer explained to him that the Ottawa RCMP had refused to pursue what was considered a complaint against a ‘policy directive.’ According to a report by Newfoundland’s The Telegram, the allegation addressed alleged hate propaganda and promotion of genocide in “Through Fire and Water,” a Conservative Party video which promotes Harper and Baird’s reasons for supporting Israel.
Canada’s New Democratic Party is losing support due to its ambivalence about the Israeli invasion. Ottawa NDP Minister Paul Dewar’s constituency office was occupied by protesters. A Montreal NDP Minister quit the Party.
Whatever North America’s well funded University ‘genocide’ programs and NGO’s are free to say, Israel is on a different footing now. It may be the murder of so many children. There’s a global shift to recognizing Israel’s unacceptable brutality as a policy for “final solution”. Hamas supports Palestine joining the International Criminal Court. Over the years the documentation of military actions reveals a pattern of annihilation. Of people. Documentation of statements of hatred by Israeli politicians, some rabbis and settlers, which have become more and more frequent, also may be subject to eventual prosecution under the Convention. The attack on Gaza is said to have support of Israel’s population as its peace community is being silenced.
Interviewed by Gidi Weitz for Haaretz (Aug.13, 2014), Prof. Zeev Sternhell who has written extensively about fascism, said “What we’ve seen here in the past few weeks is absolute conformism on the part of most of Israel’s intellectuals. They’ve just followed the herd. By intellectuals I mean professors and journalists. The intellectual bankruptcy of the mass media in this war is total.” Sternhell is an Israeli Prize laureate and in 2008 was wounded by a Shin Beth informant in a targeted bomb attack.
B’Tselem – The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories has for weeks carried the names of the victim children at the top of its website.
Despite human moments of leaders and people saying no ! and despite the truce which leaves an imprisoned people amid ruins, it’s numbing to consider a tragedy where arrogance and impunity are so comfortable with the deaths of so many civilians. A culture which has often awakened the rights and value of humanity, has let a terrible crime occur, which will eventually be brought to justice by courts, or a consensus of humanity which is less restrained. For most North Americans this ongoing news story about death is at the mercy of madness, and the real mourning hasn’t begun.
Partial online sources:
“Let My People Go,” Aug. 10, 2014, Truthdig; “Signs of fascism in Israel reached new peak during Gaza op, says renowned scholar,” Gidi Weitz, Aug. 13, 2014, Haaretz; “Comprehensive Data on Palestinian Deaths in Gaza (July 6 – August 17, 2014),” State of Palestine Ministry of Health, Aug. 17, 2014, Global Research; “Holocaust Survivors and their descendants accuse Israel of ‘genocide’,” Zachary Davies Boren, Aug. 24,2014, The Independent; “If Palestinians Were Human Beings,” Shourideh C. Molavi, Aug., 6, 2014, Socialist Project E-Bulletin No. 1019; “Deputy speaker of Israeli Knesset Call for Expulsion and Jewish Reoccupation of Gaza,” Max Blumenthal & Paul Jay, Aug. 7, 2014, The Real News; “My plea to the people of Israel: Liberate yourselves by liberating Palestine,” Desmond Tutu, Aug. 14, 2014, Haaretz; “Ortega: Netanyahu tiene el demonio adentro y necesita un exorcismo,” EFE, Aug. 25, 2014, Globovision; “A War on Gaza’s Future ? Israeli Assault leaves 500 Kids Dead, 3000 Injured, 373,000 Traumatized,” Gonzalez, Goodman, Ironside, Aug. 21, 2014, Democracy Now!; “Calls for genocide enter Israeli mainstream,” Jonathan Cook, July 21, 2014, Intifada; “RCMP quashes genocide complaint against PM,” & “Corner Brook man told Israel-Palestine position a policy directive, not a crime,” Andrew Robinson, Aug. 2, 2014, Aug. 23, 2014, The Telegram; “They aren’t Hiding It Anymore: Calls for Genocide, Rape of Palestinian Women enter Israeli Mainstream,” Jonathan Cook, July 22, 2014, Global Research; “Total War against Gaza: Israeli Genocide and its Willing Accomplices,” Prof. James Petras, Aug. 11, 2014, Global Research; “As civilian casualties rise in Gaza, UN Rights Council agrees probe into alleged ‘war cimes’,” UN News Service, July 23, 2014, United Nations News Centre.
The move coincides with the upcoming opening for business of Enbridge’s “Keystone XL” clone: the combination of the Alberta Clipper expansion (and now its alternative) on-ramp originating in Alberta and heading eventually to Flanagan, Ill., the Flanagan South pipeline running from Flanagan, Ill. to Cushing, Okla. and the Cushing, Okla. to Port Arthur, Texas Seaway Twin pipeline.
Together, the three pieces will do what TransCanada‘s Keystone XL hopes to do: move dilbit from Alberta’s tar sands to Port Arthur’s refinery row and, in part, the global export market.
Jim Murphy, senior counsel for NWF, referred to it as an “illegal scheme,” while a representative from 350.org says Enbridge has learned from the lessons of its corporate compatriot, TransCanada.
“When we blocked Keystone XL, the fossil fuel industry learned that they have a much stronger hand to play in back rooms than on the streets,” said Jason Kowalski, policy director for 350.org. “They will break the law and wreck our climate if that’s what it takes for them to make a buck.”
But as the old adage goes, it takes two to tango.
That is, influential State Department employees helped Enbridge find a way to smuggle an additional 350,000 barrels of tar sands per day across the border without public hearings or an environmental review.
Thus far, those following the issue have described the Enbridge maneuver as some sort of bureaucratic snafu.
The reality, though, is more sordid. That is, higher-ups made this call, not just “bad apples.”
One of them has a key tie to the oil and gas industry, while the other helped lay the groundwork for the controversial “extraordinary rendition” torture program as a Bush Administration State Department attaché.
Patrick Dunn’s Industry Ties
On July 24, State Department staffer Patrick Dunn signed off on a letter rubber-stamping Enbridge’s pipeline chess move. In giving Enbridge authorization on official State Department letterhead, Dunn claimed it was not a form of authorization.
“Enbridge’s intended changes…do not require authorization from the U.S. Department of State,” Dunn wrote in the letter. “[W]e will consider [your] letter and its attachments to amend and to be part of your Presidential Permit for the capcity (sic) expansion in Line 67.”
Dunn’s letter does not give his job title, perhaps leading NWF to write him off as simply a “mid-level State Department official” in an August 25 blog post. His current position and State Department background, however, tells a different story.
More specifically, Dunn heads up the three regions’ bureaus of energy resources, described as a “chief of staff” in an August 11 article published on Dominican Today. That article highlighted Dunn’s efforts — alongside Vice President Joe Biden — to cut deals with the Dominican Republic’s government, turning the country into an importer of gas obtained via hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) in the U.S.
“PESA’s Foreign Service Officer Energy Industry Training Program was created in 1993 to increase the practical knowledge of energy attaches and economic officers with responsibility for oil and gas issues stationed in American embassies in countries where energy is a major issue,” reads a Program description.
Deborah Klepp’s Ties to Rendition, Corrupt Contracting
Though Dunn wrote the July 24 letter to Enbridge, he is not the only senior level State Department staffer overseeing the Enbridge Alberta Clipper file.
Deborah Klepp, whose name is listed at the very bottom of the State Department’s August 12 announcement on the Alberta Clipper, currently serves as director of the Department of State’s office of environmental quality and transboundary issues.
The New York Times revealed in 2004 that a confidential ICRC memo stated the “American military [had] intentionally used psychological and sometimes physical coercion ‘tantamount to torture’ on prisoners at Guantanamo.”
Klepp’s husband Mark B. Horowitz — determined by viewing property records — also formerly served as a senior-level State Department employee. A 2012 State Department telephone directory lists Horowitz as an employee of the Office of Information Resource Management, where he served as ”ISSO (For S/ES Only).”
“[O]ne businessman said that doing business here is ‘like doing business in the Yukon’ in the nineteenth century, i.e. only those willing to participate in local corrupt practices are able to make any money,” explains the cable.
But the latest wheeling and dealing by Enbridge raises a troubling question: have the “local corrupt practices” conducted by State Department diplomats abroad snaked their way home in order to help the tar sands export industry?
The US has claimed it will begin reconnaissance flights over Syria – a tentative first step toward direct military intervention it has sought in attempts to overthrow the Syrian government since 2011. While the US is using the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq (ISIS) as a pretext to carry out these intrusions into Syrian territory, it was the US itself that created and to this day perpetuates ISIS and other extremist militant fronts amid a documented attempt to reorder the entire Middle East.
What is expected to follow is an incremental expansion of US military intervention in eastern Syria that will include further arming and funding of the very terrorist networks it claims it is violating Syria’s borders to attack, culminating in eventual military operations carried out against the Syria government itself.
The US’ justification for directly intervening in Syria however, only further undermines the very “international norms” it claims to champion, and opens the door for other nations it is menacing to use more direct means to confront its agenda of global military aggression, including along Russia’s border with Ukraine.
In a discussion about whether the United States military would need Syrian government approval to act against ISIS in Syria, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest referenced the assassination of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan in May 2011.
“The President has already demonstrated a willingness, where necessary, to protect the American people, has demonstrated a willingness to use military force to protect the American people, regardless of borders,” Earnest said Monday.
By exercising policy “regardless of borders,” the US has just hung itself politically in its efforts to protect the newly installed regime in Kiev, Ukraine, and prevent Russia from intervening against what are literally battalions of Neo-Nazi militants operating along Russia’s border with Ukraine. Citing the need to “protect the Russian people” resonates clearer in regards to legitimate concerns, considering Ukraine’s proximity to Russian territory, than America’s claims that a region on the other side of the planet, where one of its citizens voluntarily chose to put himself into harms way by covering an ongoing armed conflict, somehow now requires direct US military intervention.
ISIS is America’s Monstrosity
What is perhaps the most troubling aspect of all about America’s attempts to begin military intervention in eastern Syria using ISIS as a pretext, is the fact that it and its regional allies including Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, created ISIS in the first place to use as a proxy mercenary force for the purpose of overthrowing the government in Syria and confronting pro-Iranian forces across the region from Lebanon to Baghdad. With Syria effectively containing ISIS in eastern Syria and routing them in the more heavily populated regions of western Syria, the West’s designs for regime change in Syria appear effectively defeated.
It was predicted, at the onset of ISIS’ incursion into northern Iraq, that it would be used as a pretext to effect regime change on both sides of the Syrian-Iraqi border. The West’s feigned surprise at the immense funding, armament, and organization of ISIS attempted to create ‘distance’ between itself and the mercenary force they themselves created.
The alleged territorial holdings of ISIS cross over both Syrian and Iraqi borders meaning that any campaign to eradicate them from Iraqi territory can easily spill over into Syria’s borders. And that is exactly the point. With ISIS having ravaged Mosul, Iraq near the Turkish border and moving south in a terror blitzkrieg now threatening the Iraqi capital of Baghdad itself, the Iraqi government is allegedly considering calling for US and/or NATO assistance to break the terror wave. Adding to the pretext, ISIS, defying any sound tactical or strategic thinking, has seized a Turkish consulate in Mosul, taking over 80 Turkish hostages - serendipitous giving Turkey not only a new pretext to invade northern Iraq as it has done many times in pursuit of alleged Kurdish militants, but to invade Syrian territory where ISIS is also based.
The report would also state (emphasis added):
Invading northern Iraq will allow NATO to then justify cross-border operations into eastern Syria. In reality what NATO will be doing is establishing their long desired “buffer zone” where terrorists can launch attacks deeper and more effectively into Syrian territory. With western Syria returning to peace and order after a series of victories for the Syrian government, the last front NATO’s proxy forces have is Al Qaeda’s arch of terror running along Turkey’s border and now, across eastern Syria and northern Iraq. NATO’s presence in northern Iraq would also provide an obstacle for Iranian-Syrian trade and logistics.
Indeed, the US claims that the Syrian government holds no control and therefor no jurisdiction over its eastern most territories, allowing the US and its partners to invade, occupy, and control the region. Under the pretense of fighting ISIS, the US has already declared it would provide greater funding, arms, and support for “moderates” who would then be able to seek refuge in eastern Syria with absolute impunity from Syrian forces, allowing the West’s terrorist proxies to operate deeper and more effectively in territory closer to Damascus.
In reality, these so-called “moderates” demonstrably never existed. The West has so far failed to explain how their funding, arms, training, and aid programs amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars and representing the collective resources of America, Europe, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey have somehow been “eclipsed” by ISIS forces. This is of course because the collective resources of the West and its regional allies were intentionally directed into the hands of ISIS and other extremists from the onset of the Syrian conflict.
Order Out of Chaos
By creating ISIS, directing it to this very day, while simultaneously using it as a pretext for direct military intervention, the West sets a dangerous precedent where in any nation that is able to create sufficient chaos within the borders of another nation, can then use this chao to reorder politically and economically any society they will.
What it also does, however, is untie the hands of Russia, who is currently managing a crisis along its borders not of its own creation, but tipped off by the successful US-backed violent overthrow of the elected government of neighboring Ukraine, resulting in a fascist regime coming to power and its subsequent waging of war against Ukrainians who refuse to recognize its illegitimate claim over Kiev.
If the US can invade Syria thousands of miles from its own shores, surely Russia can intervene in Ukraine. As America refers to “international norms” determining what is and isn’t acceptable, the “norm” it has established with its creeping intervention in Syria justifies all that it has denounced Russia for allegedly doing in neighboring Ukraine.
Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
While Libya lies in flames, with thousands of men, women and children, driven by desperation, trying every day to cross the Mediterranean — and many of them will lose their lives – Italy’s President Giorgio Napolitano issues this warning: “Beware of the outbreaks all around us,” starting with the “persistent instability and fragility of the situation in Libya.” (aletheiaonline.it, July 12)
He forgets, and with him almost all the government officials and politicians, that Italy itself played a key role in 2011 in the “outbreak” of the war against Libya, of which the massacre of migrants is one of the consequences.
On the southern shores of the Mediterranean, across from Italy, there was a state — documented by the World Bank itself in 2010 — which maintained “high levels of economic growth,” with an average increase in GDP of 7.5 percent per annum, which recorded “high indicators of human development,” including universal access to primary and secondary education, and for 46 percent of the population, also at the university level. Despite income disparities among individuals, the standard of living of the Libyan population was significantly higher than that of other African countries. Bearing witness to this fact was that nearly two million immigrants, mostly Africans, were working in Libya.
This state, in addition to being a factor of stability and development in North Africa, had used its investments to facilitate the emergence of organizations that one day might have made the financial autonomy of Africa possible: the African Investment Bank, based in Tripoli; the African Central Bank, with headquarters in Abuja, Nigeria; the African Monetary Fund, based in Yaoundé, Cameroon.
After having funded and armed hostile tribal areas in Tripoli, which caused the “Arab Spring” in Libya to assume from the outset the form of armed insurrection, and thus provoking the government’s response, they waged a war that destroyed the Libyan state in 2011: in seven months the U.S./NATO Air Force carried out 10,000 attack missions, unleashing more than 40,000 bombs and missiles.
Italy participated in this war, using its bases and military forces, tearing up the Treaty of Friendship, Partnership and Cooperation between Italy and Libya. “In the memory of the liberation struggles and April 25” – President Napolitano declared on April 26, 2011, “we could not remain indifferent to the bloody reaction of Colonel Gadhafi in Libya: That’s why Italy adhered to the plan of action of the coalition under the aegis of NATO.” (Wall Street Italia, April 26, 2011)
During the war in Libya, its enemies infiltrated special forces, including thousands of Qatari commandos, and at the same time funded and armed Islamist groups, which up until a few months before had been called terrorists. It is significant that the Islamic militias of Misrata, which lynched Gadhafi, now occupy the airport in Tripoli.
In this framework, the first nuclei of ISIS formed, and moved to Syria, where they built the bulk of their strength before launching the offensive in Iraq. They acted as a de facto instrument of the U.S./NATO strategy to demolish these states through covert war.
“It is now clear,” said President Napolitano, “that every failed state inevitably becomes a center of accumulation and global spread of extremism and lawlessness.” (quirinale.it, June 18)
It only remains to be seen what the “failed states” really are. They are not nation-states such as Libya, Syria and Iraq, states located in areas rich in oil or with an important geo-strategic position, which are wholly or partly outside the control of the West, and which were then demolished by war. They are in fact the major states of the West, which, betraying their own constitutions, have failed as democracies and returned to nineteenth-century imperialism.
2,101 Gazans killed – UN estimates 70% of deaths are civilians
7 civilians killed in Israel
64 Israeli soldiers killed
Figures as of 26 Aug 14. Sources: PMH, OCHA, IDF
UN states that more than 17,000 buildings in Gaza have been destroyed or severely damaged, and that there are at least 475,000 internally displaced people (IDPs), more than a quarter of the territory’s population.
When will those responsible for these atrocities be brought before the ICC on charges of war crimes?
The UN General Assembly needs to convene, in plenary session, to indict those alleged guilty. And it needs to act without delay.
With the Obama administration on the brink of launching yet another war in the Middle East, this time extending its resumption of the US intervention in Iraq across the border into Syria, the US media has gone into overdrive in churning out propaganda justifying military action. Exploiting the revulsion over the recent execution of American photojournalist Richard Foley, the attempt is being made to present the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), which has overrun large swathes of both countries, as evil incarnate and an imminent terrorist threat.
The leading purveyors of war propaganda are to be found within the pages of the New York Times, the supposedly liberal “newspaper of record.” Among them, no one more exemplifies the integration of the corporate media into the state and the subordination of news and opinion to naked propaganda than the Times ’s foreign affairs columnist Roger Cohen.
In the August 25 edition of the paper, a column by Cohen appeared entitled “The making of a disaster.” While Cohen meant the headline to refer to the current situation in Iraq and Syria, it would not make a bad title for his own autobiography.
A self-described “liberal interventionist,” he has supported every US military intervention since the 1995 US-NATO war in Bosnia. Few have involved themselves so intimately with top US foreign policy and intelligence circles as Cohen, who has traveled the globe making the case for US aggression and provocations.
The ostensible purpose of Cohen’s column is to answer the question “What went wrong?” How is it that “the ‘war on terror’, it seems, produced only a metastasized variety of terror” in the form of ISIS.
It all comes down, according to Cohen’s narrative, to a series of “American errors.” He begins with what he calls “Bush’s ill-conceived and bungled war in Iraq.” Like everything in the column, this is nothing but a lie and an evasion.
The war wasn’t “ill-conceived and bungled,” it was a criminal act, a war of aggression. It was the result of a conspiracy hatched at the highest levels of the government and military and intelligence apparatus working in cahoots with supposedly independent journalists like Cohen himself. The aim was to foist onto the American people an aggressive war aimed at militarily asserting US hegemony over Iraq and its oil wealth using lies about “weapons of mass destruction” and non-existent ties between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.
Cohen doesn’t bother sharing with his readers the fact that he supported and promoted this “ill-conceived” war, defending it even as it became clear that it had destroyed an entire society along with hundreds of thousands of human lives. Writing in 2009, he proclaimed, “I still believe Iraq’s freedom outweighs its terrible price.”
The “price” included the deliberate stoking of sectarian tensions between the Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish populations as part of a divide-and-rule strategy pursued by the occupation. The imposition of a Shiite sectarian regime under Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who was hand-picked by US authorities, created the conditions in which Al Qaeda, which never existed in Iraq prior to the invasion, found a base of support within the disgruntled Sunni population.
Second among the “errors” enumerated by Cohen is “a failure to deal with the fact that two allies, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, have been major funders of violent Sunni extremism.” Who does he think he is kidding? Saudi Arabia’s and Pakistan’s funding and promotion of “violent Sunni extremism” was carried out in direct collaboration with the CIA in Afghanistan in the 1980s. Moreover, Washington has utilized precisely these “extremists” as proxy forces in its wars for regime change in both Libya and Syria. In both countries, the US provided arms, funding and training to these forces, acting as a principal sponsor of the forces that have emerged under the banner of ISIS.
Cohen, it should be recalled, was an enthusiastic supporter of the US-NATO war in Libya, casting it as a “humanitarian” intervention and backing the policy of using the Islamist militias as NATO’s ground troops. After the toppling and murder of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, he hailed the war in a column entitled “Score One for Interventionism.” Today, three years later, the Islamists have overrun Tripoli, and the country is descending into bloody civil war.
The heart of Cohen’s indictment of US errors, however, comes down to the failure of the Obama administration to launch a war on Syria a year ago, using the phony pretext that the government of President Bashar al-Assad had used chemical weapons in the civil war with the Islamist-led “rebels.” Ample evidence has since emerged that it was the “rebels” themselves who staged the chemical weapons attacks in an attempt to provoke a US intervention.
Cohen denounces “a prolonged spate of dithering over the Syrian war during which Obama declared three years ago that ‘the time has come for President Assad to step aside’ without having any plan to achieve that; a lack of resolve in Syria that saw Obama set a red line on the use of chemical weapons only to back away from military force when chemical weapons were used; an inability to see that no one loves an Arab vacuum like jihadi extremists, and a bloody vacuum was precisely what Obama allowed Syria to become.”
He concludes that “ISIS grew through American weakness—the setting of objectives and red lines in Syria that proved vacuous.”
When Obama threatened to launch air strikes against Syria a year ago and then backed away from them in the face of overwhelming popular opposition and the failure of either the US Congress or the British Parliament to support the policy, Cohen used his column to counsel defiance of the antiwar sentiments of the American people. “War fatigue,” he wrote in “Make Assad Pay,” is “not an excuse for the surrender of a commodity of enduring strategic importance—national credibility—to an ephemeral one—public opinion.”
Out of such logic grow the twin forces of militarism and dictatorship.
The rehashing of Obama’s “errors” in not going to war a year ago in Syria has an obvious purpose—that of preparing a war today. Having failed to drag the American people into another imperialist bloodbath based on lies about “weapons of mass destruction,” Washington and its propagandists like Cohen will attempt to do so once again by invoking the threat of “terrorism.” The same lies used to justify the invasion of Iraq are being recycled.
More than a decade after the invasion of Iraq, no one has been held accountable for the so-called errors—more accurately defined as war crimes—cited by Cohen. The principal crime committed by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and other top US officials, that of aggressive war, was the main charge leveled against the surviving leaders of Hitler’s Third Reich in the Nuremberg Trials.
Among those prosecuted were the Nazi regime’s chief media propagandists, who were charged with “the false presentation of facts…. The dissemination of provocative lies and the systematic deception of public opinion,” all to promote aggressive war. This indictment speaks with equal force to the role played by Cohen and the other willing war propagandists of the US media.
The US and European powers are stepping up their reckless military escalation against Russia, citing the crisis in Ukraine and Russia’s annexation of Crimea as a pretext to deploy troops to new bases throughout Eastern Europe.
Ahead of next week’s NATO summit in Cardiff, NATO chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen bluntly accused Russia of destabilizing eastern Ukraine and all but threatened Russia with war. According to the Guardian, he indicated that the NATO summit would agree to “new deployments on Russia’s borders—a move certain to trigger a strong reaction from Moscow.”
Rasmussen explained, “We will adopt what we call a readiness action plan with the aim to be able to act swiftly in this completely new security environment in Europe. We have something already called the NATO response force, whose purpose is to be able to be deployed rapidly if needed. Now it’s our intention to develop what I would call a spearhead within that response force at very, very high readiness.” This would “involve the pre-positioning of supplies, of equipment, preparation of infrastructure, bases, headquarters. The bottom line is you will in the future see a more visible NATO presence in the east.”
NATO’s base on the Baltic Sea coast in the Polish city of Szczecin is likely to be the hub for the new deployments.
NATO’s decision to deploy troops in Eastern Europe blatantly violates promises made by numerous Western officials to the USSR during the process of German reunification in 1990. Then-US Secretary of State James Baker, for instance, pledged that there would be “no extension of NATO’s jurisdiction for forces of NATO one inch to the east” after the Soviets agreed to let a reunified Germany join NATO.
Diplomatic and military sources also reported that two NATO warships will enter the Black Sea next week. “Two NATO warships at once will arrive in the Black Sea on September 3. They are the US Navy’s destroyer USS Ross and the frigate Commandant Birot of the naval forces of France,” an unnamed source told RIA Novosti news agency.
To fund their confrontation with Russia, NATO powers are also discussing a massive increase in military spending, which could only be funded by carrying out deep social cuts against the working class. “Since the end of the cold war we have lived in relatively good weather,” Rasmussen said. “Now we are faced with a profound climate change. That requires more investment. Politicians have tried to harvest the peace dividend after the end of the cold war. That’s understandable. But now we are in a completely new security situation.”
Former NATO supreme commander General Sir Richard Shirreff also said that European nations had to put their “hands in their pockets to spend more money on defence.” He added that the “security framework” in Europe had changed as a result of Russia’s annexation of the southern Crimean peninsula from Ukraine in March.
The warmongering propaganda of the NATO powers stands reality on its head. In fact, it is NATO that stirred up conflict in Ukraine, backing the fascist-led coup that ousted pro-Russian president Viktor Yanukovych in February. The aim of the US and its European allies is to turn Ukraine into a forward operating base, threatening war with Russia, a nuclear-armed power.
In an extraordinarily reckless move, NATO is preparing to unofficially but effectively bring Ukraine into the NATO alliance, using it as a proxy force to threaten Russia. Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko will be the sole non-NATO head of state attending the NATO summit next week. According to theGuardian, “Four ‘trust funds’ are to be established to finance Ukraine’s military logistics, command and control structures, and cyber defences, and to pay the armed forces’ pensions.”
Rasmussen said, “It is actually what we will decide to do at the summit, to help them build the capacity of their security sector, modernise it.”
It appears that this policy is being pursued despite significant internal opposition inside NATO, which is rarely reported in the major media and never in detail.
Although the European powers backed the fascist coup in Kiev, some reportedly oppose setting up permanent bases in Eastern Europe, fearing this will hurt Europe’s economic ties with Russia. According to the Guardian, “The French, Italians and Spanish are opposed while the Americans and British are supportive of the eastern European demands. The Germans, said a NATO official, were sitting on the fence, wary of provoking Russia.”
The Kremlin, for its part, is taking an accommodating position to the Western powers in Ukraine, effectively recognizing the Western puppet regime in Kiev by holding its first direct negotiations with it.
On Tuesday, Poroshenko and Russian President Vladimir Putin held talks in Minsk after both attended a meeting among the Russian-led Eurasian Customs Union, the European Union and Ukraine. Though it was reported that both countries are working for a peace plan, no agreement came out of the summit.
Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko told reporters the talks at the summit were “tough,” but avoided saying that they had failed. He said, “Sadly, the situation there [in Ukraine] has gone so far that in the absence of agreements in principle, any steps or technical accords are not going to lead to settlement.”
In his opening statement, Putin expressed concern over Ukraine’s decision to sign an association agreement with the EU, as it undermines Russian interests. Ukraine is set to ratify the EU association agreement next month.
Putin said, “Not all of our arguments are accepted by our colleagues, but at least we were heard and we have agreed to intensify the exchange of views, and try to find some solutions,” adding that in the absence of a final agreement Russia will have to “take measures” to protect its economy.
However, Putin called the meeting with Poroshenko “positive,” while Poroshenko called it “very complicated and difficult.”
Putin’s main concern seems to be to leverage his role as the EU’s energy supplier to reach some sort of deal, asserting that the two sides “have also agreed that a resumption of gas and energy talks is urgently needed.”
As NATO escalates its military threats against Russia, fighting between pro-Russian rebels and the Ukrainian army and its allied fascist paramilitary units is continuing in eastern Ukraine.
The area around the city of Novoazovsk, strategically positioned on roads linking Russia with Crimea, which Moscow annexed in March, has come under heavy artillery firing in the past days. Novoazovsk lies on the Azov Sea on the road that runs from Russia to the major Ukrainian port of Mariupol and west to Crimea.
The fighting in eastern Ukraine has killed over 2,249 and wounded 6,033, according to the United Nations. The flood of refugees has now reached crisis proportions, with 190,000 internally displaced Ukrainians and 207,000 seeking refuge in Russia.
On Monday, a Ukrainian official said a column of Russian tanks and armoured vehicles entered southeastern Ukraine. The Kiev government said it captured 10 Russian soldiers around Amvrosiivka, a town near the Russian border. Later, Moscow admitted that they were Russian soldiers patrolling the border, claiming that they probably crossed it inadvertently.
Anti-Russian lies keep repeating. So many proliferate, it’s hard keeping up. The latest is over-the-top and then some.
It accuses Russia of launching a major offensive against Ukrainian forces.
Accusations without evidence are made. Kiev sources are cited. They’ve been caught red-handed lying many times.
Nothing they say is credible. It doesn’t matter. Major mainstream media repeat their rubbish like gospel. More on this below.
State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki claimed unsubstantiated reports “indicate a Russian-directed counteroffensive is likely underway in Donetsk and Luhansk.”
“(W)e’re also concerned by the Russian Government’s unwillingness to tell the truth even as its soldiers are found 30 miles inside Ukraine,” she said.
“Russia is sending its young men into Ukraine but are telling – are not telling them where they’re going or telling their parents what they’re doing.”
Asked why she said “likely” instead of saying a Russian invasion is underway, Psaki said she “decided to say likely.”
“But why,” she was asked? “(L)ikely implies…some uncertainty because there is a possibility that it’s not.”
Psaki ducked the question. She merely cited “a range of (unsubstantiated) reports.”
“Well, is it an invasion,” she was asked? “(A)re we seeing, like, brigades or divisions crossing the borders into Ukraine?”
“I don’t have any other details to read out for you at this point in time,” she said.
-Washington’s dirty hands are involved in Ukraine’s war without mercy.
-Obama officials support and encourage it.
-Intelligence and material support are provided.
-Parts of the Ukrainian/Russia border aren’t clearly demarcated.
-Nationals and military personnel on both sides often cross over unwittingly.
-Ukrainian soldiers did recently.
-They’ve done it before.
-Russian authorities send them home without incident.
-If Moscow’s intent was hostile, large numbers of heavily armed forces would have invaded.
-Nothing of the kind happened.
-No evidence suggests it.
-No verifiable satellite images exist.
It doesn’t matter. Big Lies proliferate.
On Wednesday, The New York Times first headlined “Ukraine Says Russian Forces Lead Major New Offensive in East,” saying:
“Tanks, artillery and infantry have crossed from Russia into an unbreached part of eastern Ukraine in recent days, attacking Ukrainian forces and causing panic and wholesale retreat not only in this small border town but also a wide section of territory, in what Ukrainian and Western military officials described on Wednesday as a stealth invasion.”
The report was then replaced by one headlined ”Ukraine Reports Russian Invasion on a New Front.”
Five armored personnel carriers replaced tanks, artillery and infantry. According to The Times, it’s Moscow’s attempt to blunt “the momentum of Ukrainian forces…”
Both reports lacked verifiable evidence. Ukraine, Washington, other Western countries and NATO have every incentive to lie. Times and other MSM reporters repeat them like gospel.
Numerous earlier anti-Russian accusations were false. Moscow is discretely neutral.
It urges both sides settle things diplomatically. Military solutions won’t work, it stresses.
It wants friendly relations with Ukraine. Putin and Ukrainian president Poroshenko just held official bilateral talks for the first time.
Putin said “Russia will do everything to promote this peace process if it is launched, and in our view, this process needs to be launched as soon as possible.”
Why would Russia invade Ukraine hours after Putin stressed the urgency of pursuing peace? For what benefit?
What sense would it make? What credibility would Putin, Sergey Lavrov and other top Russian officials have left?
Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov repeatedly denies claims about Russian military activity on Ukraine’s borders.
On Wednesday, he said they have “nothing to do with reality.” Claims about an alleged Russian build-up aren’t new, he added.
Washington, rogue NATO allies and Ukraine gain greatly by proliferating Big Lies. Mainstream media repeat them ad nauseam.
Truth is suppressed. It’s systematically buried. John Pilger is right. He calls journalism the first casualty of war.
It’s a weapon of war, he stresses. It’s virulent censorship. It’s deception.
It’s repeating one Big Lie after another. They substitute for honest reporting.
When America goes to war, plans one, or supports an aggressor ally, it’s entirely absent. Managed news misinformation rubbish substitutes.
According to The Times, Russia’s alleged incursion involved “five armored personnel carriers” and unnamed weapons.
It claimed “(e)vidence of a possible turn…in the panicky retreat of Ukrainian soldiers…”
-Ukraine has thousands of heavily armed forces waging war.
-Would they fear confronting five Russian armored personnel carriers if they did cross Ukraine’s border?
-Would they retreat in panic?
-Answers are self-evident.
Don’t expect Times or other MSM reports to explain. Instead, The Times quoted an unnamed “senior American official” claiming without proof:
“Russia is clearly trying to put its finger on the scale to tip things back in favor of its proxies.”
“Artillery barrages and other Russian military actions have taken their toll on the Ukrainian military.”
Previous articles explained Ukrainian soldiers are notoriously underpaid, poorly fed and clothed, as well as deplorably retreated.
Morale is low. Many are forced to serve involuntarily. Many others oppose fighting Ukrainian citizens.
Some defect. Most prefer being home. Some seek refuge in Russia. Many young men cross over to avoid military service altogether.
Even The Times described them as “(e)xhausted, filthy and dismayed.” Many are “unwilling to fight,” do so reluctantly or back off “in full retreat.”
In contrast, self-defense forces show remarkable courage, resilience and strength. In recent days, they achieved impressive gains.
According to RIA Novosti, they took “control of checkpoints and strongholds in the outskirts of Mariupol…”
They hold “the bridge across the Gruzsky-Yelanchik River.” They “moved tanks into Novoazovsk on the Sea of Azov” on the Russian/Ukrainian border.
They captured dozens of Ukrainian border guards and soldiers. According to Itar Tass, “Ukrainian troops suffer(ed) heavy losses in southeast Ukraine.”
Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) self-defense forces said their counteroffensive killed or wounded around 750.
Overnight Wednesday, over 150 voluntarily surrendered. Dozens more crossed into Russia for asylum.
According to DPR Prime Minister Alexander Zakharchenko, around three to four thousand Russian volunteers are aiding self-defense forces.
“Many of them have left the republic, but the majority stayed here,” he said.
“Today very many questions are asked how this could have happened that the DPR army grew from scattered guerrilla units in a strong military organization which can not only resist Ukrainian armed forces, but also defeat them on the battlefield.”
“Kiev and the West stated repeatedly about Russian military invasion to justify somehow massive defeats which Ukrainian army has been suffering already for several months.”
“We have never concealed that many Russians are fighting in our ranks without aid of which we would be in a very difficult situation and this would be much heavier for us to fight.”
Many retired Russian servicemen are involved, said Zakharchenko.
“Current servicemen are also fighting in our ranks (voluntarily), as they came to us to struggle for our freedom…” Moscow didn’t send them.
Public anger is growing in Ukraine. According to Itar Tass:
“Hundreds of protesters blocked one of Kiev’s thoroughfares on Thursday demanding the resignation of Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko and urgent deployment of military hardware in the combat area in eastern Ukraine.”
“The protesters who gathered near the Ukrainian Defense Ministry’s headquarters are also seeking the resignation of Minister Valery Geletei and commanders of the military operation in the southeast.”
Others “rall(ied) with similar demands near the presidential administration…”
Meanwhile, US-led NATO intends a “readiness action plan.” It plans one to counter a nonexistent Russian threat.
For the first time, it will establish military “reception facilities” in Poland, Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia.
According to Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen:
“We have something already called the NATO response force, whose purpose is to be able to be deployed rapidly if needed.”
“Now it’s our intention to develop what I would call a spearhead within that response force at very, very, high readiness.”
“In order to be able to provide such rapid reinforcements you also need some reception facilities in host nations.”
“So it will involve the pre-positioning of supplies, of equipment, preparation of infrastructure, bases, headquarters.”
In other words, US-led NATO intends a hostile Eastern European presence encroaching on Russia’s border. Asked if it’ll be permanent, Rasmussen said “yes.”
“(F)or as long as necessary,” he stressed. He lied claiming:
“We have seen artillery firing across the border and also inside Ukraine. We have seen a Russian military buildup along the border.”
“Quite clearly, Russia is involved in destabilizing eastern Ukraine.”
“You see a sophisticated combination of traditional conventional warfare mixed up with information and primarily disinformation operations.”
In response, Russia’s permanent mission to NATO said Moscow “will react to NATO moves eastward with a view to ensure its security.”
Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin called NATO’s threat serious. They come from “the secretary-general level,” he said.
“They have probably already come up with some plan while moving NATO eastward” to confront Russia.
Doing so advances US-led recklessness to a new level. It increases chances for direct confrontation.
So do anti-Russian Big Lies. According to Rasmussen:
“Since the end of the Cold War we have lived in relatively good weather. Now we are faced with a profound climate change.”
Washington bears full responsibility. Weeks earlier, Putin said “(n)o matter what our Western counterparts tell us, we can see what’s going on.”
“…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.”
Plans are to incorporate Ukraine into NATO unofficially. Western funding will finance its military.
At issue is targeting Russia. The threat of direct confrontation grows.
The 2014 global Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) by researchers at the University of Oxford covers 108 countries: 31 Low-Income Countries, 67 Middle-Income Countries and 10 High-Income Countries. These countries have a total population of 5.4 billion people, some 78% of the world’s population.
The MPI assesses poverty at the individual level. If someone is deprived in a third or more of ten weighted indicators, the global index identifies them as ‘MPI poor’, and the extent – or intensity – of their poverty is measured by the number of deprivations they are experiencing. Those indicators and based on health, education and living standards and comprise the following factors: years of schooling, school attendance, levels of nutrition, child mortality, access to cooking fuel, sanitation (open defecation, for example), access to water, ownership of assets, access to electricity and flooring material (eg, dirt).
Based on a rural-urban analysis, of the 1.6 billion people identified as MPI poor, 85% live in rural areas. This is significantly higher than estimates of 70-75% in poverty, where income is used as the basis for determining poverty.
Poverty reduction is not necessarily uniform across all poor people in a country or across population subgroups. An overall improvement may leave the poorest of the poor behind. The highest levels of inequality are to be found in 15 Sub-Saharan African countries and in Pakistan, India, Afghanistan, Yemen and Somalia.
The researchers have paid special attention to the situation of the destitute, or what they term the poorest of the poor. Over half of the world’s poor are classed as destitute.
Countries which have reduced MPI poverty and destitution the most in absolute terms were mostly Low Income and Least Developed Countries, with Nepal making the fastest progress.
The situation in India
Eradicating poverty in India requires every person having access to safe drinking water, sanitation, housing, nutrition, health and education. According to the MPI, out of its 1.2 billion-plus population, India is home to over 340 million destitute people and is the second poorest country in South Asia after war-torn Afghanistan. Some 640 million poor people live in India(40% of the world’s poor), mostly in rural areas, meaning an individual is deprived in one-third or more of the ten indicators mentioned above (malnutrition, child deaths, defecating in the open).
In South Asia, Afghanistan has the highest level of destitution at 38%. This is followed by India at 28.5%. Bangladesh and Pakistan have much lower levels. The study placed Afghanistan as the poorest country in South Asia, followed by India, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Nepal.
India had the second-best social indicators among the six South Asian countries (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal and Bhutan) 20 years ago. Now it has the second worst position, ahead only of Pakistan. Bangladesh has less than half of India’s per-capita GDP but has infant and child mortality rates lower than that of India.
Writing this week in India’s Deccan Herald, Prasenjit Chowdhury notes that according to two comparable surveys conducted in Bangladesh and India in 2006, in Bangladesh, 82% of children are fully immunised, 88% get vitamin A supplements and 89% are breastfed within an hour of birth. The corresponding figures for Indian children are below 50 per cent in all case and as low as 25%t for vitamin A supplementation.
Moreover, over half of the population in India practices open defecation, a major health hazard, compared with less than 10% in Bangladesh. Bangladesh has overtaken India in terms of a wide range of basic social indicators, including life expectancy, child survival, enhanced immunisation rates, reduced fertility rates and particular schooling indicators.
What has gone wrong?
In recent times, India has experienced much publicised high levels of GDP growth. So what is going wrong? Amartya Sen and the World Bank’s chief economist Kaushik Basu have argued that the bulk of India’s aggregate growth is occurring through a disproportionate rise in the incomes at the upper end of the income ladder. To use Arundhati Roy’s term, the poor in India are the ‘ghosts of capitalism’: the ‘invisible’ and shoved-aside victims of a now rampant neoliberalism.
The ratio between the top and bottom 10% of wage distribution has doubled since the early 1990s, when India opened up it economy. According to the 2011 Organisation for Cooperation and Economic Development report ‘Divided we stand’, this has made India one of the worst performers in the category of emerging economies. The poverty alleviation rate is no higher than it was 25 years ago. Up to 300,000 farmers have committed suicide since 1997 due to economic distress and many more have quit farming.
Assets such as airports, seeds, ports and other infrastructure built up with public money or toil have been sold off into private hands.
Secretive Memorandums of Understanding have been signed between the government and resource extraction-related industries, which has led to 300,000 of the nation’s poorest people being driven from their lands in tribal areas and around 50,000 placed into ‘camps’. As a result, naxalites and insurgents are in violent conflict with the state across many of these areas.
Where have the benefits been accrued from the 8-9% year on year GDP growth in recent times?
Sit down and read the statistics. Then step outside and see the islands of wealth and privilege surrounded by the types of poverty and social deprivations catalogued by the MPI.
Global Finance Integrity has shown that the outflow of illicit funds into foreign bank accounts has accelerated since opening up the economy to neoliberalism in the early nineties. ‘High net worth individuals’ (ie the very rich) are the biggest culprits here. Crony capitalism and massive scams have become the norm. It is not too hard to see what is going wrong.
India’s social development has been sacrificed on the altar of greed and corruption for bulging Swiss accounts, and it has been stolen and put in the pockets of the country’s ruling class ‘wealth creators’ and the multinational vultures who long ago stopped circling and are now swooping.
Me-first acquisitiveness is now pervasive throughout the upper strata of society. Run out and buy some useless product because Kareena, Priyanka or another icon of deception says ‘because you’re worth it’… but never ever let this narcissism give way to contemplate why the rivers and soils have been poisoned and people are being been made ill in places like Punjab, agriculture is being hijacked by the likes of Monsanto, land is being grabbed on behalf of any number of corporations, the great nuclear power money fest is in full swing or why ordinary people are violently opposing state-corporate power. Much of this acceptance results from deals hammered out behind closed doors. Much of it results because too many are conditioned to be ignorant of the facts or to accept that all of the above is necessary.
This is a country where the majority sanctify certain animals, places, rivers and mountains for being representations of god or for being somehow touched by the hand of god. It’s also a country run by Wall Street sanctioned politicians who convince people to accept or be oblivious to the destruction of the same.
Many are working strenuously to challenge the selling of the heart and soul of India. Yet how easy will it be for them to be swept aside by the corrosive impacts of a rapacious capitalism and its hugely powerful corporations that colonise almost every area of social, cultural and economic life and encourage greed, selfishness, apathy, irretrievable materialism and acquisitive individualism, as well as the ignorance of reality ‘out there’ – what lies beyond the narrow concerns of spend and buy middle class India?
Western capital had known that India has always been ripe for the taking. Consumerism’s conspicuous purchasing and consumption draws on and manipulates the pre-existing tendency to buy favour, the perceived self importance deriving from caste, the sense of entitlement due to patronage, the desire nurtured over the centuries to lord it over and seek tributes from whoever happens to be on the next rung down in the pecking order. Lavish, conspicuous displays of status to reinforce difference and hierarchy have always been important for cementing social status. Now icons of capitalism, whether renowned brand products, labels or product endorsing celebrities, have also taken their place in the pantheon of Indian deities to be listen to, worshiped and acquiesced to.
And the corporations behind it all achieve hegemony by altering mindsets via advertising, clever PR or by sponsoring (hijacking) major events, by funding research in public institutes and thus slanting findings and the knowledge paradigm in their favour or by securing key positions in international trade negotiations in an attempt to structurally readjust retail, food production and agriculture. They do it by many methods and means.
Before you realise it, culture, politics and the economy have become colonised by powerful private interests and the world is cast in their image. The prevailing economic system soon becomes cloaked with an aura of matter of factuality, an air of naturalness, which is never to be viewed for the controlling hegemonic culture or power play that it really is.
Seeds, mountains, water, forests and the biodiversity are being sold off. The farmers and tribals are being sold out. And the more that gets sold off, the more who get sold out, the greater the amount of cash that changes hands, the easier it is for the misinformed to swallow the lie of Wall Street’s bogus notion of ‘growth’ – GDP. And India suddenly becomes capitalism’s poster boy ‘economic miracle’.
India is suffering from internal hemorrhaging. It is being bled dry from both within and without. Too extreme a point of view? Tell that to the 340 million destitute who make up over half of India’s poor.
The deaths are then used to muster the support of the Israeli public as well as provide a justification for a “legitimate” counter-terrorism operation in the eyes of the international community directed against the Palestinian occupied territories.
Contrived behind closed doors in July 2001, the Dagan Plan (named after Mossad chief Meir Dagan) was slated by its IDF and Mossad architects to be “launched immediately following the next high-casualty suicide bombing, would last about a month and is expected to result in the death of hundreds of Israelis and thousands of Palestinians.” (See Ellis Shuman, “Operation Justified Vengeance”: a Secret Plan to Destroy the Palestinian Authority, Intelligence Ploy behind the “Suicide bombings”, Global Research, February 01, 2004)
‘Operation Protective Edge (OPE) directed against Gaza was planned well in advance of the kidnapping and murder of the three Israeli teenagers. Prime Minister Netanyahu has called up 40,000 reservists. In the wake of the shelling and bombing raids, a major ground operation scenario is envisaged.
“Mossad chief Tamir Pardo had “outlined a scenario that was spookily [sic] similar to the kidnapping of three teens missing in the West Bank” (Haaretz, July 13, 2014, emphasis added)
Israeli civilian deaths are blamed on Hamas without evidence to justify military action against Gaza. The ultimate objective of “Operation Protective Edge” is to break the institutional base of the Hamas leadership and destroy Gaza’s civilian infrastructure, with a view to eventually carrying out the annexation of the Gaza Strip to Israel. As of July 13, Israel is reported to have struck 1,320 sites within Gaza, resulting in 167 deaths and more than 1,000 injured (Maan News, July 13, 2014)
Were the three boys killed by Hamas?
Israeli press reports intimate that the three teenagers could have been executed by the Al Qaeda affiliated jihadist entity the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) which just so happens to be supported “covertly” as well “overtly” by the State of Israel.
A new Palestinian jihadist group pledging allegiance to the Islamic State (formerly known as ISIL) has claimed responsibility for the killing of three Israeli teenagers last month in the West Bank, … as well as other recent deadly attacks against Israeli soldiers and civilians…..
The actions were carried out in honor of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the self-proclaimed “caliph” of the Islamic State, the reincarnation of the Islamic State in Syria and the Levant (ISIL)declared last month, the statement said.”(Times of Israel, July 3, 2014)
The ISIL (renamed the Islamic State) (see image) constitutes the main Al Qaeda rebel fighting force in Syria directed against the government of Bashar Al Assad. More recently, ISIL brigades have entered Iraq, confronting government forces.
While ISIL is an Al Qaeda affiliated entity funded by Saudi Arabia and Qatar, retribution by Israel for the deaths of the teenagers was directed against Gaza rather than Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States.
The supportive role of the US and Israel to the Al Qaeda affiliated entity is not limited to the realm of covert operations. The Israeli military (IDF) is supporting the jihadist entity out of the occupied Golan Heights. Moreover, amply documented, there are Western and well Israeli Special Forces within ISIL rebel ranks.
The UNDOF official confirmed the existence of “a joint operation room” between Israel and the Al Qaeda rebels pertaining to “the delivery of [Israeli] assistance to the terrorists.”
This assistance is not limited to logistics:
“According to the Israeli Channel 1 television, ‘security sources’ informed of a new missile system named ‘Mitar’, established in Golan for giving backup coverage to anti-Syria militant groups.
The system includes middle-range and long-range missiles, according to the report.” (Al Alam May 3, 2014 emphasis added)
An IDF military hospital in the occupied Golan Heights was established to treat wounded Al Qaeda rebels.
In February, The Jerusalem Post reported that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s visited the IDF field hospital in the occupied Golan heights, which was set up in support of the jihadist rebels operating in Syria. The hospital was set up to treat wounded Al Qaeda rebels.
The Jerusalem Post acknowledges that the hospital is being used to support the jihadist insurgency. Netanyahu referred to the Hospital as the place which “separates the good in the world from the evil in the world.”
“The good”, according to Netanyahu “is Israel”, which in a bitter irony wholeheartedly supports the Al Qaeda “freedom fighters” in Syria; “the bad” refers to Iran which supports Bashar Al Assad.
The good, the prime minister said, is Israel, which “saves lives from the daily slaughter taking place in Syria. This is the true face of Israel.”
The evil, he continued, is Iran, which is arming those carrying out the slaughter. (Jerusalem Post, February 19, 2014)
While the IDF field hospital was established to support Al Qaeda in an operation coordinated by IDF Special Forces, Netanyahu casually accuses Iran for “its support of terrorist groups around the world”. (JP, February 19, 2014)
Netanyau does not deny his government’s support of the jihadists. The IDF top brass tacitly acknowledged that “global jihad elements inside Syria” are supported by Israel:
Netanyahu toured the Golan Heights with Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon and IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Benny Gantz.
At a lookout point overlooking the Syrian border, OC Northern Command Maj.-Gen. Yair Golan briefed Netanyahu on the presence of global jihad elements inside Syria, as well as on the work being done to fortify the Israeli-Syrian border fence. (Ibid)
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu Shakes Hand with an Al Qaeda Terrorist
Is the wounded terrorist an Israeli intelligence asset? In the image below:
“Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Moshe Ya’alon next to a wounded mercenary, Israeli military field hospital at the occupied Golan Heights’ border with Syria, 18 February 2014″ (ibid, emphasis added)
Who killed the three Israeli teenagers?
Ironically, the same jihadist group which is reported to have kidnapped and killed the three teenagers is supported by Israel’s IDF out of the occupied Golan Heights.
A mere coincidence.
The ISIL-Mossad Connection
Update, July 16, 2014
It has now been confirmed that the leader of ISIL and cleric Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi, who allegedly ordered the kidnapping and murder of the 3 Israeli teenagers “took intensive military training for a whole year in the hands of Mossad, besides courses in theology and the art of speech.” (Gulf News, July 15, 2014)
The former employee at US National Security Agency (NSA), Edward Snowden, has revealed that the British and American intelligence and the Mossad worked together to create the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).
Snowden said intelligence services of three countries created a terrorist organisation that is able to attract all extremists of the world to one place, using a strategy called “the hornet’s nest”.
NSA documents refer to recent implementation of the hornet’s nest to protect the Zionist entity by creating religious and Islamic slogans.
According to documents released by Snowden, “The only solution for the protection of the Jewish state “is to create an enemy near its borders”.
Mentre dalla Libia in fiamme migliaia di uomini, donne e bambini, spinti dalla disperazione, tentano ogni giorno la traversata del Mediterraneo, e molti vi perdono la vita, il presidente Napolitano avverte «Attenti ai focolai che ci circondano», a cominciare dalla «persistente instabilità e fragilità della situazione in Libia». Dimentica, e con lui la quasi totalità dei governanti e politici, che è stata proprio l’Italia a svolgere un ruolo determinante nell’accendere nel 2011 il «focolaio» di quella guerra di cui l’ecatombe di migranti è una delle conseguenze. Sulla sponda sud del Mediterraneo, di fronte all’Italia, c’era uno Stato che – documentava la stessa Banca mondiale nel 2010 – manteneva «alti livelli di crescita economica», con un aumento medio del pil del 7,5% annuo, e registrava «alti indicatori di sviluppo umano» tra cui l’accesso universale all’istruzione primaria e secondaria e, per il 46%, a quella di livello universitario. Nonostante le disparità, il tenore di vita della popolazione libica era notevolmente più alto di quello degli altri paesi africani. Lo testimoniava il fatto che trovavano lavoro in Libia circa due milioni di immigrati, per lo più africani. Questo Stato, oltre a costituire un fattore di stabilità e sviluppo in Nordafrica, aveva favorito con i suoi investimenti la nascita di organismi che un giorno avrebbero potuto rendere possibile l’autonomia finanziaria dell’Africa: la Banca africana di investimento, con sede a Tripoli; la Banca centrale africana, con sede ad Abuja (Nigeria); il Fondo monetario africano, con sede a Yaoundé (Camerun). Dopo aver finanziato e armato settori tribali ostili a Tripoli, facendo sì che la «primavera araba» assumesse in Libia sin dall’inizio la forma di insurrezione armata provocando la risposta governativa, lo Stato libico fu demolito con la guerra nel 2011: in sette mesi, l’aviazione Usa/Nato effettuava 10mila missioni di attacco, con oltre 40mila bombe e missili. A questa guerra partecipò l’Italia con le sue basi e forze militari, stracciando il Trattato di amicizia, partenariato e cooperazione tra i due paesi. «Nel ricordo delle lotte di liberazione e del 25 aprile – dichiarava il presidente Napolitano il 26 aprile 2011 – non potevamo restare indifferenti alla sanguinaria reazione del colonnello Gheddafi in Libia: di qui l’adesione dell’Italia al piano di interventi della coalizione sotto guida Nato». Durante la guerra venivano infiltrate in Libia forze speciali, tra cui migliaia di commandos qatariani, e allo stesso tempo finanziati e armati gruppi islamici fino a pochi mesi prima definiti terroristi. Significativo è che le milizie islamiche di Misurata, che linciarono Gheddafi, occupano ora l’aeroporto di Tripoli. In tale quadro si sono formati i primi nuclei dell’Isis che, passati poi in Siria, hanno costruito il grosso della loro forza lanciando quindi l’offensiva in Iraq. Svolgendo un ruolo di fatto funzionale alla strategia Usa/Nato di demolizione degli stati attraverso la guerra coperta. «E’ ormai evidente – dichiara il presidente Napolitano – che ogni Stato fallito diviene inevitabilmente un polo di accumulazione e diffusione globale dell’estremismo e dell’illegalità». Resta solo da vedere quali sono gli «Stati falliti». Non sono gli Stati nazionali come Libia, Siria e Iraq che, situati in aree ricche di petrolio o con una importante posizione geostrategica, sono del tutto o in parte fuori del controllo dell’Occidente, e vengono quindi demoliti con la guerra. Sono in realtà i maggiori Stati dell’Occidente che, tradendo le loro stesse Costituzioni, sono falliti come democrazie, ritornando all’imperialismo ottocentesco.
CDC scientists who conspired to commit scientific fraud in order to obscure the link between the MMR vaccine and autism knew that they might have been engaged in criminal acts as far back as 2002, documents now show.
Natural News has acquired an email sent by CDC whistleblower William Thompson to the following recipients: Melinda Wharton, Walt Orenstein, Kim Lane, Kevin M. Malone, Beverly Dozier, Robert Chen, David Shay, Coleen Boyle and Roger Bernier. The email focused on a Department of Justice investigation of the CDC, where the DoJ had requested “a broad range of documents associated with MMR, Thimerosal and Autism.”
The CDC’s Dr. Thompson was fully aware of this increased autism risk from MMR vaccines. He refers to these results as “sensitive results.” The smoking gun in this letter is Dr. Thompson’s admission that CDC scientists and decision makers are trying to decide which documents to turn over to the Dept. of Justice and which documents to suppress.
“I have also tried to bring your attention to some potentially sensitive legal issues surrounding what documents we should provide for this study,” Thompson wrote in an email dated Friday, October 18, 2002 at 4:43 AM. The email was addressed to Melinda Wharton and cc’d to the recipients listed above.
“I don’t think anyone has broken the law,” Thompson writes, “but I was extremely uncomfortable when Dr. Coleen Boyle, a coauthor on our paper, was required to testify before Congressman Dan Burton’s Committee in April of 2002 regarding MMR and Autism. I became more concerned regarding legal issues surrounding the MADDSP MMR/Autism Study when individuals from the NCBDDD began to cc Beverly Dozier, an attorney, on e-mails regarding discussions we were having surrounding the provision of appropriate documents to satisfy the DOJ request.”
The letter goes on to say that attorney Beverly Dozier was consulting Dr. Coleen Boyle on what documents to provide (and therefore also what documents to withhold).
Dr. Thompson then concludes by saying “I will be hiring my own personal attorney…” and even adds, “[I will] seriously consider removing myself as an author on the draft manuscript.”
Twelve years later, Dr. William Thompson admits to scientific fraud at the CDC
The MMR vaccines / autism cover-up continued for twelve more years. The DoJ investigation petered out, and the scientists who participated in the cover-up were granted prestigious awards by Health and Human Services.
For twelve years, this cover-up haunted Dr. Thompson, who has now decided to clear his conscience and admit to the fraud. He now says:
Oh my God, I did not believe that we did what we did, but we did. It’s all there. This is the lowest point in my career, that I went along with that paper. I have great shame now when I meet families of kids with autism, because I have been part of the problem. - Dr. William Thompson
Now, this MMR vaccine-autism cover-up continues to be perpetrated by the mainstream media which has so far run a total media blackout on the story, hoping to suppress the truth about MMR vaccines and autism for as long as possible.
Consider how extraordinary it is today that Natural News, a small independent media organization, would now be out-reporting the New York Times on one of the most explosive medical fraud stories in U.S. history. There is not a single mainstream media source in America today which has published a single article on this extraordinary turning point in the history of the CDC and its scientific fraud. What you are witnessing today is the total collapse of the illusion of credibility across the mainstream media and the rise of the only free press remaining in America: the independent media.
This is obvious in the fact that this story has widespread implications for public health and yet no one from the mainstream media is asking any questions at all. If the press won’t ask questions, then it’s not the press at all. It’s just a propaganda outlet for corporate and government disinfo.
This CDC whistleblower admitting to scientific fraud regarding MMR vaccines is one of the biggest stories in medical history. I feel honored to be one of only a handful of truth-telling independent journalists in America who has the credibility and courage to bring it to you. Spread the truth. Share this story.
Every public institution in the United States and most private ones are corrupt.
To tell this story would be a multi-book task. Lawrence Stratton and I have written one small volume of the story. Our book, The Tyranny of Good Intentions, now with two editions and multiple printings, documents the corruption of law in the United States and has been cited in rulings by Federal District and Appeal Court judges.
Law is just one public institution, but it is a corner stone of society. When law goes, everything goes.
Only about 4 percent of federal felony cases go to trial. Almost all, 96 percent, are settled by negotiated plea bargains. Law & Order Conservatives condemn plea bargains for the wrong reason. They think plea bargains let criminals off easy.
In fact, plea bargains are used by prosecutors to convict the innocent along with the guilty. Plea bargains eliminate juries and time-consuming trials, that is, plea bargains eliminate all work on the part of prosecutors and police and lead to high conviction rates for prosecutors, the main indicator of their career success. Once upon a time, prosecutors pursued justice. They carefully examined police investigations and only indicted suspects whose conviction they thought could be obtained by a jury. Sloppy police work was discarded.
No more. Once indicted and provided with a lawyer, the defendant learns that his lawyer has no intention of defending him before a jury. The lawyer knows that the chances of getting even a totally innocent defendant found not guilty is slim to non-existent. Prosecutors, with the consent of judges, suborn perjury for which they are permitted to pay with money and dropped charges against real criminals, and prosecutors routinely withhold evidence favorable to the defendant. If a prosecutor detects that a defendant intends to fight, the prosecutor piles on charges until the defendant’s lawyer convinces the defendant that no jury will dismiss all of so many charges and that the one or two that the jury convicts on will bring a much longer sentence than the lawyer can negotiate. The lawyer tells the defendant that if you go to trail, you will be using up the time of prosecutors and judges, and the inconvenience that you cause them will send you away for many a year.
In some state and local courts it is still possible on occasion to get an almost fair trial if you can afford an attorney well enough connected to provide it. But even in non-federal courts the system is stacked against the defendant. Many prisons have been privatized, and privatized prisons require high incarceration rates in order to be profitable. The same holds for juvenile detention prisons. Not long ago two Pennsylvania judges were convicted for accepting payments from private detention prisons for each kid they sentenced.
Judges prefer plea bargains despite the fact that plea bargains amount to self-incrimination, because plea bargains dispense with time-consuming trials that cause backed-up and crowded court dockets. Trials also demand far more work on the part of a judge than accepting a plea bargain.
The fact of the matter is that in America today you are expected to convict yourself. Even your lawyer expects it. The torture is not physical; it is psychological. The system is severely biased against the defendant. Conviction by a jury brings a much heavier sentence than conviction by a deal that the defendant’s attorney negotiates with the prosecutor’s office. All the prosecutor wants is a conviction. Give him his conviction for his record as an effective prosecutor, and you get off lighter.
The injustice lies in the fact that the rule applies to the innocent as well as to the guilty.
The prosecutor and often the judge do not care whether you are innocent or guilty, and your lawyer knows that it does not matter to the outcome.
The police have learned that such a small number of cases go to trial that their evidence is seldom tested in court. Consequently, often police simply look for someone who might have committed the crime based on past criminal records, select someone with a record, and offer him or her up as the perpetrator of the crime. This police practice is one explanation for high recidivism rates.
In the totally corrupt American criminal justice (sic) system, anyone indicted, no matter how innocent, is almost certain to be convicted.
Let’s take the case of Alabama Democratic Governor Don Siegelman. Judging by the reported evidence in the media and testimony by those familiar with the case, Don Siegelman, a popular Democratic governor of Alabama was a victim of a Karl Rove operation to instruct Democrats that their political party would not be permitted a comeback in executive authority in the Republican South.
There is no doubt but that the Alabama Republican newspapers and TV stations are political tools. And there is little doubt that former Republican US Attorneys Alice Martin and Leura Canary and Republican US federal district court judge Mark Fuller were willing participants in Karl Rove’s political campaign to purge the South of popular democrats.
Republican US district court judge Mark Fuller was arrested in Atlanta this month for beating his wife in an Atlanta hotel. The judge, in whose honor courts must rise, was charged with battery and taken to the Fulton County jail at 2:30AM Sunday morning August 10. If you look at the mug shot of Mark Fuller, he doesn’t inspire confidence. http://www.bradblog.com/?p=10748 and http:/www.informationclearinghouse.info/article39493.htm Fuller was a bitter enemy of Siegelman and should have recused himself from Siegelman’s trial, but ethical behavior required more integrity than Fuller has.
Among many, Scott Horton, a professor of law at Columbia University has provided much information in Harper’s magazine involving the corruption of Fuller and the Republican prosecuting attorneys, Alice Martin and Leura Canary.
Google the case and you will see everything but justice.
The Republican frame-up of Siegelman is so obvious that various courts have overturned some of the bogus convictions. But the way “justice” works in America makes courts fearful of discrediting the criminal justice (sic) system by coming down hard on an obvious frame-up. To make the fact obvious that federal courts are used for political reasons is detrimental to the myth of justice in which gullible Americans believe.
Siegelman’s innocence is so obvious that 113 former state attorneys general have come out in his support. These attorneys general together with federal judges and members of Congress have written to Obama and to US attorney general Eric Holder urging Siegelman’s release from prison. Instead of releasing the innocent Siegelman, Obama and Holder have protected the Republican frameup of a Democratic governor.
Remember, what did President George W. Bush do when his vice president’s chief aid was convicted for the felony of revealing the name of a secret CIA operative? Bush wiped out the sentence of Cheney’s convicted operative. He remained convicted, but served no sentence.
Remember, President George H. W. Bush’s administration pardoned the neoconservative criminals in the Reagan administration who were convicted by the Reagan administration for crimes related to Iran-Contra.
So why hasn’t the Obama regime pardoned former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman who unlike other pardoned parties is actually innocent? Siegleman was bringing the Democratic Party back in the corrupt Republican state of Alabama. He was a successful governor who would have been US senator, and Karl Rove apparently exterminated him politically in order to protect the Republican hold on the South.
It is extremely ironic that the formerly solid Democratic South, plundered, looted, and raped by Republican armies, votes Republican. If anything shows the insouciance of a people, the South’s Republican vote is the best demonstration. The South votes for a party that destroyed the South and its culture. There is no greater evidence of a people totally ignorant of, or indifferent to, their history than the Southern people who vote Republican.
Obama can’t pardon Siegelman, which Justice requires, because Obama cannot confront the self-protective mechanism in the Justice (sic) Department. Obama is too weak of a person to stand up for Justice. Obama has acquiesced to the Republican and DOJ frame-up of a popular Democratic Governor.
Justice in America? It is not worth 5 cents on the New York stock exchange.
Police are as remote from concerns of justice as are prosecutors. Generally speaking, while there might be a few exceptions, the ranks of the police seem to be filled with violent psychopaths. The police seldom show any self-control and their violent nature makes police a great threat to society. Invariably, police bring violence to the scene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlY9C6pzxKc
Assaults and killings by police seldom make it beyond the local news. The lack of national coverage of crimes committed by police against the public leaves Americans with the incorrect impression that the use of excessive force by police is an occasional and unfortunate result but not a real problem. Police apologists say that an occasional mistake is the price of being safe. But police violence is an expression of police culture, not an unfortunate mistake, and what we hear is only the tip of the iceberg. http://rare.us/story/5-reasons-the-police-brutality-in-ferguson-is-just-the-tip-of-the-iceberg/
The large number of violent acts that police commit against members of the public are not entirely the fault of the police. It is well known that bullies and psychopaths are attracted to the power over others conveyed by a police badge. Considering this known fact, police should receive training in anger management. Instead, they are trained to
regard the public as an enemy against whom the police should take no chances. Police are trained to subdue a suspect with violence and question the suspect later when the suspect is under control in jail. This procedure means that even those who are totally innocent bear all the risks of being confronted by police.
Governments, media, and citizens are also responsible. They have allowed police to be militarized and to be inappropriately trained. Indeed, city, county, state, and federal governments have removed all barriers to the use of excessive force by police. Handed such power, the police use it.
Sound the bugle! Get the press to march along; we are going to war.
Enemies r ‘us, and for a long time with the killing of bin Laden, a Jihadi fatigue hadset in. With the apparent shriveling up of the Al Qaeda menace, America’s threat-defining and refining machinery was somewhat adrift. What had been so simple, turned too complex to fuse into one soundbite.
Former Intelligence official Thomas Fingar, now of Stanford University, describes his own frustration in finding out what US policy priorities should be in national intelligence. He asked his colleagues to share the threats they worried about. He was soon inundated.
“When I was given responsibility for the process known as the National Intelligence Priorities Framework, almost 2300 issues had been assigned priorities higher than zero, “ he explained. “My first instruction was, “Reduce the number.”
He knew they needed only one bad-ass enemy to focus fears and attract appropriations to fight. He had too many threats to respond to. They had to go.
Now, he and the Administration have that new bad guy.
Political scientist/analyst Michael Brenner says Washington is in an ISIS panic:
“The grotesque beheading of James Foley is stirring passions in Washington policy circles. From the highest levels of the Obama administration to the media pundits, emotions are flaring over what the United States should/could do. The act in itself has changed nothing insofar as IS’ threat to the United States and its significance for Middle East politics are concerned. It is the mood that has been transformed. Irresistible impulse is displacing cool deliberation. The flood of commentary, as usual, reveals little in the way of rigorous logic but much in the way of disjointed thinking and unchecked emotion.”
The response? Give us a war plan, and not just against ISIS, let’s throw in Syria too. Money is apparently no object.
Breaking Defense.com reports:
“US operations against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (or whatever we’re calling it these days) have probably cost the country about $100 million so far, according to one of the top defense budget experts. It’s difficult to come up with a precise estimate for what current operations in Iraq are costing…”
Don’t forget, as Glenn Greenwald didn’t, before the current focus on ISIS, the US was bombarding Syria’s Assad with calls that he step down amidst threats of overthrowing him.
“It was not even a year ago,” he writes,
“when we were bombarded with messaging that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is a Supreme Evil and Grave Threat, and that military action against his regime was both a moral and strategic imperative. Now the Obama administration and American political class is celebrating the one-year anniversary of the failed “Bomb Assad!” campaign by starting a new campaign to bomb those fighting against Assad – the very same side the U.S. has been arming over the last two years.”
Recall: that campaign was undercut when public opinion in the US turned against it. We negotiated instead, and accomplished something, eventually destroying Syria’s stash of chemical weapons. Why emulate a success when you can make more mistakes?
That was then, and this is now. ISIS is the new boogieman.The next stage of our assault is underway as we can deduce from a build up of recent press reports:
President Obama wants to make a decision by the end of this week whether or not to expand his war against ISIS into Syria, report Josh Rogin and Eli Lake. However, nobody knows yet how we can do it, or what will happen next.
Syria and Isis committing war crimes, says UN
Alawites prepare as IS, Jabhat al-Nusra close in on regime areas
Drones a Step Toward Expanding War Into Syria
U.S. Mobilizes Allies to Widen Assault on ISIS
Specialops.org (Elite Magazine for Elite Warriors) reports:
“Members of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, or ISIS, were trained in 2012 by U.S. instructors working at a secret base in Jordan, according to informed Jordanian officials. The officials said dozens of ISIS members were trained at the time as part of covert aid to the insurgents targeting the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in Syria. The officials said the training was not meant to be used for any future campaign in Iraq.
The Jordanian officials said all ISIS members who received U.S. training to fight in Syria were first vetted for any links to extremist groups like al-Qaida.”
Now, there are reports that the CIA is forming new hit squads to use ISIS tactics against ISIS with an ISIS-like assassination offensive, to “cut off the head of the snake.” (Sounds like beheading doesn’t it?)Shh!
Sounds like we are headed back to the dark side with killings, torture, renditions, secret sites etc. Will that long awaited CIA report be nowbe seen as a manual for more of the same?
The last time the US organized assassination teams in Iraq,it didn’t work out that well, And guess who else was involved?
“Israel helping train US special forces in aggressive counter-insurgency (CI) operations in Iraq, including the use of assassination squads against guerrilla leaders, US intelligence and military sources said yesterday…The new CI unit made up of elite troops being put together in the Pentagon is called Task Force 121, New Yorker magazine reported… One of the planners, highly controversial ..Lt. Ge. William “Jerry” Boykin…with calls for his resignation after he told an Oregon congregation the US was at war with Satan who “wants to destroy us as a Christian army”.
And so it goes, as once again, around and around, we become more and more like the enemy we warn against.
Back to Michael Brenner’s take on how our media hysteria is not helping, “There is a more general lesson to be learned from this latest exercise in ad hoc policy-making by press conference. The insistence of senior officials to speak at length in public on these complex, sensitive matters when there is no set policy is inimical to serious planning and diplomacy. If they feel compelled to react to events to satisfy the media and an agitated populace, they should just say a few well-chosen words and then declare themselves on the way to an important meeting – preferably not in Martha’s Vineyard.
“Silence, though, is taken to be tantamount to death in the egocentric media age where image is all – confusing random motion with focused action.”
Why look back? No one wants to learn anything! Iraq 2 was a disaster. Can we expect Iraq 3 to be any better? Afghanistan is a disaster. Israel failed in its aims in Gaza, whatever bloody “urban renewal” was imposed at a high human toll. Libya is a mess.
Knock, knock: raise your hand if you think Syria will become our next miracle?
News Dissector Danny Schechter blogs at Newsdissector.net and works on Mediachannel.org. Comments to [email protected]
The Ukrainian Government prior to the coup had been economically sustained by borrowing both from Russia to the east, and also from the EU and U.S. to the west (with a substantial portion of the U.S. portion of that debt consisting of IMF loans — the U.S. Government is the major donor to the IMF). These loans were, ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union, largely being pocketed by the well-connected former communist nomenklatura or insiders who had been given formerly state-owned industries during the Harvard-designed privatization program throughout the former U.S.S.R.
These new oligarchs (such as the current Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, who received the Leninska Kuznya shipyard and some state-owned chocolate factories, as well as a few other companies in retailing and news-media) got the benefits of those loans and socked away much of their consequent accumulating wealth in offshore tax-havens, so that the mounting sovereign debt of Ukraine is already crushing the Ukrainian population by severe cutbacks in Government expenditures for social services, road maintenance, and other government services, while those oligarchs have palatial residences in Western Europe.
So: this costly war will leave behind a failed-state in northwestern Ukraine, and a separatist southeast, which will likely seek and receive membership in the Russian Federation. The perhaps more than a million refugees from Obama’s ethnic-cleansing program in the southeast will probably return to and rebuild their bombed-out land, and likely receive a kind of Russian Marshall Plan to assist in that effort.
Looking back, it won’t be any sort of feather in Obama’s cap, but instead a black mark that will be comparable to, and perhaps even bigger than, George W. Bush’s catastrophe in Iraq.
A President like this will be rated at or near the bottom by historians. Perhaps he’s just a less honest version of George W. Bush, the latter having made no bones about his conservatism. At least Bush was honest about that. Obama has lied about the most basic things of all: what he believes, what he actually cares about, as shown by the decisions that he has made in office. His policies display him as being like George W. Bush but a better liar from the standpoint of liberals, who have been taken in by his lies.
The disaster of his Presidency is now likely to produce electoral losses for the Democratic Party in November, which result will then be a certain kind of poetic justice for a Party whose principles are so fraudulent that not even a single Democratic member of the U.S. House of Representatives has introduced a bill of impeachment to remove him from office. That failure is equivalent to the entire Democratic Party accepting the deep stain on the Democratic Party’s progressive brand, a stain that means: “We’re all fakes. Obama’s policies, his actual record, reflect our conservative values. He’s not a Republican-in-verbal-disguise. He really is one of us, even after his having been the first U.S. President to place outright nazis into control of a foreign government.”
The only thing that can significantly reduce the mounting cynicism in this country is for a House Democrat to introduce a bill of impeachment against perhaps the worst President in American history. It would be to say: “He’s not really a Democrat, at heart; he’s just a very effective liar.” If Democrats want to retain control of the Senate, they’ll need to disown and remove this stain upon it. For the 2014 elections, and the 2016 Presidential election, this will signal the end of the corrupt Clinton-Obama “Democratic” Party, and the rebirth of the FDR Democratic Party, a Party that truly was progressive and anti-fascist.
It would end the Clinton-Obama one-Party, conservative-Party, corporate-Party, U.S. political system. But without that change, the U.S. has no realistic hope. If Obama continues to be accepted as a Democrat, then the final two years of his Presidency will be spent signing into law numerous far-right bills that have passed both houses of Congress — a Republican House and a Republican Senate. He’ll have a field day signing so many fascist bills into law. It will be the most conservative Government in American history. The Democratic Party will be dead. And democracy in America will be just a nostalgic memory for Americans who are old enough to remember what it was like. What it was like was progress for and in America. What we will have ever afterwards is dictatorship for and in America. The choice is up to each and every current Democratic member of the U.S. House of Representatives.
Ukrainian refugees should be given the right to live where they want – Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said at the Seliger-2014 all-Russian youth forum
The number of Ukrainian refugees in Russia has nearly reached 1 million, Russia’s top diplomat said Wednesday.
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov also said at the Seliger-2014 all-Russian youth forum in the Tver Region northwest of Moscow that Ukrainian refugees should be given the right to live where they want.
“The situation of people who fled Ukraine’s southeast to other regions of the country is very difficult. Ukraine has no laws on internally displaced persons, that is why they do not obtain documents confirming their status, and if there are no documents they cannot get a job, obtain loans and sustenance,” Lavrov said.
“It is necessary to push for people to be able to reside where they want to,” he said.
The minister cited UN data in line with which more than 22,000 people left Donetsk and Lugansk last week, adding that refugees are afraid to use the so-called humanitarian corridors provided by Kiev as they are unsafe.
The Russian Foreign Ministry said Tuesday citing the latest statistics released by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) that the number of fatalities from the armed standoff in the embattled east of Ukraine has reached 2,249 and added that another 6,033 were injured as of August 19.
Troops loyal to Kiev and local militias in the southeastern Ukrainian Donetsk and Lugansk regions are involved in fierce clashes as the Ukrainian armed forces are conducting a military operation to regain control over the breakaway territories, which on May 11 proclaimed their independence at local referendums and now call themselves the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s republics.
During the military operation, conducted since mid-April, Kiev has used armored vehicles, heavy artillery and attack aviation. Hundreds of civilians have been killed in it. Many buildings have been destroyed and hundreds of thousands of people have had to flee Ukraine’s embattled southeast.
Three weeks to go and the debate over the Scottish Referendum gets no better. Reason goes down the drain. The large number of anti-independence people giving their views can do nothing but issue gloom and doom warnings for Scotland’s grim fate if it casts itself adrift from the United Kingdom.
The No side, or Better Together as it likes to be called (it was going to change that to “No Thanks” but that seems to have been quietly forgotten) focuses almost entirely on money – sorry – “economy”. It produces some totally inane statements, such as “Pakistan is richer than Scotland”. Do they really think that will persuade the Scots to stay within the UK?
According to the Independent, “a table in the No campaign document Key Facts You Need to Know includes a table that shows the gross domestic product of the world’s major nations, with the UK ranked sixth behind France. The table suggests that Scotland would be 45th, behind Finland and Pakistan. The reason Scotland is so far down the table is that its 5.3 million population is small by the standards of most major nations, and less than a thirtieth of Pakistan’s population.”
In the televised debate between Alex Salmond and ex-UK Chancellor Alastair Darling on 25 August, Darling kept trying to push the debate onto the economy, regardless of what they were debating. There was a lot of angry exchange over whether Scotland could keep the pound and Salmond got Darling to finally admit that nothing, but nothing, can stop Scotland from keeping the pound sterling, should it so wish. But, said Darling, you won’t get an agreement with the rest of the UK about that. “And what is your Plan B?” he demanded.
There are well over a hundred nations that have a currency union agreement, replied Salmond. Why should Scotland be denied what so many others have? And, among three Plan B options was this: “let us keep the pound with a currency union agreement, and Scotland will take on its share of the UK national debt, (now standing at over £1.27 trillion). But deny us an agreement over the pound and the debt is all yours.” It seems a pretty generous offer to me.
And, as someone in the audience pointed out, Darling (Scottish) and his predecessor, former Chancellor and then Prime Minister Gordon Brown (also Scottish) were responsible for much of that debt. And don’t forget that under the current Prime Minister David Cameron (with Scottish forbears and pretensions) the debt has increased. Scotland could hardly do worse, and may very well do better on its own.
There is a constant downplaying and denigration of the Scottish economy by the No campaign. Have they nothing better to say? Not once have I heard, “Please, Scotland, stay with us. We need you. You are a valuable part of the UK and we will be poorer in many ways without you.” All they can do is attack, sneer, belittle and insult.
Take the issue of Scotland’s scientists. Scotland’s scientific research would suffer from a loss of funding if there was a Yes vote. In a letter to the Times, the presidents of the Royal Society, British Academy and the Academy of Medical Sciences wrote that “Scotland has long done particularly well through its access to UK research funding.” Scotland, they say, would find it hard to maintain the levels of funding needed.
But, they added, “We believe that if separation were to occur, research not only in Scotland but also the rest of the UK would suffer.” Indeed it would. Scottish scientists have long had an enviable world reputation. And really, if Russian and American scientists can work together in the International Space Station, why not researchers either side of the border?
As Professor Bryan MacGregor, a spokesman for Academics for Yes, said: “The simple truth is that Scotland does well in open competition for funds but poorly where funds are allocated by other means.” In other words, the funding might be somewhat better under independence.
How about this for a scare story? Nobel Prize-winning scientist Sir Paul Nurse, having praised the “wonderfully innovative biomedical teams” working in Scotland, warned that cancer research could be harmed by a yes vote. And doctors would leave, according to a top surgeon at Edinburgh’s Western General Hospital. But why? Unless, perhaps, pay is more important than patients.
When the No campaign, so very Westminster -managed, isn’t spreading bad news about the possible loss of financial security, it switches to another kind of “security” – the importance of keeping the Trident missile at its base in Faslane. Actually, it would rather not talk about Trident at all but needs must, as it is an important cornerstone of the Independence campaign.
Alastair Darling said removing Trident would mean a loss of 8000 jobs. But, replied Salmond, we plan to keep Faslane as the base for Scottish Defence, with all the jobs that implies. Darling countered with the Royal United Services Institute’s claim that Trident couldn’t be moved until 2028. Salmond came back with the fact that RUSI actually said that setting up all the infrastructure elsewhere for Trident and its submarines would take that long. The removal of Trident could easily be accomplished in the proposed 5½ years. The fact that no one could use it for several more years would be to everyone’s benefit.
So where could it go? This is the one post-independence issue that has been discussed south of the border. The answer – the Royal Naval base at Devonport. I think the good citizens of Plymouth and Devon would have something to say about that. So would all the shipping. Devonport is on the pretty narrow English Channel. To have one of the busiest of the world’s shipping lanes trying to cope with nuclear-armed submarines sailing in and out doesn’t bear thinking about. Particularly when one takes into account the Trident fleet’s record for bumping into things.
Salmond in this instance is right – the world would be a better place without weapons of mass destruction. Darling asked why, if Salmond was so opposed to nuclear weapons, he was willing for Scotland to seek to join NATO? After all, NATO is a nuclear-armed organisation. It seemed a good question until Salmond kindly pointed out that NATO has 28 members and only three, the US, the UK and France, have nuclear weapons.
The debate didn’t go well for Darling. His whole stance, his talking down of the SNP’s plans for life after a Yes vote, spoke of an MP wedded to Westminster, no matter how Scottish his blood. He kept dragging the debate back to money, as though that is all Scotland is about. Yes, Scotland would have to work hard to get a post-independence economy but it could be done. And Salmond threw in a cherry-on-the-cake suggestion. Get Trident out of Faslane, he said, and Scotland could open up the Firth of Clyde for oil and gas exploration.
The Scots are going to find it hard to forget the insults. Even more, they are right to question what will happen if they vote No. As one woman said in a radio debate, “There is no certainty as to what will happen to us afterwards if we vote No.” Westminster simply isn’t saying, apart from vague promises of the election-related, easily-forgotten kind. Nor is it making any plans for what it will do if there is a Yes vote. But voters are quite naturally seeking certainty, and sometimes there seems to be a feeling that England will take its revenge for this referendum.
The Scots, however they vote, will also be unhappy to learn that, although a majority of the English want Scotland to stay within the UK, they think that “we” give far too much to Scotland; Scotland is a drain on “our resources”. The latest research shows that “the English overwhelmingly oppose sharing the pound with an independent Scotland” and that “they want the Government to take a “hard line” with the Scots regardless of the referendum result.”
England and Westminster have conveniently forgotten just how much money the UK has made over the years from North Sea oil. And we would lose that revenue if Scotland became independent. Salmond may well be depending too heavily on money from the North Sea to fund some of his plans post independence, but whatever his opponents claim, it will still be a valuable source of income.
Salmond and the Scottish National Party have made various commitments as to what they would do after a Yes vote, affecting major areas such as the Health Service, Pensions & Social Security and Education. People worry about these aspects of their lives and some efforts have been made to show how Scotland could afford to implement those commitments. Some plans may work and some may not, but for Westminster-based politicians to pooh-pooh the Yes campaign’s proposals when, apart from the wealthy, the whole of the UK is currently suffering from the poor economic reconstructions of the current government is shaming.
The polls say the No campaign is leading but the gap is closing. In the first debate between Salmond and Darling, polls said Darling had won. The last debate went to Salmond – decisively. 73% gave him the thumbs up, and he certainly stirred up national pride in the audience. Curiously, although the English, of which I am one, are said to “overwhelmingly” want Scotland to stay in the UK, I have not actually come across anybody holding that opinion, and I live in a very conservative area.
Just as the Scots must feel insulted by all the negative and arrogant campaigning against independence, the greater part of it from people who do not live in Scotland and will not vote, I feel embarrassed and angry to be governed by such people. And each time another stupid and insulting reason is given for voting against independence makes more Scots decide to vote Yes, I find myself cheering them on.
I have honestly tried to be impartial, because this referendum is for Scotland to decide. But the more utter nonsense I hear from Better Together the more I feel Scotland would be Better Apart. I wish I could join them.
Birds and bees are something most of us take for granted as part of nature. The expression “teaching about the birds and the bees” to explain the process of human reproduction to young people is not an accidental expression. Bees and birds contribute to the essence of life on our planet. A study by the US Department of Agriculture estimated that “…perhaps one-third of our total diet is dependent, directly or indirectly, upon insect-pollinated plants.”
The honey bee, Apis mellifera, is the most important pollinator of agricultural crops. Honey bees pollinate over 70 out of 100 crops that in turn provide 90% of the world’s food. They pollinate most fruits and vegetables — including apples, oranges, strawberries, onions and carrots. But while managed honey bee populations have increased over the last 50 years, bee colony populations have decreased significantly in many European and North American nations. Simultaneously, crops that are dependent on insects for pollination have increased. The phenomenon has received the curious designation of Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), implying it could be caused by any number of factors. Serious recent scientific studies however point to a major cause: use of new highly toxic systemic pesticides in agriculture since about 2004.
If governments in the EU, USA and other countries fail to impose a total ban on certain chemical insecticides, not only could bees become a thing of the past. The human species could face staggering new challenges merely to survive. The immediate threat comes from the widespread proliferation of commercial insecticides containing the highly-toxic chemical with the improbable name, neonicotinoids. Neonicotinoids are a group of insecticides chemically similar to nicotine. They act on the central nervous system of insects. But also on bees and small song birds. Recent evidence suggests they could also affect human brain development in newborn.
Some five to six years back, reports began to circulate from around the world, especially out of the United States, and then increasingly from around the EU, especially in the UK, that entire bee colonies were disappearing. Since 2004 over a million beehives have died across the United States and beekeepers in 25 states report what is called Colony Collapse Disorder. In winter of 2009 an estimated one fifth of bee hives in the UK were lost, double the natural rate. Government authorities claimed it was a mystery. Continue reading “Death of the Birds and the Bees Across America” by F. William Engdahl
Today more than ever, the world’s food resources are being hijacked by giant corporations that are turning farms into factories and replacing natural resources with genetically modified “food-like” substances.
F. William Engdahl is a leading researcher on the destruction of the planet’s food system and the profit-driven enterprises that are driving this devastating process.
Place your order online by credit card, through PayPal, by mail or by fax!
This skilfully researched book focuses on how a small socio-political American elite seeks to establish control over the very basis of human survival: the provision of our daily bread. “Control the food and you control the people.”
This is no ordinary book about the perils of GMO. Engdahl takes the reader inside the corridors of power, into the backrooms of the science labs, behind closed doors in the corporate boardrooms.
The author cogently reveals a diabolical world of profit-driven political intrigue, government corruption and coercion, where genetic manipulation and the patenting of life forms are used to gain worldwide control over food production. If the book often reads as a crime story, that should come as no surprise. For that is what it is.
Engdahl’s carefully argued critique goes far beyond the familiar controversies surrounding the practice of genetic modification as a scientific technique. The book is an eye-opener, a must-read for all those committed to the causes of social justice and world peace.
So much of our discussion of public policy consists of absurd accusations from the right matched with self-serving justifications from the somewhat-less-right. The most obvious example of this is the perennial think piece on Obama’s foreign policy, which is invariably analyzed as being either foolishly pacifistic or prudently diplomatic. The reality that the Obama administration has used military force on a large scale in many countries is not acknowledged, because it’s not something either major party likes to point out (FAIR Blog, 7/16/13, 8/30/13,3/18/14, 8/12/14).
The latest installment in this genre comes from the Washington Post(8/22/14), where Zachary Goldfarb presents a classic false dichotomy:
Obama’s detractors revived criticism that his foreign policy is based on retreat from the world, typified by the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq three years ago, a lack of direct action in Syria and an economics-first approach to driving Russia’s military back from Ukraine.
His supporters argue that his approach has been consistent with his strategy of returning the United States–after post-September 11 wars–to a foreign policy built around economic engagement rather than military intervention.
Obama’s forgotten Afghan surge (graphic: NPR)
How do you write a sentence like this one–”In place of the large military deployments, Obama has relied on smaller operations to manage, rather than resolve, many of the conflicts that have arisen during his time in office”–without mentioning that Obama sent nearly 70,000 extra troops to Afghanistan, tripling the deployment there? Since then, 1,700 US troops have died, and at least 13,000 Afghan civilians, along with an unknown number of Afghan combatants; surely this has a bearing on whether you can characterize Obama’s presidency as a “retreat from the world”?
But the only mentions of Afghanistan, Obama’s biggest single military engagement, in Goldfarb’s piece are in a passage in which Obama adviser Ben Rhodes is allowed to claim that Obama policy there is the exact opposite of what it actually was:
At the same time, he said, Obama is not reconsidering his view that Iraq–and Afghanistan–must be primarily responsible for their own security.
“The basic premise still holds that we’re transitioning from wars in which the United States was on the ground in big numbers fighting to secure Afghanistan and Iraq to Afghans and Iraqis fighting on the ground to secure their own countries,” Rhodes said.
In Afghanistan, Obama has mostly been “transitioning” from the “big numbers” of troops that he sent there himself (FAIR Blog, 11/25/13)–but that’s an inconvenient detail that interferes with the story Goldfarb is trying to tell.
To get another viewpoint that is essentially the same viewpoint, only with a frowny face, Goldfarb goes to Cheney-era State Department official David Kramer, who says things like, “The problem for Obama is he often sets up these false choices between essentially doing nothing and sending in the 82nd battalion.”
The Washington Post’s Zachary Goldfarb
This would have been a good time to mention that in numerous countries, rather than doing nothing or sending in the 82nd, Obama has chosen to use drones to assassinate some 2,400 people, including several hundred civilians and at least 168 children (Huffington Post, 1/23/14). But, remarkably, the word “drone” never appears in an article ostensibly about whether Obama has done a “retreat from the world” or not.
After setting up his fake dichotomy between Obama as namby-pamby pacifist and Obama as wise diplomat, Goldfarb writes:
The question, though, is whether he is contradicting the pledge embraced in his 2009 Nobel Prize lecture: “to face the world as it is,” not as he would like it to be.
No one who writes an article like this one is any position to give lectures about facing the world as it is.
The increasing tendency of the Central Intelligence Agency and other U.S. intelligence agencies to disregard previous prohibitions against the use of journalists as agents puts every legitimate reporter around the world in jeopardy. The CIA has a checkered past in the use of journalists as intelligence agents. The practice was common in the 1960s and early 70s but was banned by Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter. However, when President Ronald Reagan helped reignite the Cold War, the CIA again began using journalists as intelligence agents. The practice put a number of journalists in jeopardy, especially those taken captive by guerrillas groups during the Lebanese civil war. There is nothing to suggest any president since Reagan has discontinued the practice of using journalists as agents.
Intelligence agents operating under journalistic cover can take a number of forms:
- Journalists who openly work for media operations linked officially to past and current CIA operations. These include Radio Free Europe / Radio Free Liberty, Radio Free Asia, Alhurra, Radio Sawa, Radio and TV Marti, and to some extent, the Voice of America.
- Journalists who work for work for accredited news media companies who agree to work covertly for U.S. intelligence. Such journalists have been known to work for The Washington Post, the International Herald Tribune, and President Barack Obama’s one-time employer, Business International Corporation of New York City, publisher of executive business and political newsletters. CIA director Richard Helms had previously worked as a reporter for United Press International.
- Journalists who work for start-up publications linked to the CIA or CIA fronts, including the the Kyiv Post, Cambodia Daily, Burma Daily, Kabul Weekly, and Lidove Noviny of Prague.
- Freelance journalists who become embedded with U.S. military and paramilitary forces and work for one or more media operations having very low profiles.
Journalists working for media operations financed by the U.S. government’s Broadcasting Board of Governors have been known to leave legitimate media organizations, where they have already established strong journalistic credentials and high-level contacts, to join government operations like Radio Free Europe and the others to carry out assignments for U.S. intelligence.
One of the CIA’s favorite nesting grounds for its journalist-agents during the Cold War was the International Herald Tribune, formerly the Paris Herald Tribune, based in Paris. The paper was eventually jointly owned by The Washington Post and New York Times. The managing editor of the Herald Tribune News Service, Nathan Kingsley, left the paper’s Paris headquarters to be the head of Radio Free Europe’s news service in Munich. Kingsley replaced Gene Mater who became the public affairs spokesman for the Free Europe Committee in New York. Radio Free Europe and the Free Europe Committee were both connected to the CIA.
Publisher of the International Herald Tribune John Hay Whitney, a former U.S. ambassador to Britain, was involved in setting up a CIA media operation called Kern House Enterprises, a CIA proprietary firm registered in Delaware. The British branch of Kern House, not surprisingly located at Kern House in London, ran a CIA news service called Forum World Features (FWF), which, in turn, was linked to another CIA front, the Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF) in Paris. The CCF published, on behalf of the CIA, two periodicals,Encounter and Information Bulletin. FWF sold its news stories to 50 newspapers around the world, including 30 in the United States. FWF, which was established in 1965 and overseen by Kermit Roosevelt, the CIA’s architect of the overthrow of Iran’s democratic government in 1953, also published Conflict Studies, a scholarly journal that was among the first to hype the «threat» of global terrorism in the early 1970s. FWF could tap any of its agents as FWF journalists and send them on assignment. One such agent-journalist was assigned to the CIA station in Bangkok.
For years, the CIA operated the Rome Daily American in Italy. The English-language paper’s editor was a former reporter for the Associated Press. The paper was published by the same press that printed the small Italian-language newspaper representing the views of the Italian Social Democratic Party. The Daily American folded in 1986.
Another newspaper operated by the CIA was the South Pacific Mail,headquartered in Santiago, Chile and operated by CIA agent David Atlee Phillips. The English-language South Pacific Mail was distributed in Chile and several South Pacific nations and territories, from New Zealand and the Samoan isles to the New Hebrides and Tonga. Phillips, who would later be identified as a key facilitator of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in Dallas, said that he and some 200 other journalists with whom he was familiar eagerly signed secrecy agreements with the CIA upon their recruitment as agents. Among those who signed such agreements was Arthur Hays Sulzberger, the publisher of The New York Times.
Operation Mockingbird was a CIA operation to influence the coverage established news media organizations gave to news events. Included in the CIA news media influence operations were Time magazine, Christian Science Monitor, Newsweek, The Washington Post, The New York Herald-Tribune, Saturday Evening Post, The Miami Herald, The Washington Star,and Copley News Service.
Austin Goodrich was a freelance journalist who wrote for the CIA’s favorite newspaper, the Paris Herald Tribune, CBS News, and the Christian Science Monitor. The Christian Science Monitor has become, over the past six years, an ardent supporter of the Obama administration’s and CIA’s «Responsibility to Protect» (R2P) interventionist foreign policy. Even after Goodrich was identified as a CIA agent he continued working as a journalist in Stockholm, Amsterdam, Bangkok, and West Berlin.
A manifestation of the R2P policy was the CIA’s training and arming of Syrian Islamist rebels who eventually kidnapped U.S. photo-journalist James Foley in 2012. The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), the group that kidnapped Foley, whose reporting experience included being embedded with U.S. military units in Afghanistan and Iraq and CIA-supported rebels in Libya and Syria, eventually executed him in a gruesome videotaped beheading. But questions remain over whether the CIA’s continued use of journalists as agents and the embedding of journalists with CIA-trained insurgents runs the risk of journalists being mistaken as CIA operatives, especially in war zones.
Stuart Loory, who worked as the New York Herald-Tribune’s correspondent in Moscow in the 1960s before joining the Los Angeles Times and CNN, has said that the CIA’s use of journalists as spies calls into question the status of every journalist. He said, «If even one American overseas carrying a press card is a paid informer for the CIA, then all Americans with those credentials are suspect». Loory emphasized that «journalists must be willing to focus on themselves the same spotlight they so relentlessly train on others».
However, the caution urged by Loory has, in some cases, fallen on deaf ears. In 2012, New York Times reporter Mark Mazzetti forwarded an advance copy of a column written by his colleague, columnist Maureen Dowd, to the CIA’s spokesperson Marie Harf. Dowd’s column concerned a CIA leak to Hollywood that involved the production of a movie called «Zero Dark Thirty». Harf has since been promoted to deputy press secretary for the Department of State where she is undoubtedly still fronting for her old CIA colleagues in spotting willing journalists, particularly foreign correspondents, eager to cooperate with the CIA.
With a number of print publications folding their operations, there has been a mushrooming of web-based news outlets. The Global Post, based in Boston, was able to send freelancer Foley to costly assignments in Libya and Syria. A subscription-based news website, which once only had 400 subscribers, is not only able to send someone like Foley off to cover wars but is able to maintain an international correspondents’ staff of 65 in high-cost cities ranging from Moscow and Jerusalem to Tokyo and Nairobi. Some uncomfortable questions must be asked. For example, from where does Global Post actually receive its funding? And, why does it find it advantageous to embed its freelancers with U.S. military units and CIA-financed Islamist insurgent groups? Looking back over the last 65 years encompassing the CIA’s use of journalists as agents, the answers to these questions become all too apparent.
As Palestinians tweeted advice on how to safely deal with tear gas to Black Ferguson residents, President Barack Obama spewed garbage rhetoric typical of his Administration. Obama dismissed Black existence by confirming that it is never acceptable to exact violence on the police. This anti-Black comment came after Michael Brown, an 18 year-old Black male, was murdered by a local police officer in Ferguson, Missouri. Brown was shot multiples times (at least six) despite having his hands up. He only ran for his survival after being shot once at point blank range. In a matter of minutes, “Big Mike” was added to the list of Black Americans murdered every 28 hours by law enforcement in the United States.
The Black community of Ferguson has responded to the state-sanctioned murder of “Big Mike” with a weeks-long resistance. In defiance of corporate media clamor for peace and Black respectability (subservience), Black Ferguson’s presence in the streets has displayed for everyone to see the true character of 21st century US imperialism. Sights of militarized SWAT teams and Pentagon weaponry surrounding Black Ferguson have placed the US imperial police state under serious critique. The ruling class complimented its military siege with “soft power,” sending a Black state police officer, Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, and CNN’s Don Lemon to diffuse the peaceful rebellion. But, despite the disturbance of the Black misleadership class, the rebellion shows no signs of dissipating any time soon and deserves serious attention from organizers and activists wherever they are.
Lasting solidarity with Black Ferguson needs to develop from the organization of the oppressed. One of the most important tasks of left organizers and activists is to build an anti-imperialist spirit that unites oppressed people in the US to the struggles of people fighting Obama’s imperialist ventures abroad. This will take a concerted effort to strip Emperor Obama of his left-flank veneer generously awarded to him by the ruling class. Luckily, history is the perfect guide to unmasking US imperialism’s agenda that lies at the root of the Ferguson rebellion.
Black Americans in Ferguson are coming into direct confrontation with police officers and national guardsmen armed to the teeth with military weaponry and technology. The root of police militarization stems from the relationship between US imperialism’s domestic anti-Black policy and its international policy of plunder. In 1969, President Richard Nixon began his administration by deploying the first SWAT team operation to annihilate the Los Angeles branch of the Black Panther Party, headquartered on 41st and Central. The LAPD’s SWAT team engaged in a five-hour shootout, injuring three Panthers. 41st and Central’s shoot-out indicated a new precedent, one where police departments could tap into Washington for helicopter rifles, grenades, and armaments typically used by the military. After the raid, SWAT teams arose all over the nation and sported the insignia “41st” as a symbol of white racial solidarity for the true role of the police as an army of occupation in the Black community.
1969 was the year the US ruling class planned to completely annihilate the Black Panther Party. The Panthers’ Black liberation politics included a principled commitment to internationalist solidarity. Black Panther opposition to the Vietnam War infuriated the US establishment. Panther ideology related the Black struggle in the US to anti-imperialist struggles abroad, making them a direct threat to the American ruling order. This forced the US ruling class to declare a domestic war on the Panthers. The head of the FBI, J. Edgar Hoover, labeled the Black Panther Party the greatest threat to the internal security of the country in ’68. In 1969, the murders of John “Bunchy” Carter, Fred Hampton, Mark Clark, and scores of other Panthers made the FBI’s joint efforts with local police to destroy the revolutionary organization painstakingly clear.
The US imperialist siege on Black resistance continued with the Reagan Administration’s ”War on Drugs.” By this time, Black Panther leadership had dissipated, weakened by domestic reform and repression. The US ruling class sought to use the opportunity to criminalize the Black community as a mechanism of social control. Millions of dollars of federal aid and military equipment was transferred to local police departments to conduct military-style “raids” and “drug busts.” The purpose of the “War on Drugs” was to control Black resistance and warehouse surplus Black labor further displaced by deindustrialization. Nation-wide criminalization of Black America has transformed the US into a prison state, holding nearly three million mostly Black prisoners behind bars.
As the US occupation army (police) terrorized the Black working class, the ruling class has used the same “War on Drugs” policy to exert its interests in Latin America and the Middle East. The Central Intelligence Agency and Washington sponsored the Contras in Nicaragua, Guatemala, and El Salvador. The Contras were a US imperial project, a US-sponsored group of bandits whose mission was to destabilize Central America. CIA intelligence also created a jihad terror network to overthrow the secular Afghan government in 1979. This exported chaos all over the world to make way for US geopolitical and corporate domination.
Journalist Gary Webb unearthed the CIA’s dual imperial role in the ”War on Drugs.” In his 1996 investigation, Webb found that cocaine was being smuggled into the US and sold in Los Angeles by Contra terrorists fighting a US proxy war against Nicaragua’s Sandinista movement. The smuggled cocaine was sold in its crack form and intentionally distributed in the Black community to provide justification for rampant policing and imprisonment, including the mandatory 100 to 1 difference between crack powder cocaine prison sentences. Profits from the US sponsored drug trade were funneled back to the Contras to help pay for arms from US coffers. Both on the domestic and international front, Webb’s findings revealed that the US imperial “War on Drugs” was a dual war on the Black community and the oppressed peoples of the world.
No relief from US imperialism’s dual assault has come during the last three Presidential Administrations despite two of the three being led by the Democratic Party. Clinton, Bush, and Obama all have played a role in accelerating the war on the Black community at home and the war on anti-imperialist forces abroad. Clinton continued the unpopular militarized “drug raids” and supplied police forces with 1.2 million in military items under his administration. This included 3,800 M-16s, 185 M-14s, 73 grenade launchers and 112 armored personnel carriers. Clinton’s Administration also expanded the use of NATO to achieve US imperial objectives, unleashing the Jihad terrorist network to dismember Yugoslavia. A similar model was employed on the African continent, where the Clinton Administration supported genocidal proxies in Rwanda and Uganda to loot the Democratic Republic of Congo.
The Clinton Administration set the tone for the Bush Administration’s “War on Terror,” a US imperial strategy that sprung into creation after the 9-11 debacle in 2001. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was formed with billions in US-tax dollars used to accelerate the erosion of domestic civil liberties. Since 2001, the federal government has distributed 34 billion dollars in grants to police departments, many of which have come directly from DHS. These grants have been used to purchase military armaments, especially those that have gone unused in US imperialist ventures in Iraq and Afghanistan. DHS opened the door for the creation of a lobby of police departments, military contractors, and federal administrators whose very careers are tied to the profits accrued from police militarization.
Ferguson protesters have rightfully scorned President Obama and Al Sharpton, saying ”You haven’t changed shit, f*ck y’all.” Since Obama was first elected in 2008, the “hope and change” President has overseen the largest number of Pentagon arms and intelligence giveaways to local police in US history. Obama’s Administration re-booted the Byrnes program with 2 billion dollars, an initiative largely responsible for warrantless SWAT team raids of US citizens. Anti-Terror grants from DHS have increased and so have raids of marijuana growers. Black prisoners continue to grow into the largest imprisoned population in the word and pitiful attempts at amnesty and ratio reduction between crack and cocaine are inconsequential at best. The exacerbation of US imperialist policy has been the only change wrought in the Obama era, this time from the left-flank of the US ruling class.
The left’s criticism of the Obama Administration has been infrequent and inconsistent, so Ferguson’s Black rebellion is leading the way on an important task. Much of the left became caught in the corporate media’s obsession with symbolism when Obama rose to the Presidential scene in 2008. In quick time, the successor to Bush Jr. represented a “lesser evil,” “progress” or some other liberal, delusional catchphrase that gave Obama’s imperialism impunity. Movement forces sat dormant, even as the Obama Administration capitulated to finance capital, clamped down on dissent through police militarization and Black mass incarceration, and wreaked havoc on the planet with its ”humanitarian” interventionist impulse.
Ferguson’s rebellion, however, continues to build strength and has already taught an important lesson to the anti-imperialist struggle. The courage being displayed by the rebellion is a testament to Huey Newton’s conclusion that “the walls, the bars, the guns and the guards can never encircle or hold down the idea of the people.” Ferguson’s Black community is standing up to the National Guard and militarized police forces sent out to lynch dissent. Ferguson is demanding justice for Mike Brown and the Black community he represents. A sound, long-term strategy for the anti-imperialist movement can build upon Ferguson’s resistance by dropping Obama-mania for good and taking the streets in solidarity with Ferguson, everywhere oppression exists.
Danny Haiphong is an activist and case manager in the Greater Boston Area. Danny can be reached at [email protected].
Releyendo Os Primeiros Cristãos, Páginas de História, de Irina Sventsitskaya,* medité durante dias sobre la milenária busca de dios por el hombre. Fue tan intensa esa reflexión que dediqué las ultimas semanas a releer el Antiguo Testamento y el Nuevo Testamento.
Habia leído el ensayo de la historiadora soviética cuando fue editado en Portugal hace un cuarto de siglo; pero entonces no le presté la atención que merecia.
En su importante trabajo Irina Sventistskaia se ocupa de mitos y leyendas que en Occidente surgieron sobre los primeros cristianos .
Su estudio comparativo de los llamados Evangelios Sinópticos o Canónicos (Marcos,Mateo ,Lucas y Juan ) sacralizados por la Iglesia y de los apócrifos ( Pedro,Tomé,Tiago, Filipe, André y otros)no reconocidos por Roma ,asi como de las Epístolas de Pablo y sentencias de muchos profetas hebreos, sigue actualísimo.
La autora subraya que la dificultad de reconstruir la predicación inicial de la doctrina de Jesus depende mucho de las fuentes conocidas pero también de disputas y conflictos antes que la Iglesia elaborara sus dogmas.
Irina alerta para el significado de la absorción por el cristianismo primitivo de multiplas concepciones religiosas y éticas ampliamente difundidas en el espacio del imperio Romano.
Décadas después de la muerte de Jesus, el cristianismo propagado por sus discípulos y apóstoles, se había difundido ampliamente en Oriente cuando los evangelios canónicos empezaron a ser escritos. Pero entonces ya generaban polémicas las contradicciones y omisiones de los textos sinópticos relativos a las actividades y predicas de Jesús.
En lo fundamental los evangelios de Marcos, Mateo y Lucas coinciden. Sin embargo, Marcos es omiso sobre el nacimiento del Mesias y la virgindad de la madre. Mateo y Lucas atribuyen al carpintero José, el padre, una genealogía que lo hace descendiente de David. Hay que recordar que según la religión hebraica el Mesias seria de la estirpe del rey David.
Marcos cita los nombres de cuatro hermanos de Jesus: Tiago, José,Simon y Judas. Según Marcos, Mateo y Lucas, la Galilea fue el escenario principal de la predica de Jesus; para Juan ,el Mesias predicó sobretodo en Judea.
La temática de la esencia de Jesus –humana o divina ,o las dos- generó incontables polémicas, originando rupturas que dividieron los primitivos cristianos. Los nestorianos , que han introducido el cristianismo en Iraq, Iran ,Asia Central y en el Extremo Oriente, atribuyen a Jesus (el Mesias, o sea Cristo)dos naturalezas ,la humana y la divina, que se fundían. Pero los monofisitas ,que influenciaron mucho las iglesias de Arménia y Georgia y la copta de Egipto, definían su naturaleza como una e indivisible.
El dogma de la Santisima Trinidad (unidad de dios en el padre, el hijo y en el espíritu santo),impuesto en 381 por el Concilio de Constantinopla, no puso fin a las disputas sobre el nacimiento de Jesus.
Para muchos, Maria concebió Jesus por la intervención del Espiritu Santo, sin relación sexual. Los hermanos del niño
serian hijos de una compañera anterior de José. Segun otros, eses hermanos eran en realidad primos.
Las cuestiones linguísticas influyeron en las polémicas entre cristianos. Jesus pregó en arameo, el idioma hablado en Palestina (el hebreo era solamente una lengua religiosa), y los evangelios sinópticos ,según la mayoría de los historiadores, fueron redactados en griego. Discrepancias insanables serian resultantes de las traducciones.
Las sentencias de Jesus, sus discursos y predicas tambien diferen de evangelio para evangelio, tal como el papel
del romano Poncio Pilatos, del rey Herodes y del sacerdote Caifás en los acontecimientos que precedieron la crucifixion del Mesias.
Los historiadores romanos escribieron poco sobre Jesus y su martirio. Fue solamente cuando esa religión desconocida llegó a Roma que mereció su atención para condenarla.
Los judíos la exorcizaron. Para Celso, un filósofo del siglo II, Maria era una hilandera ignorante y el padre de Jesus no fue el carpintero José pero el amante de la falsa imaculada, un soldado romano, desertor .
Tampoco existe unanimidad sobre la motivación del emperador Constantino para conceder protección a los cristianos antes de oficializar su religión.
La mayoría admite que tomó esa decisión por haber comprendido que la organización religiosa de los cristianos, entonces ya numerosos, le podía proporcionar un apoyo político más importante que lo de los sacerdotes del panteón greco-romano.
A ser asi no se equivocó.
De perseguida, la cristiandad pasó a perseguidora cuando nombrada religión oficial. Empezó inmediatamente a dirigirse al emperador y al aparato de estado para resolver sus problemas internos y punir los adeptos de otras religiones.
Un ejemplo: los obispos de Gália, reunidos en Arles ,en el siglo IV, amenazaron de excomunión los cristianos que desertasen del exército imperial.
Simultaneamente, la iglesia ortodoxa de Constantinopla,que se autointitulaba entonces «universal», declaró heréticas todas las religiones cristianas que no aceptaban sus dogmas.
Contra convicciones comunes fue muy lenta la formación de la jerarquia de la Iglesia. Inicialmente, los obispos (al tiempo llamados presbíteros) no teniam funciones religiosas, eran meros funcionarios administrativos, sin poder sobre los feligreses. Podian incluso casarse. Los apostoles ,con la excepción de Juan, fueron todos casados. El celibato solamente fue impuesto en la iglesia católica después del Concilio de Trento, en el siglo XVI.
Pablo contribuyó decisivamente para el ascenso de los obispos. En sus epístolas repetia que la gracia de los apostoles pasara para los obispos. Los cristianos debían seguirlos «como ovejas».
La tradiccion cristiana hace remontar la sucesión de los obispos al apóstol Pedro. Pero se trata de una inverdad. Los nombres de los primeros son falsos. Fue ya en el cuadro de divergencias con la Iglesia Ortodoxa de Bizancio que tuvo inicio la tradiccion de que el Papa, jefe de la cristiandad católica , sea el obispo de Roma.
Irina afirma que la posición de Jesus ante la riqueza y la pobreza fue enmarcada por muchas contradicciones. Dirigiendose sobretodo a los pobres, repetió insistentemente que era dificil a un rico entrar en el reino de los cielos. Pero la renuncia a la riqueza le aparecia como un medio para recibir la recompensa del Señor. Sin embargo, nunca la condenó explícitamente, ni al sometimiento a un poder extranjero. Su celebre respuesta a una pregunta sobre el pago del tributo a Roma- dad a César lo que es de César y a dios lo que es de dios –continua suscitando controversia; incomoda los cristianos.
Igualmente incómoda para la cristiandad es la tentación que Jesus sintió en el desierto. Como profeta podía sentir tentaciones, pero no como ser divino.
La actitud de Jesus frente a la religión mosaica (pre judaísmo) fue también ambigua . Su conflicto con los sacerdotes del Templo no apaga su respeto por algunos rituales hebreos. Su herencia judía transparece de una sentencia famosa encontrada en un papiro:«si no guardas el sábado no verás al padre». La ruptura total del cristianismo con el judaísmo fue posterior a las epístolas de Pablo.
En lo que concierne al culto mariano se olvida que surgió como fenómeno tardío a fines del siglo IV.
En el Nuevo Testamento son escasas las informaciones sobre la madre de Jesus. Los primeros cristianos le han prestado atención minima. En las Epistolas de Pablo siquier es mencionada. Fueron los evangelios apócrifos que han difundido la imagen lendária de la Virgen Maria.
El llamado Evangelio de los Hebreos atribuye a Jesus una afirmación polémica : «El espíritu santo es mi madre». En
las parábolas ,metáforas y alegorias de Jesus no hay referencias a Maria.
El culto de Maria fue instituido por la Iglesia a partir del fin del siglo IV, pero la «imaculada» solamente fue reconocida oficialmente como «madre de dios» en 431;las fiestas en su honor han sido introduzidas bien más tarde ,coincidiendo con fechas de fiestas paganas. Con el tiempo el culto mariano adquirió una expansión impresionante. Hoy la Virgen Maria es adorada en decenas de paises con nombres diferentes. En Portugal tenemos , entre otras, la milagrera Nuestra Señora de Fátima.
Los manuscritos gnósticos encontrados en Egipto después de la segunda guerra mundial fueron considerados heréticos por las Iglesias católica y ortodoxa e por diferentes iglesias protestantes, mas dejaron huellas en la dogmatica cristiana abriendo nuevas polémicas sobre la vida y mensajes de Jesus.
Irina Svenstskaia enunció una evidencia al afirmar que nunca existió una doctrina cristiana única y armoniosa y que los cristianos discutieron permanentemente unos con los otros sobre los dogmas, la ética y los rituales de su religión, divergiendo incluso sobre el nacimiento y la muerte de Jesus, el Mesias.
El lucido ensayo de Irina nos hace recordar que el cristianismo fue creado por «hombres que pretendian encontrar una salida ilusoria para el impase sociopsicologico» en que se encontraba la sociedad arcaica de Palestina.
Fueron los arquitectos de una religion que tuvo iufluencia decisiva en el rumbo de la humanidad. Pero su ambiciosa meta no podía ser alcanzada.
Transcurridos 20 siglos, el balanzo de la participación de la Iglesia como institución – nombradamente la católica- es muy negativo. Apoyando los opresores contra los oprimidos, asumiendo los intereses de los poderosos, sobretodo el alto clero, negó el mensaje y el pensamiento de Jesús.
Vila Nova de Gaia, 20 de Agosto de 2014
El original portugués de este articulo se encuentra en
On Monday, both sides agreed to open-ended ceasefire terms. Peace talks will resume in Cairo within a month.
Terms agreed on include opening border crossings, “enabl(ing) the rapid entry of humanitarian aid,” as well as construction supplies for rebuilding.
Monitoring will ensure reconstruction is solely for civilian purposes.
Effective immediately, coastal fishing waters will expand from three to six nautical miles. They’ll gradually increase to 12 miles by year end.
Israel agreed to halt targeted assassinations. Days earlier, Netanyahu called Hamas leaders legitimate targets.
Israeli hardliners want Hamas and other resistance groups entirely crushed. They reject peace out of hand.
Terms largely replicate how both sides ended Israel’s November 2012 Pillar of Cloud aggression.
Hamas stuck to the letter of the deal. Israel violated it straightaway. It blamed Hamas for its crimes. Expect nothing different this time.
Israel’s agenda excludes good faith. Decades of conflict, repression and occupation harshness attest to its dark side.
Expect no change enough to matter this time. Promises made are broken. It’s longstanding Israeli policy. Major issues remain unresolved.
They include Hamas wanting Gaza’s siege entirely lifted, permitting an airport and seaport to facilitate imports and exports, and releasing Palestinian political prisoners.
Israel wants Gaza demilitarized. It wants resistance groups defenseless against certain future IDF onslaughts.
It wants overall siege harshness maintained. It largely prohibits Gazan product sales to its two primary markets – the West Bank and Israel. They amount to 2% of pre-2007 levels.
It permits minimal exports overall. It restricts imports. Israeli policy perpetuates dependency on outside aid.
It prevents economic development. It leaves almost half the working-age population unemployed. Youth unemployment tops 60%.
Free movement of people is more myth than reality. Restrictions are unrelated to security.
Exit permits are hard to get. Adults with them can bring children under age six. Older ones are excluded.
Israel’s blockade has nothing to do with security. In June 2010, McClatchy newspapers headlined “Israeli document: Gaza blockade isn’t about security,” saying:
“McClatchy obtained an Israeli government document that describes the blockade not as a security measure but as ‘economic warfare’ against the Islamist group Hamas, which rules the Palestinian territory.”
In response to a Gisha Legal Center for Freedom of Movement lawsuit, documents obtained said Israel called blockading Gaza “economic warfare.” According to a government statement:
“A country has the right to decide that it chooses not to engage in economic relations or to give economic assistance to the other party to the conflict, or that it wishes to operate using ‘economic warfare.’ “
Nations may indeed decide whether or not to have relations with other states. It may not interfere in their internal affairs. Doing so violates core international law.
Blockading Gaza is illegal. Doing so is an act of war. It’s a crime against humanity. Israel remains unaccountable.
Monday’s ceasefire is a temporary respite. Hold the cheers. Expect no substantive change in Israeli policy.
It prioritizes violence and instability. It excludes peace and good will.
It’s just a matter of time before more conflict. Pretexts are easy to invent. Blaming victims is longstanding Israeli policy.
Washington supports its worst crimes. It doesn’t give a damn about Palestinian rights. It never did. It doesn’t now.
On August 26, John Kerry lied saying Washington is “fully committed…to work with our international partners on a major reconstruction initiative…to ensure (it’s) for the benefit of the civilian population in Gaza…”
He turned truth on its head calling Hamas and other legitimate resistance groups “terrorist organizations.”
Throughout 50 days of conflict, Washington supported Israel’s killing machine. According to Gaza’s Health and Interior ministries, one of its many high crimes included murdering 89 entire families.
Israel bears full responsibility for well-planned naked aggression.
Launching it had nothing to do with Hamas rockets. It had everything to do with maintaining business as usual.
On the day both sides halted hostilities, Israeli forces terrorized West Bank and East Jerusalem residents.
Twelve Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) activists were arrested. Their whereabouts remains unknown.
Days earlier, Israeli soldiers targeted Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) member Khalida Jarrar in Ramallah.
They ordered her deported to Jericho for six months. They gave her 24 hours to leave.
Nonexistent secret information claims she “poses a threat to the security of the region, so she must be put under special monitoring.”
Jarrar is a senior Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) member. She’s an Addameer Prisoner Support group board member.
She’s banned from traveling abroad. Freedom fighting comes with a price.
During Monday ceasefire discussions, Israel kidnapped two Palestinians in Hebron, three in Bethlehem, six in Nablus, nine in Jenin, and one in Jerusalem.
Homes were invaded, searched and ransacked. Property was damaged or stolen.
Amjad Abu ‘Asab heads the Jerusalemite Family Committee of Palestinian political prisoners. He said Israeli soldiers went on a rampage.
Former political prisoner En’am Qalanbo was arrested for participating in a solidarity with Gaza march.
‘Asab expects many arrests following Monday’s ceasefire deal. He believes Israel wants Jerusalem and other West Bank Palestinians punished for supporting Gazans and resisting occupation harshness.
According to the Silwan-based Wadi Hilweh Information Center, Israeli police attacked Palestinians marching for liberation with tear gas, concussion grenades and rubber-coated steel bullets.
On Tuesday, other marches and demonstrations occurred in Shu’fat refugee camp, al-Eesawiyyam, Wad al-Jous, al-Jabal, Silwan, al-Mokabber Area, Hizman and East Jerusalem.
Israeli soldiers and police responded violently. Scores were injured. Arrests were made. Israel prohibits public demonstrations. It calls legitimate resistance terrorism.
On August 27, Maan News said “Palestinian communities in Jerusalem are experiencing the largest upsurge in detentions since the Second Intifada, with a marked increase in Israeli police brutality and the collective punishment of entire neighborhoods, local organizations say.”
Since Israel murdered teenager Muhammad Abu Khdeir, over 770 East Jerusalemites were arrested.
After three Israeli youths were abducted on June 12, up to 1,000 West Bank Palestinians were detained.
Collective punishment is official Israeli policy. Hamas leaders were unjustifiably blamed for the June kidnapping/murder of three Israeli youths.
Operation Protective Edge followed preemptively. It bears repeating. It had nothing to do with Hamas rockets. Firing them responded to Israeli aggression.
Jeff Halper heads the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD). He calls motivation for Operation Protective Edge twofold.
It was an effort to “get Israel off the hook for massive” human rights and international law violations.
It sought to “help other governments overcome similar (‘asymmetrical warfare,’ counterinsurgency’ and ‘counter-terrorism’) constraints…against peoples resisting domination.”
Israel calls it “lawfare.” It followed “notable legal setbacks and challenges Israel incurred” since 2001.
For his involvement in the Sabra and Shatila massacres, Ariel Sharon was indicted. It didn’t matter. He wasn’t tried.
In 2004, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled Israel’s Separation Wall illegal. Enforcement didn’t follow. Construction continues.
Israel considers civilians legitimate targets. Its policy violates core international humanitarian law.
Israel circumvents it by “creat(ing) new categories of combatants.” They call them “non-legitimate actors.”
They include anyone Israel calls “terrorists,” “insurgents,” or “non-state actors.” An entire population is held hostage.
Israel claims it warrants no protection and other fundamental rights for resisting repression.
Obama and other Western leaders support Israel’s right to self-defense. Victimized Palestinians are denied the same right.
Israel’s lawfare strategy considers them villains. It’s a “new doctrine of military ethics.” It’s based on a “Just War Doctrine of Fighting Terrorism.”
It bears repeating. Terrorists include adversaries and others legitimately resisting Israeli repression.
Its lawfare strategy uses “new military ethics” to justify lawlessness.
It’s based on the notion that wrongdoing repeated often enough unaccountably will get nations worldwide to accept it or do nothing to stop it.
It lets Israel get away with high crimes against peace. It assures business as usual.
It’s just a matter of time before Israeli rampaging repeats. Expect Palestinians to be blamed for its crimes like always.
Expect Western leaders to support them. Expect no change in long denied justice. Palestinians remain isolated on their own.