Global Research

After the Syriza-led government’s decision to sign the February 20 Eurogroup statement and capitulate to European Union (EU) demands for more austerity in Greece, EU officials are stepping up their threats against the country.

Since then, the “troika”—the European Commission, European Central Bank (ECB) and International Monetary Fund (IMF)—have insisted that until Syriza begins actively imposing austerity, it will not receive another cent in loans.

This week Greece paid back €300 million to the IMF, but by the end of the month it must pay a further €1.5 billion. An additional €4.5 billion in maturing Treasury bills (T-bills) is due to be paid this month. More than €6 billion in debt repayments to the IMF falls due in August, immediately after the four month austerity extension expires. All told, Greece must pay back a total of €22.5 billion to its creditors in 2015.

Greece cannot meet these repayments, and without external funding, a default on its debt of around €320 billion is again a possibility.

Bloomberg reported the analysis of Nicholas Economides, a professor at New York’s Stern School of Business, who said,

“Greece has already run out of money and lives with emergency compulsory borrowing from pension funds and from European agricultural support money in transit to farmers. Unless there are new loans from Europe or alternatively the ECB allows Greek banks to buy more Greek debt, Greece will default at the end of March.”

The Economist noted,

“Syriza’s climbdown in late February has bought time but it has not brought any money from Greece’s creditors. None will be available until the government shows that it is sincere in its promise to complete the reforms that creditors still insist upon.”

This week Spain’s finance minister, Luis de Guindos, said he believed Greece would be unlikely to access capital markets by June and will require further loans of between €30 billion and €50 billion from its European creditors.

Since Syriza’s election in January, the European Central Bank has tightened the screws. The ECB no longer accepts Greek sovereign bonds as collateral for loans and banks are forced to rely on the emergency liquidity assistance (ELA) scheme, which has a high interest rate and will only be available temporarily. The ECB has also limited the amount of short-term T-bills that Athens can issue.

As a result, Greece’s banks are more or less insolvent with even more deposits withdrawn from them in December and January (€17 billion) than at the height of the euro zone financial crisis in May and June 2012. According to official figures, outflows from the banks continue, with a weekly rate of between €2 billion and €3 billion withdrawn in the first three weeks of February.

Tax revenues are down €2 billion in January and February, compared with 2014. Under these conditions it is impossible for Greece to pay for any extended period the €4.5 billion monthly bill for the wages of public sector workers and state pensions.

On Thursday, the ECB refused to countenance a relaxation of the rules that have cut off funds to Greek banks. ECB head Mario Draghi said the bank would only lend further funds to Greece if it was able to satisfy the Eurogroup, IMF and ECB of its strict adherence to the February 20 agreement.

In a desperate response Friday, Prime Minister and Syriza leader Alexis Tsipras contacted European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker to request an emergency meeting. Juncker gave Tsipras short shrift. He advised Tsipras that any further discussion would have to wait until after Monday’s meeting of the euro zone’s finance ministers.

Juncker gave an interview Wednesday to Spain’s El Pais. Tsipras “still has to tell the Greeks that he is going to have to break certain promises,” he said.

With Syriza having already signed off on everything demanded by the troika, including a clause that the government make no “unilateral” moves to implement any of the programme it was elected on, it is functioning as a tool of the EU’s austerity agenda. According to a S ü ddeutsche Zeitung report, Juncker and Tsipras were in “permanent telephone contact.”

The February 20 agreement was conditional on Syriza supplying the Troika with a list of “reforms” that must first be approved by them and then implemented.

For discussion at Monday’s meeting, Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis presented a list of seven measures that his government proposes to immediately carry out, to tackle the “humanitarian crisis” and “alleviate extreme poverty.” They are highly targeted measures, introducing food allowances for 300,000 households, the reconnection of domestic electricity supplies and some free electricity for 150,000 households, and a rent allowance for fewer than 30,000 households.

Syriza’s initial budget to deal with the social crisis, outlined in its Thessaloniki election programme was €1.8 billion—a figure barely enough to scratch the surface of the staggering social devastation caused by five years of brutal cuts in living standards.

Now, following a month of negotiations with the troika, the total cost allotted is just €200 million, or 11 percent of the Thessaloniki programme. Even this must be approved next week by the troika. Varoufakis’s letter assures them that it will be “fiscally neutral,” with €200 million of savings to be made elsewhere.

According to excerpts of an interview with Tsipras to be published in Saturday’s Spiegel, he said on Friday, “The ECB has still got a rope round our neck.”

Tsipras added that if the ECB refuses Athens permission to issue additional short-term treasury bills, “the thriller we saw before February 20 will return.”

None of this pathetic posturing will wash with the representatives of the ruling elite. Speaking on Friday to the influential German business daily Handelsblatt, Klaus Regling, head of the European Stability Mechanism, which facilitates the EU’s loan agreements, said, “The new Greek government’s communication has, at times, been irritating in recent days.”

He warned, “Greece must pay back these loans in full. That’s what we expect and nothing has changed in that regard.”

Even as the representatives of the global financial aristocracy demand that Greece be bled white, the conditions facing millions worsen. Unemployment is entrenched, and rose again in December to 26 percent, more than double the euro zone’s average of 11.3 percent. The number of jobless has barely shifted since reaching a record level of 27.9 in September 2013.

Hundreds of thousands of people rely on food banks and soup kitchens to get a regular meal, with many people requiring handouts three times a day. Others resort to scavenging.

Speaking to the Daily Telegraph, a priest at a church involved in food distribution in west Athens said,

“The local councils can’t cope, so people come to us for food. We’re feeding 270 people and it is getting worse every day. Today we discovered three young children going through rubbish bins for food. They are living in a derelict building and we have no idea who they are.”

Last month, two teachers alerted Athens City Council that they were being asked to teach starving children. One of the teachers reported that one of the pupils involved had not eaten for two days.

While the U.S. Department of Justice report on racist policing practices in Ferguson, Missouri provides direct evidence for skeptical Whites that institutional racism is fact, limiting the investigation to Ferguson implausibly delimits the scope of race based repression in the U.S. Additionally, from slavery to convict leasing to funding the Ferguson city budget with fines and penalties overwhelmingly extracted from poor and middle class Blacks, the economic basis of police repression is isolated in an improbable present. And in fact, the ‘tricks and traps’ used by the Ferguson police for economic extraction closely resembles corporate practices of using contract law, state institutions and monopoly power to take economic resources from those who lack the social power to resist.

A cognitive challenge for White Americans (and ‘conservative’ Blacks) is the distance between facts like police repression in Ferguson and the mythology of capitalist democracy that we live by. Use of the police for economic extraction in Ferguson, for funding the town budget through racial repression, ties state power to economic power within the particular circumstances of American racial and economic history. In a most basic sense this integration reframes state-market relations claimed to relate capitalism to democracy. More broadly, the TPP and TIPP ‘trade’ deals being pushed by President Obama are a variation on the racist shakedown in Ferguson. Their intent is to replace state power with corporate power while leaving Western states intact to provide state services for the benefit of corporations and the illusion of democratic control.

Discovery of a police ‘black site’ in Chicago, the prevalence of racist violence by the police across the U.S., the return of debtor’s prisons and ‘civil forfeiture’ laws that allow the police to take belongings without evidence of a crime illustrate the growing lawlessness of the police. When tied to illegal surveillance carried out by the NSA, DEA and FBI against citizens and non-citizens alike and the extra-judicial powers claimed by Mr. Obama a picture of widespread state lawlessness emerges. When considered in the context of no criminal prosecutions for war crimes against the (George W) Bush administration or against prominent bankers in the financial and economic debacle of the last decade a picture of widespread elite lawlessness emerges. Clearly the state, including local police departments, exists for purposes other than enforcing fealty to the law.

Based on supporting economic theories it is superficially ironic that the resurgence of neo-liberalism since the 1970s is coincident with this growing integration of state and ‘private’ power. Premised on clearly delineated state and market roles, neo-liberalism was / is in theory the economic realm unhindered by state restrictions. This state-market delineation facilitates the facade that capitalism is related to democracy— political freedom in the realm of the political and economic freedom in the realm of the economic. As fact and metaphor the role of the Ferguson police using asymmetrical social power to take economic wealth from vulnerable citizens demonstrates the implausibility of this theorized differentiation in the realm of the political. And new debtor’s prisons (link above) have police and the prison system acting as collection agents for Payday Lenders.

The TTP and TTIP trade deals being pushed by Mr. Obama are designed with analogous levers for extorting wealth. The investor resolution clauses in TTIP have a supranational judiciary ruling on ‘investor’ lawsuits against governments for hypothetical lost profits and taxpayers on the hook for adverse rulings. The relative absence of remaining trade restrictions and tariffs is well covered territory. What remains to be accomplished with these ‘agreements’ is the consolidation of economic power as the power to extract wealth. As with proposals for tradable carbon credits, the ‘product’ of the agreements combines the right to extort by putting forward projects never intended to be built with guarantees against adverse economic developments.

The police in Ferguson used a particular social lever, the residual of slavery, for gratuitous racial repression and for economic extraction. Slavery is a social institution, but it most particularly is an economic institution. It is a social mechanism for accruing the product of slave labor to the slave master. And slavery in the U.S. was ‘legal’ until it wasn’t. Convict leasing was explicit use of ‘the law’ and the judicial system to force poor Blacks to work for little or no pay. ‘The law’ was used as an instrument of economic exploitation and extraction. The push back from Whites and conservative Blacks that the murdered Mike Brown was a criminal because he likely stole a box of cigars takes this same law at face value. This view of the law depends on a similarly improbable separation of political and economic realms as neo-liberal theory.

As political theory might have it, if all of the citizens of Ferguson were intended to benefit from city resources while poor and middle class Blacks were disproportionately forced to pay for them that represents economic taking by some citizens for the benefit of others. The racial character of this taking places it in history. The history of Western colonialism, neo-colonialism and imperialism places it in broader internal and external context. And this history is evidence that distinct realms of the economic and the political never described existing circumstance. The practical relevance is that it places the actions of the police in Ferguson, past and pending ‘trade’ agreements and global economic relations in the space where economic and political power act in an integrated social dimension.

The effect is to reframe ‘the law’ in terms of who is committing particular acts rather than the acts being committed. The police in Ferguson can murder with impunity and shake down citizens at their discretion to fund the city budget (and their paychecks) while poor and middle class Blacks are disproportionately murdered and sent to prison for similar acts. What is legal and what isn’t is determined by who has social power, not by the acts themselves. In a racist and classist society the law is codification of class and race interests. If a black citizen of Ferguson puts a gun to someone’s head and demands their valuables they are a criminal but if the same act is committed by a cop it is within the law. Here events in Ferguson are fact and metaphor— overwhelming evidence (links above) suggests that similar social relations exist across much of the country.

This view of the law has precedence in Richard Nixon’s contention that “when the President does it that means that it is not illegal.” Earlier precedence can be found in Nazi law and in the laws of fascist Italy in the 1930s and 1940s. This isn’t to call anyone who isn’t a self-proclaimed Nazi a Nazi. The precedence lies in the view that the law is the will of a leadership class, be it the Nazi leadership in Germany or city government in Ferguson. One problem with this theory is that it makes the law capricious and ultimately impossible to follow. Race based law enforcement criminalizes race, not nominally proscribed acts. Stories of the Chicago police department’s black site (link above) have political protesters and poor Blacks accused of no crimes taken there. If people can be arrested without evidence that a crime was committed then what is the difference in outcomes between committing and not committing crimes?

A relation of neo-liberalism to fascism can be made through replacement of civil governance with corporate governance that subordinates the rights and privileges of civil society to corporate interests. The investor-state dispute mechanisms (link above) being broadened and formally codified in the TTIP trade deal will be used to demand compensation for environmental regulations that keep drinking water safe and limit greenhouse gas emissions, the metaphorical equivalent of threatening to end the planet if we don’t pay up. Civil forfeiture has the police taking valuables they might want at the point of a gun if necessary. The Ferguson police shake down poor Blacks using the law as a weapon. At the same time a ruling elite has immunity from prosecution for well documented crimes.

Much of what is written here was well understood in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. It hardly seems an accident that this collective memory was lost to narrow ideological dogma. Across the country property taxes are being cut with partial differences made up through regressive fees and penalties. This fits the neo-liberal preference for property over labor incomes. And neo-liberal theory has no place for history because all acts within it take place in a temporally isolated present. This dissociates racist policing in Ferguson, Chicago, New York, Detroit and Philadelphia from the roles of the legislature, judiciary, police and prisons in reconstituting the economic exploitation of slavery under the guise of free choice in capitalist democracy. Race is the particular case in America; class is the broader expression of economic power.

The tension between the DOJ report (link above) on racist policing in Ferguson and the Obama administration’s broad support for neo-liberal policies will likely produce a tight circle drawn around events in Ferguson. Already supporters of police repression are raising the argument that the words “hands up, don’t shoot” never transpired. What bearing does precise wording have on a Black child being murdered by the police? And why wouldn’t Black youth have a right to be hostile to police who, as the DOJ reports concludes, are running a racist shakedown operation to force poor and middle class Blacks to fund city government? How would White readers react to being harassed, intimidated, disproportionately jailed and forced to pay for the privilege? Ultimately the problem is larger than Ferguson and social accountability should address political economy premised in exploitation and social repression.

Rob Urie is an artist and political economist. His book Zen Economics is written and awaiting publication.

“We are going to remember what they did to us today.”
-Stephanie Bloomingdale, AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer, Mar 5, 2015

The United States features the broadest of churches in terms of political views.  European critics have taken issue, historically, with its crude commercialism, a seemingly entrenched philistinism that tends to characterise imperial politics.  Ancient Rome, after all, was not much better, as the days of glory waned, so did the calibre of politician.

Which takes us to Wisconsin, where Governor Scott Walker has proven to be quite a headline maker of late.  He is even bubbling up the ranks as a possible GOP contender for the White House, though such early pitching is bound to end badly.  Name them early, and slay them later.  For all of that, his focus remains on Wisconsin, a state he has been seeking to transform, and impair, in his own image.

The nature of Walker’s conduct prior to his governorship, with its imperial overtones, is worth noting.  As Milwaukee Count executive, his staff oversaw a clandestine email system, and created a “secret wireless router in Walker’s government office that commingled government and campaign business on private Gmail and Yahoo email accounts” (The Daily Beast, Mar 4).[1]

In January 2012, two staffers who had been with Walker during his county executive days were charged with doing political work while being funded by that good old creature known as the taxpayer.  But the decay in the workplace under Walker seemed extensive.  One of the clandestine website webmasters, Brian Pierick, was convicted for enticing a minor while Timothy Russell received two years for pilfering from a veterans group and swanning about on funded trips to the Caribbean and Hawaii.

Before this fetid scenario, Walker took out the washbasin and began cleansing his hands – vigorously.  “Scott Walker expected everyone to follow the law and made that clear publicly and privately.”[2]  But “Team Walker” suggests that the secrecy strain in certain political figures prove hard to hide.

Such behaviour on the workplace provides a window, even if a little smudged, into the character behind such an environment.  A state within a state will find threats everywhere, spawning like frenetically charged bacteria.  Little should be surprising, then, about Walker’s latest foray into the populist world of anti-union slander.

In the United States, the unionised worker is devil and fiend, the scrutineering counter against rampant capital.  The Wisconsin governor certainly thinks so, and his statements pertaining to that express an acceptable perversion of American politics. It also provides the backdrop for the anti-worker legislation being debated in the Wisconsin assembly that would prohibit employees from a requirement that they join a union or pay dues under union contracts.  This “right to work” measure is copied, almost word for word, from the American Legislative Exchange Council’s model.[3]  It is bound to pass comfortably.

For Walker and those of similar ALEC ilk, the worker – remunerated at unjustly high rates insulated by union protection, and the opportunistic, beheading terrorist, are cut from the same cloth.  The Walker mind, with its dark corners and conspiratorial alleys, came out before the Conservative Political Action Conference.  There, he was asked how he would deal with ISIS militants in the event that he was elected president.  “For years I’ve been concerned about that threat, not just abroad but here on American soil.”

In 2011, when Walker assumed the reins of power, some 100,000 people in Wisconsin gathered and marched, breathing a certain vitality into the free speech and assembly provisions of the Constitution.  “Thousands of people,” explains Brendan Fischer, “occupied the capital building, around the clock, for two weeks straight, without incident.”[4]  But it was those hundred thousand that seemed to prey on Walker’s mind – he had, it must be remembered, promised a vision of union division to GOP billionaire and financier Diane Hendricks[5].  Delivery to his corporate puppet masters was the forefront of his mind.  “If I can take on 100,000 protesters, I can do the same across the world.”

Phil Neuenfeldt, President of the Wisconsin AFL-CIO, could merely state the obvious fact obscured by such calculated lunacy.

“To compare the hundreds of thousands of teachers, students, grandmothers, veterans, correctional officers, nurses and all the workers who came out to peacefully protest and stand together for their rights as Americans to ISIS is disgusting and unacceptable.”

Walker, having used the same tarnishing brush, qualified how, exactly, the protesters of his state could be equated to the foot soldiers of an organisation that has been deemed a “death cult”.  “Let me be perfectly clear, I’m just pointing out the closest thing I have to handling this difficult situation is the 100,000 protesters I had to deal with.”

Such hysterically bizarre conduct on Walker’s part do not show the punishments of a confused mind.  They show, rather, a disturbing creature in training, readying himself for a harsh, cruel stint in higher office, one filled with union bashing and smothering.  Those wanting him to fall flat on his face will be hoping for more stumbles.  The fear, rather, will be whether “Walker derangement syndrome” will earn votes rather than demerit points.

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

Notes:

[1] http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/04/it-s-not-just-hillary-scott-walker-s-email-controversy.html
[2] http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/doe27-6q3v4uj-138159264.html
[3] http://www.prwatch.org/files/wi_rtw.pdf
[4] http://prwatch.org/news/2015/02/12753/according-scott-walker-what-terrorist-looks
[5] http://www.thenation.com/blog/167840/scott-walker-promised-500k-donor-he-would-divide-and-conquer-unions#

Zbigniew Brzezinski, U.S. President Obama’s friend and advisor on Russia, is a born Polish aristocrat who has hated Russia his whole life but who hid that hatred until after the communist Soviet Union collapsed and he then publicly came out as hating and fearing specifically Russia — the nation, its people, and their culture. In 1998, he wrote The Grand Chessboard, arguing for an unchallengeable U.S. empire over the whole world, and for the defeat of Russia as the prerequisite to enabling that stand-alone global American empire to reign over the planet.

He now has told the U.S. Congress (on February 6th but not reported until March 6th, when the German Economic News found the clip) that Russia’s leader Vladimir Putin “seized” Crimea and that Putin will probably try to do the same to Estonia and Latvia, unless the U.S. immediately supplies weapons and troops to those countries and to Ukraine. Here is his stunning testimony (click on the link under it, to hear it, but the key part is quoted in print below):

http://deutsche-wirtschafts-nachrichten.de/2015/03/06/brzezinski-rede-vor-dem-us-kongress-russland-wird-angreifen/

“I wonder how many people in this room or this very important senatorial committee really anticipated that one day Putin would land military personnel in Crimea and seize it. I think if anybody said that’s what he is going to do, he or she would be labeled as a warmonger. He did it. And he got away with it. I think he’s also drawing lessons from that. And I’ll tell you what my horror, night-dream, is: that one day, I literally mean one day, he just seizes Riga, and Talinn. Latvia and Estonia. It would literally take him one day. There is no way they could resist. And then we will say, how horrible, how shocking, how outrageous, but of course we can’t do anything about it. It’s happened. We aren’t going to assemble a fleet in the Baltic, and then engage in amphibious landings, and then storm ashore, like in Normandy, to take it back. We have to respond in some larger fashion perhaps, but then there will be voices that this will plunge us into a nuclear war.”

He continues there by saying that we must pour weapons and troops into the nations that surround Russia, in order to avoid a nuclear conflict: deterrence, he argues, is the way to peace; anything else than our sending in troops and weapons now would be weakness and would invite World War III.

He says that American troops must be prepositioned in these countries immediately, because otherwise Putin will think that America won’t respond to a Russian attack against those countries.

The most serious falsehoods in his remarkable testimony are three, and they’ll be taken up here in succession:

(1) The crucial background for what Brzezinski there calls the “seizure” of Crimea by Russia on 16 March 2014 was an extremely aggressive action by the United States, a violent coup in Kiev that climaxed prior, during February 2014, which used the “Maidan” demonstrations there as a cover in order to take over Ukraine’s Government, a violent coup which the founder of the “private CIA” firm Stratfor subsequently (and correctly) referred to as “the most blatant coup in history,” and which the President of the Czech Republic says should not be compared at all to Czechoslovakia’s 1968 “Velvet Revolution,” and that only “ignorant” people don’t know that it was a coup instead of a revolution. But not only was it an incredibly bloody coup, but the leader of the post-coup Government who became officially designated on 26 February 2014 turned out to be exactly the same person whom Obama’s controlling agent on the entire matter had explicitly selected and informed her underling on 4 February 2014 to get appointed to become the new leader; so, she not only knew that the coup would soon be occurring, but she had already selected by no later than 18 days beforehand the person who would replace the then sitting, democratically elected, President of Ukraine. Furthermore, Ukraine is a country bordering Russia, and so this coup was far worse for Russia than even the 1959 communist takeover of Cuba was for the United States. The U.S. many times tried to overthrow Castro — so, how much gall does the United States have today for its refusing even to acknowledge that our extremely violent takeover of Ukraine, on Russia’s very border, constitutes an existential threat against Russia? (And even the top EU leadership knows that this was a U.S. coup, not any authentic revolution.) For Brzezinski to say nothing at all about any of this is simply scandalous (an obvious intention by him to deceive), but for the U.S. Senate to invite such a man to address it is even worse: it is as if the U.S. Congress in 1933 had invited Hitler to lecture it about “the Jewish threat.” It’s worse than insane; it is bloody dangerous in a nuclear-armed world.

(2) As I recently documented with links to the direct sources, headlining “The Entire Case for Sanctions Against Russia Is Pure Lies,” Gallup polls in Crimea both before and after the 16 March 2014 plebiscite on whether to stay within Ukraine, which Crimea had been part of since 1954, or instead to rejoin with Russia, which Crimea had been part of between 1783 and 1954, showed that by more than 90%, Crimeans wanted to be part of Russia and held both the U.S. and EU in extremely low esteem. Furthermore, because Russia’s key Black Sea Fleet had been stationed there since 1783, Russia always had troops there and didn’t need to “land military personnel in Crimea and seize it.” There was no invasion, no “seizure” at all. The plebiscite was entirely peaceful, because the public craved it (on account of the recent bloody coup in Ukraine) and because the already-existing presence of Russian troops to protect them to have it so that Ukraine wouldn’t send in their army to prevent it, enabled it to be carried out peacefully. There is no military base of any sort from Russia anywhere in Latvia nor in Estonia, nor in any other NATO country. The very idea put forth by Brzezinski, that the two situations are at all analogous, is insane and can be understood only within the context of the bizarre hatred held by this born aristocrat who learned his hatred since birth and who is now obsessed with it in his old age. The very fact that U.S. Senators would invite such a person to testify is scandalous, and is an indication of their ignorance or else of their sharing Brzezinski’s rabidly counterfactual and extremely dangerous beliefs. Russia should take that as being a clear indication of hostile intent from the U.S. Congress, because Brzezinski’s statements are entirely out of line and an irrational outburst that’s based on nothing but hatred and a distorted portrayal of the clearly documented realities to the contrary of Brzezinski’s selective and false description of Russia, Ukraine, Putin, and NATO.

(3) The basis of the NATO Treaty is its mutual-defense provision: that all members are committed to the defense of each member. How crazy does Brzezinski have to be to think that in order to prevent Putin from invading NATO, the U.S. must now send weapons and troops in to each one of the 12 NATO member-nations that were formerly Russia’s allies? Brzezinski’s alarmist and sensationalistic lies and distortions go well beyond standard propaganda into the realm of the insane: propaganda that’s directed at fools and yet that’s being presented to U.S. Senators. Are they crazy, too?

Russia has every reason to believe that the U.S. Government is set upon surrounding it by armed and dangerous hostile nations and taking it over by force. This isn’t at all about Putin; it is about U.S. President Barack Obama, and the U.S. Congress.

For whatever democratic nations that still exist in the EU and NATO not to quit those organizations is for them to consent to being ruled by the U.S. dictatorship, which means that they themselves are dictatorships serving the American aristocracy. This is a dictarorship by America’s aristocracy, the very same people who are ruining the United States and who are now determined to take over every other aristocracy in the entire world — determined to reign over the entire planet.

Testimony such as Brzezinski presented to the U.S. Senate yesterday is shocking and damning against the Senate itself. Brzezinski accuses Russia of planning to invade NATO when instead the United States has been surrounding Russia by formerly-Russian-allied nations, which are new members of America’s anti-Russian military club, NATO. The preparations for an all-out nuclear war have begun. The U.S. aristocracy definitely started this incipient war; for them, it’s a war of choice. It’s not a war of choice for anyone in Russia. (Ukraine’s oligarchs, especially the White-House-connected Ihor Kolomoysky, are ripping off everything they can from it.) The significance of the Ukrainian conflict is that it’s the beachhead to take over Russia. And the Ukrainian post-coup leadership have stated proudly, many times, that this is their ultimate aim. It clearly is Obama’s.

Why are Americans not marching by the millions against this rogue government in Washington? How much longer will the American people continue to tolerate it — an affront against not only the American people but the entire world?

Brzezinski’s testimony to Congress on March 5th was so brazen because he’s like he describes Putin as being: he does what he can get away with doing. It’s way over the line. If there is no public revulsion expressed against it, then we are all heading into danger that’s unprecedented since 1962’s Cuban Missile Crisis, when the shoe was on the other foot and the United States was the country facing the existential threat.

Russia has already let things go too far, with 12 former Warsaw-Pact allies already being members of the NATO alliance against Russia. If Putin doesn’t draw the line at Ukraine, as being over the line, then he might as well do everything that America’s President demands him to do. But America’s Presidency no longer represents the American people; it now represents the American aristocracy. So: for the welfare of everyone except America’s aristocrats, Putin should stand firm. But the danger of America to the world exists no matter what he does.

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010,  and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

The relationship between the U.S. and Israel in the last 6 years under the Obama administration has never been stronger.  In 2012, The National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC) declared that President Obama’s aid package for Israel was the largest in U.S. history, a fact that is hard to ignore:  

As reported on Saturday March 7th by both German Economic News, and Spiegel magazine, the ongoing lies and arrogance from U.S. President Barack Obama’s Administration regarding Ukraine and Russia have finally raised to the surface a long-mounting anger of Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel and her Government. 

 This is especially the case with Germany’s Foreign Minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, who comes from Germany’s Social Democratic Party, which is far less conservative (and far less anti-Russian) than the Christian Democratic Union Party, Chancellor Merkel’s party. The CDU has traditionally been hostile toward Russia, but the SDP has instead favored an unprejudiced policy regarding Russia, after the breakup of the Soviet Union and the end of communism there.

 Steinmeier has always been skeptical of Obama’s intentions regarding Ukraine and Russia, but now it appears that even Merkel is veering away from the United States on these policies.

“Resistance to the US strategy toward Russia is growing in the EU,” reports GDN, which names especially U.S. General Philip Breedlove, NATO’s Supreme Commander, as the major source of this turn-about, because Breedlove has “exaggerated the military role of Russia in Ukraine.”

Spiegel provides the details on Breedlove, but especially blames Victoria Nuland, the Obama official who actually ran the February 2014 coup in Ukraine and who selected the person who would steer the new, post-coup, Ukrainian Government in the ways that President Obama wants.

Spiegel’s headline is “Breedlove’s Bellicosity: Berlin Alarmed by Aggressive NATO Stance on Ukraine.” GDN’s is (as auto-translated by Google’s Chrome browser) “Ukraine Policy: First open conflict between Germany and NATO.”

Spiegel notes that, after the second — which was the Merkel-Hollande — Ukrainian ceasefire was reached at Minsk in late February, Breedlove announced that “well over a thousand combat vehicles, Russian combat forces, some of their most sophisticated air defense, battalions of artillery” had just been sent to the conflict-region, Donbass, from Russia. “What is clear,” Breedlove said, “is that right now, it is not getting better. It is getting worse every day.” All of that was fictitious.

Spiegel continues: “German leaders in Berlin were stunned. They didn’t understand what Breedlove was talking about. And it wasn’t the first time. Once again, the German government, supported by intelligence gathered by the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND), Germany’s foreign intelligence agency,” heard Breedlove lie and were shocked by it.

But Spiegel then goes on to subhead “The ‘Super Hawk’,” when describing Victoria Nuland’s role. Spiegel says there:

“She and others would like to see Washington deliver arms to Ukraine and are supported by Congressional Republicans as well as many powerful Democrats. Indeed, US President Barack Obama seems almost isolated. He has thrown his support behind Merkel’s diplomatic efforts for the time being, but he has also done little to quiet those who would seek to increase tensions with Russia and deliver weapons to Ukraine.”

Spiegel has always tried to portray U.S. President Obama as being trapped by conservatives, such as Breedlove and Nuland, who somehow became parts of his Administration and who are, supposedly, independent actors in the roles that they perform — as if they weren’t instead his employees. For Spiegel, Nuland’s (and they spell it out there, so I will here) “Fuck the EU” statement, was only speaking for herself, as if she weren’t Obama’s hire, though Spiegel does note there that, “Her husband, the neo-conservative Robert Kagan, is, after all, the originator of the idea that Americans are from Mars and Europeans, unwilling as they are to realize that true security depends on military power, are from Venus.” Precisely why Mr. Obama selected Dick Cheney’s former chief foreign-policy advisor, Nuland, to become the person who would carry out his Administration’s polices regarding Ukraine and Russia, the ever-‘tactful’ Spiegel ignores. Instead, Spiegel goes on to say, “When it comes to the goal of delivering weapons to Ukraine, Nuland and Breedlove work hand-in-hand.”

Throughout, Spiegel ignores that Obama has been driving his entire Administration to marginalize, weaken, and crush Russia, and that this overriding goal of his foreign policies does not originate with his hires but with himself: he chooses these “Super Hawks” regarding Russia, because this is who he secretly is. When he plays the good cop in the good-cop bad-cop routine on Russia, it’s an act, which is designed to fool the public.

Obama bombed Libya because Muammar Gaddafi was friendly to Russia; he bombs Syria because Bashar al-Assad is friendly to Russia; he overthrew Ukraine’s Government because Viktor Yanukovych was friendly to Russia; and he has been and is squeezing Iran because Iran is friendly to Russia. Israel is no different than the U.S.: it’s rabidly anti-Russian (and most of the large political donations to there come from American billioinaires; Israel is America’s 51st state, which has lots more than one-fifty-first of the power over the American Government — it’s the most powerful of the 51 actual states, even though it has no fealty to the U.S. Constitution and no constitution of its own); and both the U.S. and Israel are allied with Saudi and other Arab royals because they’re all anti-Russian. America’s ally is Saudi Wahhabist jihadist Islam, not the EU.

America created Al Qaeda, and ISIS. Everything else than the obsession to isolate and destroy Russia is just an act, for the American aristocracy (including the ones who own Israel) — and especially for all Republican politicians and for the top Democratic ones.

Maybe the EU will finally decide that they’ve had enough of it, and invite Russia to join with them, and will tell Ukraine that they’re a bit too American for European tastes, after all: Europe has had enough experience with fascism and nazism, so that they don’t want to invite it back in again.

But will Germany actually do this? Will France actually do this? Have they had enough of “Sunni jihad“, and of “Christian nazism” (both just aristocratic ploys), to decide that they want no part of either one? Maybe goodbye, U.S.; hello, Russia? What type of Europe would that be? Might it out-compete the U.S.? Would it be the best thing for Europeans?

 That’s the big strategic question in our time. And it’s not America’s to answer. Either Europe will go with democracy and peace and abandon NATO (i.e., abandon the U.S. military), or else it will go with nazism and war and abandon democracy (like the U.S. itself has done, especially in Ukraine).

Which will it be? Europe will need to choose between Russia and the United States. If it goes with the U.S., Europeans will become servants to America’s aristocracy — to the people who are now actually running Ukraine. If it goes with Russia, then perhaps a United States of Europe will become possible so that no nation’s aristocracy will have either the inclination or the ability to dictate to the governments of Europe.

Stay tuned. These are exciting times: the stakes for future history have never been higher.

It’s not really Obama who is on the fence. It is Europe. And the decision will be for Europe’s leaders — not for America’s, nor for Russia’s — to make.

They are in the driver’s seat, for Europe’s future — and for the entire world’s.

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010,  and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

This presentation will focus on how our Big Government in general and the US Supreme Court in particular have undermined and destroyed America’s onetime democratic republic. The judicial branch of the American government consisting of the federal district courts, the circuit courts of appeal and the Supreme Court in tandem with the prosecutorial legal arm of the executive branch the Justice Department represent the United States of America’s federal judicial system that’s supposed to operate above the fray of petty politics and polarized partisanship. All these federal judges appointed by the US president who presides over the executive branch are then formally approved of by the legislative branch US Congress. Unlike these two branches, federal judges enjoy permanent tenure with a fixed income for life to ostensibly reinforce the notion of bipartisan impartiality in constitutional interpretation of both legislative laws passed and executive orders and decisions made.

By design this checks and balances system compliments of our Founding Fathers has always been intended to act as a safeguard against the federal government’s potential tyranny and oppression. This article will show how during the first few years of the twenty-first century the Supreme Court has led the way in giving license to all three branches of government to be seriously compromised, corrupted and treasonously usurped by powerful self-interests that no longer represent, much less care about the well-being of the American people that they have sworn oaths to protect.

All three branches take a similar oath to the one below for both members of Congress. Keep in mind they all must swear to follow their oath throughout their tenure in office under penalty of law.

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United  States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and  that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter:

So  help me God.

The specific federal law prohibiting violation of the above oath is worded as follows:

     Federal law regulating oath of office by government officials is divided into four parts along with an executive order which further defines the law for purposes of enforcement. 5 U.S.C. 3331, provides the text of the actual oath of office members of Congress are required to take before assuming office. 5 U.S.C. 3333 requires members of Congress sign an affidavit that they have taken the oath of office required by 5 U.S.C. 3331 and have not or will not violate that oath of  office during their tenure of office as defined by the third part of the law, 5 U.S.C. 7311 which explicitly makes it a federal criminal offense (and a violation of oath of office) for anyone  employed in the United States Government (including members of Congress) to “advocate the  overthrow of our constitutional form of government”. The fourth federal law, 18 U.S.C. 1918 provides penalties for violation of oath office described in 5 U.S.C. 7311 which include: (1)  removal from office and; (2) confinement or a fine.

Agents operating in high levels at all three branches of our government have repeatedly engaged in treasonous acts as traitors in violation of Article 3 of the US Constitution, the same Constitution they all swore to preserve, defend, uphold, protect and honor. In the face of the growing tyranny and dismantling of our Constitution since 9/11, their proven disloyal actions have regularly violated their sworn allegiance to the nation, the Constitution and the American people. Since all members of the three branches of government must take an oath of allegiance that many then subsequently fail to comply with, clearly violating the aforementioned codified federal law, and since we do have the legal teeth, it’s high time to finally hold those who have been disloyal to our Constitution fully accountable.

Back in December 2000 the Supreme Court clearly usurped its own authority one month after the democratically elected Al Gore had won both the popular and electoral vote had all the votes per the Florida Supreme Court been allowed to rightfully continue to be counted. But in an unprecedented move that transgressed beyond its role and boundaries, for the first time in US history, the Supreme Court decided a presidential election by interfering where it had no legal authority to unilaterally halt that recount and prematurely proclaim the actual election loser George W. Bush the winner.

The subsequent untold damage done to the world by eight years of the diabolical Bush-Cheney regime that stole a second term in office with yet another fraudulent 2004 electionset into irreversible motion the Zionist neocon takeover responsible for the most heinous crimes of the ages – the inside 9/11 job, the lies promoting the immoral bloody wars in the Middle East and North Africa still raging out of control under Obama today. The sheer loss of life and utter horror willfully inflicted on so many nations and people none of whom ever posed a real threat to the United States is unforgiveable. That fateful, turn-of-the-century decision by the US Supreme Court to interfere in the 2000 election may just go down among the all-time most destructive and devastating court decisions in recorded human history.

The next major actions unveiling the court’s true partisan colors arose over the ongoing, perennially unsettled issue of illegal gerrymandering of congressional redistricting to unfairly gain House seats. Back in 2003 the then Republican House majority leader Tom Delay’s blatant machinations in Texas stacking GOP seats in Congress finally arrived at the Supreme Court for deliberation in 2006. But because the Supreme Court justices were deadlocked along partisan lines, ultimately they refused to intervene. Though both political parties are guilty of grappling to gain unfair advantage, the GOP’s gerrymandering power grab helped enable the Republican Party to capture of the Houses of Representatives. The highest court’s ineffectual response to this ongoing redrawing of political boundaries based on changing demographics within the states ensured that Republicans outnumbered Democrats in Congress. Whatever efforts the court has attempted in finally resolving this longstanding, hot button issue have invariably failed. Devising a fair and objective standard by which to remap congressional districts has proven ever elusive.

So the partisan battle wages on. The latest development surfaced this week when the Supreme Court heard arguments from both sides. The case involves Arizona’s commissionvoted by the state’s voters in 2000 to begin handling redistricting duties that stripped the GOP controlled state legislature from its power to divvy up districts. Not surprisingly, the majority of conservative/GOP judges in the Supreme Court all line up favoring the status quo’s literal interpretation that the Founding Fathers stipulated the responsibility lie with the state “legislature” while the liberal/Democrat justices prefer the more loosely applied definition to mean the “legislative process.” This would support the voters assigning the task to an appointed commission. Stakes are huge as the largest state California made a similar arrangement several years ago as did Washington and a few others as a viable alternative means of resolving this long contentious issue. So dozens of congressional districts around the nation could be overturned by the high court’s decision.

Though the big money handlers (Koch brothers, Sheldon Adelson, PAC’s) pour millions in strings attached donations to candidates from both parties in order to ensure that the elite’s undue influence and control over whomever gets elected is secured either way, they generally favor the Republican Party. Thus the GOP ascension to power in both houses of Congress has rendered the legislative branch in this century as the most ineffective, inept and morally corrosive in all of American history. Last year a poll found that an overwhelming majority of Americans believe that Congress members are controlled by special interest groups. With the unending quagmire that paralyzes Washington, undoubtedly that percentage of public contempt and alienation will only continue to rise over time.

By design this divide and conquer strategy permeates at all levels in America (and the world) both historically and currently, and in our federal government it produces a co-opted excuse absolving all responsibility for continued failure simply by blaming the other side of the aisle. In this way the forever game of partisan politics is maintained whereby the Democrats get to always blame the Republicans, the Republicans the Democrats, and the Democrat president always blames the now Republican controlled House and Senate. As a result, the government always operates contentiously gridlocked and mired at a chaotic standstill – its inability to work effectively together as its convenient excuse to not do its proper job in protecting and promoting the interests of the American people. This then provides the necessary perfect public cover to continue in dysfunctional, abysmal failure, of course all at citizens’ expense.

See how these momentous, monumentally significant, game-changing actions from the nation’s highest court have directly impacted and caused such grave damage degenerating our republic into an oligarchy? Again by design, relentlessly pointing the finger at each other deceptively obscures the real truth of the bigger picture from ever getting noticed or recognized. Through the feds’ and their MSM’s nonstop propaganda and lies, as long as the US populace can continue to be fooled and controlled, in its complacency it will only continue to tolerate its government’s failures and accepted inadequacies, never demanding more as a disempowered, seemingly impotent, disenfranchised citizenry. The backbiting bickering between two thoroughly corrupted, co-opted political parties in the US is mere side show distraction designed to conceal the sleight of hand thievery of the banking cabal pulling all the side show puppet strings. As the late great truth-telling George Carlin used to say, the elite “doesn’t give a shit about you or me.” It’s an abomination of criminal deceit that’s bamboozled dumbed down Americans kept in the dark for far too long.

And to this day they still don’t get it. A Reuters-Ipsos poll reported this week that only 24% of Americans believe that Congress should more closely oversee the Federal Reserve private banking cabal that’s been drowning us in debt for over a century. More than twice that amount believe “the Fed should be left alone.” These must be the same sheeple who loudly complain about how horrible Congress is, yet last November turn around and re-elect 91% of the incumbents despite only a 10% approval rating. The lies are so often repeated that the voting public gets invariably conned into voting against its own self-interest again and again.

Still another Supreme Court decision that put the final dagger into the heart of our dying democratic republic was 2010’s Citizens United case followed up by last year’s McCutcheon case that opened up the purse-string floodgates giving carte blanche power for oligarchs to buy off elected politicians with absolutely no oversight or accountability. With no dollar limits making bribery perfectly legal and completely private and untraceable by high court endorsement, by no accident a joint university study last year made it official – America is no longer a republic but an oligarchy where the power interests of the few dictate and control how our federal government votes and makes laws. Rather than pay any attention to its blatant conflict of interest in violating every democratic principle, the Supreme Court has also made it official – our government is up for sale to the highest bidder. Those who simply spend the most money now own our elected representatives who are totally beholding to the hand that feeds them rather than to their constituents that send them to Washington. Of course the direct consequence of these totally undemocratic court decisions placing exclusive monetary value on funding means that Congress members will only devote more time, energy and effort to raising money to get re-elected than doing their job on Capitol Hill. The 2012 presidential election at both national and state levels cost a total of $60 billion, the most ever. With each of these dramatically impactful court rulings, the onetime democratic republic of America fades ever further into distant memory as the disconnect between the Americans and their oligarchic form of government widens exponentially.

Finally last April’s Supreme Court decision to not intervene in a Court of Appeals ruling that overturned the district court that had declared the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) unconstitutional sealed the nail in the coffin on whatever civil liberties we Americans still had left. Though courageous citizens like journalist Chris Hedges had filed a lawsuit on our behalf challenging NDAA’s legality and one very bold federal district court judge decided in Hedges et al’s favor, by the Supreme Court’s choice to uphold the Appeals Court decision overruling the lower court to keep the NDAA law on the books, life as we legally knew it in the United States ceased to exist. In effect, both the Appellate and Supreme Courts violated American citizens’ Fourth and Sixth Amendments as well as overturned the Posse Comitatis law that existed since after the Civil War. Comitatis was the legal protection that prohibited the US military from intervening in civil affairs that were historically under the jurisdiction of law enforcement agencies and each state’s National Guard. Currently under the 2012 NDAA law, the military can come into our homes without a warrant and arrest us without charges, detain us for an unlimited, indefinite period of time without access to either legal representation or due process and without even a trial.

Constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead comments:

     No matter what the Obama administration may say to the contrary, actions speak louder than words, and history shows that the U.S. government is not averse to locking up its own citizens for  its own purposes. What the NDAA does is open the door for the government to detain as a threat to national security anyone viewed as a troublemaker. According to government guidelines for identifying domestic extremists—a word used interchangeably with terrorists, that technically applies to anyone exercising their First Amendment rights in order to criticize the government.

The highest court’s gross and inhumane failure to protect our civil liberties and our constitutional right to due process has given way to the CIA-like “black sites” currently operating in secret locations throughout America where US citizens are being rounded up, brought to detention centers, shackled and tortured without being booked or charged with any crime. In effect, we are all now potential targeted victims of the US police state under the most brutal totalitarian rule. These egregious actions of the US Supreme Court have desecrated and destroyed our rule of law that for more than two centuries used to be the United States Constitution. What we now have are criminals operating within our highest court who are nothing more than traitors who need to be held accountable.

We also have a standing president who has assumed dictatorial powers through countless executive orders that bypass both congressional approval and our civil rights. Though he campaigned on a promise of transparency and openness, he has betrayed the American people who elected him by becoming the most secretive president in US history. His administration has turned down more Freedom of Information requests than any prior using the pathetic mantra of “national security” as his always lame excuse. He has charged far more whistleblowers with the archaic espionage act than all other previous presidents combined. He has been the most aggressive amongst all past presidents in pursuing and harassing journalists, both executing and threatening arrests for their seeking to tell the truth while exercising their constitutional protection to not violate confidentiality of their sources. This blatant, over-the-top violation of civil liberties of both whistleblowers and journalists again shows Obama’s true colors that he is at war with free speech and the free press obviously no longer guaranteed by our First Amendment.

Essentially since 9/11 all three branches have been taken over and hijacked by malevolent and sinister forces that no longer serve the interests of the American people but a handful of oligarch puppet masters that is the long time controlling elite. Their intent is in fact to destroy America and to a great extent the entire world as the final step toward fulfilling their globalist agenda of a one world government. For numerous centuries the international globalists have utilized their central banking cabal to own and operate a morally corrupt and thoroughly broken, unsustainable Ponzi scheme of an economic system designed to historically steal and plunder the earth’s natural resources and enslave through insurmountable debt and feudal servitude the global masses. The brutal and ruthless tyranny of the New World Order has effectively seized control over the entire planet’s population. Under the auspices of the American Empire doing its brutal bidding along with its subservient appendage of the NATO-European Union, a pro-Zionist elite spearheaded by the likes of Israel’s Bibi Netanyahu has subversively driven humanity to the brink of global self-annihilation. Through geopolitical polarization into two militarized opposing armed camps, the West is diabolically baiting and pushing the East (Russia, China, India and Iran) into global conflict amounting to World War III.

The hard kill tactics of global war and violence in conjunction with the soft kill method of environmental degradation (i.e., pollution of air, water, soil and food production through cumulative Monsanto GMO/chemical and chemtrail toxicity and ever-rising levels of radiation) makes our living earth habitat unsustainable that is increasingly producing widespread lethality amongst all life forms. The oligarchs’ eugenic plan of reducing the world population from 7.2 billion to a half to one billion is in current process of being successfully attained. Within a few years a very strong likelihood exists that roughly 13 out of 14 of us currently living and breathing on this planet will be dead or all life forms on planet earth will have perished.

With these longshot odds on survival becoming increasingly apparent, we humans as mindful citizens of the world have nothing left to lose at this near endgame point but to fight and take back our only home from those bent on fast destroying it. As outlined here, clear violations of the US Constitution have been egregiously been committed by members of all three branches of the federal government and under the penalty code of those laws, they sorely need to be enforced. Indeed it is both the citizens’ right and obligation to do so. We have no other rational or moral choice but to mobilize and actively oppose the destructive forces currently in demonic control over the earth’s dominion.

Joachim Hagopian is a West Point graduate and former US Army officer. He has written a manuscript based on his unique military experience entitled “Don’t Let The Bastards Getcha Down.” It examines and focuses on US international relations, leadership and national security issues. After the military, Joachim earned a master’s degree in Clinical Psychology and worked as a licensed therapist in the mental health field for more than a quarter century. He now concentrates on his writing and has a blog site at http://empireexposed. blogspot. com/.

“One of the most plausible theories that I have as regards the assassination of Nemtsev is that this was something to do with a rogue branch of either the Russian State itself, or of the Oligarchy settling scores because Nemtsev was of some influence….One of the difficulties with any thesis that implicates the Russian State is that almost nobody in the Russian State has any interest in the death of Nemtsev. Putin certainly does not….

The other hypothesis you have to consider, and it’s really possible, is that it was an American operation.”

-Alan Freeman, from this week’s program

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Length (59:30)
Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

On the evening of February 27, Russian opposition politician Boris Nemtsov was walking in the vicinity of the Kremlin when a gunmen fired four shots into his back from a passing car.

The murder took place two days before the 55 year-old former deputy prime minister under Boris Yeltsin was to lead an opposition rally in Moscow. The intended demonstration had been transformed into a memorial for Nemtsov with attendance numbering in the thousands.

Rumours have been circulating that Nemtsov was to present evidence positively establishing Russian involvement in East Ukraine. The murder took place in a high security area, circumstantially suggesting the hit was allowed or made to happen on purpose.[1]

As this news began to disperse through the global media landscape, providing more fodder for the international Putin-demonization campaign (the Russian President denies government involvement and has called the killing a “provocation”)[2] news has come of US and Canadian troops being dispatched to the region. [3][4]

The website NEWCOLDWAR.org was conceived several months ago in the wake of the information fog swirling around Ukraine since the coup of February 2014 and the subsequent civil war in the Donbass region. It claims to carefully source all the information coming out of the region, thereby separating the facts from the propaganda.

This week’s Global Research News Hour returns to the ever evolving week by week developments surrounding the crisis in East Ukraine with two guests, both editors from NEWCOLDWAR.org.

Roger Annis is a retired aerospace worker and a long-time socialst and trade union activist. He has written extensively on peace and social justice issues and lives in Vancouver. Annis helps probe recent developments in the Ukraine situation in the first half hour, expressing his thoughts about the Nemtsov murder, the dispatch of NATO troops, and the Putin demonization campaign and why the media is being deliberately deceptive in its reporting.

Alan Freeman is a former economist working with the greater London authority, and a visiting professor at the London Metropolitan University, now living in Winnipeg. He is also a co-editor of the Future of Capitalism book series.  He has visited Russia on several occasions since before the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1990-91. In the second half hour of the program, Freeman examines Russia’s internal political dynamics and what they say about Russian responses to provocations from the West, and the likelihood of Russian involvement in Nemtsov’s murder.

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Length (59:30)
Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

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

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

Community Radio Stations carrying the Global Research News Hour:

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

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

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

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

Notes:

1) Chris Johnston (March 7,2015), “Russia detains two men in Boris Nemtsov murder inquiry”, The Guardian ; http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/07/boris-nemtsov-murder-russia-two-arrests

2) ibid

3) http://www.globalresearch.ca/despite-russian-warnings-us-will-deploy-a-battalion-to-ukraine-by-the-end-of-the-week/5434755

4) http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/operations-abroad/nato-ee.page

This article was published on December 2, 2012.

When women in Iraq are arrested, they routinely go through three gruesome phases, starting with humiliation, followed by torture, and often ending with rape. I have received disturbing information from two different, well informed sources: one from qualified social workers in Al-Kadimiyah Women Prison, the other from three national guards officers who worked in the prison.

The common procedure is as follows:

During the Arrest

The torture journey starts when security forces raid and search the houses, through random raids or ordered raids. The Fourth Commander of the Second Brigade – Team 6, Major Jumaa Al-Musawi, has confirmed this information. This man has a criminal record, and he was assigned to this position by the American Forces during their first training courses in intelligence gathering. He used to live in Al-Thawra (now called Sadr City) / Sector 87.  In his own words:

“When we receive the raid and search orders from the Brigade Intelligence, we usually start with a little party and drink alcohol, or take some drugs. We choose the most cruel soldiers to carry out such operations. The first thing we do is to lock the men and youngsters in a room, and the women and children in another room. We start to steal what can be taken fast, like jewelry, and we mess up the house, like throwing the women’s underwear here and there; some soldiers even steal some of this underwear. After that, we start to do a body search on the women, and having fun touching their private parts or breasts. We threaten them to arrest the men in the house when they refuse to be touched. If those women are pretty, we usually rape them immediately, and leave the house when we find no weapons or incriminating material. In case we find some weapons, every man and youngster in the house will be arrested, and if there are no men at home, we arrest all the women instead. This is totally according to the orders we receive.”

What follows is one of many stories about the crimes committed by these corrupt creatures, who shamelessly brag about their misdeeds to each other. Al-Musawi and his assistant Lt. Rafid Al-Darraji (another criminal who was imprisoned in Abu-Ghraib and sentenced to death, but was released by the Americans, using him as a guardian, along with their own guard dogs, giving him the Lt. rank. He used to live in Al-Nuariyah District. Here is what they state:

“In July 2006, we received an order to raid and search the house of one of the fabric merchants in Karradah (his name is not mentioned). When we reached his house at 1:00 a.m., we didn’t find the man, we only found his wife and his 17 year old son. During the search we found a rifle, which – according to our law – is permitted for the personal protection of civilians. But we threatened the woman that we would arrest her son if she didn’t let us rape her. So, we handcuffed the son and locked him in a room, and one soldier after the other raped the lady in the other room. The other soldiers stole what they could find, then we headed to a well-known brothel in Al-Doura District in Um Alaa’s house to enjoy the rest of the night there.”

They continue: “The first thing we do when an arrested woman is being transported to the detention location, is that every part of her body is touched by all the soldiers in the vehicle, while using dirty language. When we reach the detention facility, we leave her in the investigation room, supervised by the intelligence officer and his assistants. They directly take all her clothes off, blindfold her, handcuff her, then the intelligence officer starts to rape her with his assistant. And later they ask her some questions: if she’s guilty or innocent and so on. Then they blackmail her, saying that she should be cooperative and give important information about the District where she lives, otherwise they would distribute photos of her while she was naked and being raped. They would accuse her of false charges if she would file a complaint about harrassment and torture. If she receives a “guilty” verdict, she usually stays in the same location for a period of one to three months, in order to finish the procedures of her “case”, to be sent to the headquarters. During these months, every single intelligence officer and soldier in the Brigade will rape her. After that, she will be sent to Al Tasfeerat Prison in Shaab Stadium, or to Al-Muthanna Airport Prison. Sometimes the prisoner is transferred to the facility of the Chief Commander’s Office in the Green Zone, which is a cellar under the building of the Baghdad Operations Headquarter, supervised by Major General Adnan Al-Musawi. This place is one of the most dangerous, dirtiest prisons of Al-Maliki.

Al-Tasfeerat Prisons

This is the second stage of the unfair arrest journey. The female detainee will be sent either to Shaab Stadium Prison or the notorious Al-Muthanna Airport Prison. A group of the worst psychopaths in the government is supervising these prisons, a corrupt committee of criminals of the Military Intelligence, the Intelligence services of the Ministry of Interior, and an Intelligence and Security Representative from the Chief Commander’s Office. This management is appointed by the Iraqi Correction Office through the Ministry of Justice. 45% of its employees are Al-Mahdi Militia members, 30% from the Badr Organisation. The other 25%  is divided among the other criminal parties of the government.

This phase is considered as the most barbaric. The security forces, prison guards and members of the prison management practice the most terrible ways of torture, humiliation, profanation, deprivation, blackmailing the prisoners, ethnic and sectarian and political discrimination, and raping men and women without exception. Female prisoners are detained for very long periods, without legitimate accusations or investigating their case. In criminal Maliki’s jails, there are many women who were imprisoned for periods between one year and six years, without any legal representation or procedures regarding their case.

There are many examples of the immoral and brutal practices being committed against female and male prisoners in Al-Tasfeerat Prisons. Some officers from the Ministries of Interior and Defense, the Office of the Chief of Command, and some partisan and criminal militia leaders visit these prisons, and choose some detainees to be tortured for hours and raping them for sectarian reasons. Some of the prisoners die as a result of this brutal torture. Between 2008-2012 Al-Rasafah Tasfeerat Prison recorded the death of more than 250 prisoners, among them 17 women. During the same period Al-Muthanna Airport Prison recorded the death of 125 prisoners, among them three women.

And these torture practices do not only take place in Al-Tasfeerat Prisons, but in all the prisons supervised by the Ministry of Justice, especially the Juveniles Prison, Al-Kadimiyah Women Prison, the notorious Abu-Ghraib Prison, in addition to the secret prisons of Al-Maliki where no accurate records are available about the male and female detainees who died because of the brutal torture they faced there.

It’s worth mentioning that under Al Maliki’s rule, some notorious high risk level prisoners – men and women alike-  were released or secretly smuggled out Al-Tasfeerat Prisons, after destroying all the documents and papers related to their cases, on the orders of Ministers and VIPs in the Ministries of Interior and Defense, and the Commanding Chief’s Office. Here are some of prisoners who were “released”:

1. Radiyah Kadum Muhsin : she was one of the prominent leaders of the Dawa Party, and was released after an order from Al-Maliki himself, and under the supervision of his Intelligence and Security Consultant. She was accused of leading one of the biggest human trafficking criminal gangs that kidnap children and sell them, in addition to prostitution, seducing some officers and government officials, and blackmailing them with their own pornographic photos, or even eliminating them. She was also accused of drug dealing, and forging official documents.
2. Adnan Abdulzahra Al-Aaraji: he is one of the prominent leaders of the Mahdi Militia, and the head of one of the most notorious gangs known in Iraqi history in terms of sadism, criminality and discrimination. He was arrested by the Americans while he was trying to smuggle 5000 corpses of his victims to Iran during the sectarian wars in 2006. Those corpses were sent to Iran in three cooled vehicles for the sake of human organs trade. He was accused of smuggling antiques, explosives, weapons, and drugs. We mentioned here only two of the prisoners who were “released” from Al-Maliki prisons.

After The Trial

Here begins the real tragedy. After the arrest, the prisoner – if she’s still alive – has physical wounds all over her body, having many psychological problems because of the unfair trials and the terrible treatment she faced during the time in prison, including torture and rape.

And here is another serious hardship the female prisoners are facing inside the detention centres.

There are women in these prisons with criminal records, convicted for various crimes. The prison supervisors use those inmates to bully the arbitrarily detained, innocent female detainees, imprisoned for sectarian reasons, because of false accusations or reports by secret informants. Those inmates are scaring the arbitrarily detained, watching them, blackmailing them through continuous attempts to find out things about their personal lives. Then that information is used against these innocent women to break them psychologically, through disinformation and lies about the families of those innocent prisoners.

Various Ways of Torture of Iraqi Female Prisoners 

1- Physical and Psychological Torture: the prison supervisors use many different forms of physical and psychological torture, which they learned from their Americans and the Iranians supervisors. These methods include:

• Taking off the clothes of the prisoners for more than two hours, while insulting them.
• Beating them hard with sticks, or kicking them hard in the loins.
• Electrical shocks in their breasts, loins and head.
• Using all kinds of sexual harassment (we will not reveal more details because of the extreme shameful nature).
• Recurrent rape after midnight by the guards and other persons who work in the prison, in the presence of the prison manager, because the rape often happens in his room.

Those criminals: the prison manager and the other supervisors, continuously repeat their disgusting acts. They invite other security officers from the Ministries of Interior and Defense to participate in their savage orgies, that always end in rape of the prisoners.

I will mention only one incident I witnessed in Al-Kadimiyah Prison in 2008 and can be confirmed by a social assistant who works there:

In one of the secret prisons of Al-Maliki in the Green Zone, there was a prisoner named A.A.Al-Zaidi. He was a Police Colonel before, and also held a position in the Intelligence Dept of the Badr Org., known as one of the terrorist extremist militias. His task was to assist the Commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards in getting information, names and addresses of security and intelligence officers from Saddam’s regime, so that the Iranian Revolutionary Guards could find them and eliminate them. His wife was helping him too, along with her cousin who is a lieutenant in the Ministry of Interior Special Commandos, called Sayid Jalal Al-Magsoosi.

A.A.Al-Zaidi was also responsible for recruiting women to carry out suicide attacks in Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Sunni areas in Iraq, especially Diyala and Baghdad. He was arrested by the American Forces while he was trying to illegally enter Jordan with his wife and other three women, carrying spying equipments. His wife and the three women were put in Al-Kadimiyah Prison, but he was taken to Al-Maliki’s secret prison in the Green Zone.

On New Year’s Eve, while the intelligence officers and some interrogators were partying and drinking in the prison, they told one of the guards to bring A.A.Al-Zaidi. The prisoner entered and the drunken officers asked whether he wanted to talk to his wife on the phone. They phoned the manager of Al-Kadimiyah Prison, asking him to bring the prisoner’s wife. The two talked on the phone, and the prisoner was taken to his cell again.

After that, the chief interrogator talked to the wife and said: “we want to party with you and five other pretty friends of yours. We will be coming within an hour to the women prison, so you should all be ready. You will be five and we are six. The prison manager prepared a room for them, and all the prisoners were raped many times by the officers and two of the prison guards. While they were partying and raping the women, they cheered: “hail to Al-Maliki, the pimp, the liar, the thief of Baghdad!”

2- Deprivation:

This word does not accurately describe the dire situation of the women in prisons who are devoid from the simplest rights and needs, like;

• Deprivation of family visits, phone calls, and all kinds of contact.
• Deprivation of health services, health care, and other sanitary needs.
• Deprivation of legal rights, no authorization to see or consult a lawyer.
• Deprivation of regular exposure to sunlight, and having no detergents or necessary disinfectants.
• Deprivation of complaining to the concerned committees, prisoners are threatened that they should not complain to those committees or else… And even if the prisoners file a complaint, no one will ever listen, because those committees will hear the complaints and then neglect them.

3- Blackmail and Terrorization:

Female prisoners often receive threats that their family members will be arrested and false accusations are made against the families of the prisoners.  The prisoner has to pay a huge amount of money and has to beg to make a phone call to her family. Those who have not enough money can sell their bodies to make a phone call.

This is just a brief account of what is happening in the women prisons. Baghdad alone has more than 3000 women imprisoned. The prisoners are distributed among the following jails:

• Al-Kadimiyah Prison
• Al-Tasfeerat Prison in Shaab Stadium.
• Al-Muthanna Airport Prison.
• Al-Baladiyyat Prison.
• Al-Rustumiyah Prison.

There’s another secret prison supervised by the Chief Commander’s Office, containing 65 imprisoned women. The site of this prison is changed regularly. in addition to these prisons other small detention centres are located in different security and intelligence operations headquarters.

Translation from Arabic: Lubna Al Rudaini

Editing: Dirk Adriaensens

After five years of intense fighting and destabilization raging across Syria, Western mainstream press has finally discovered the true cause of the so-called “civil war.” It turns out that all of the analysts in the alternative media suggesting that the situation in Syria was the result of a NATO destabilization campaign and foreign-backed invasion of terrorists in the form of al-Nusra, al-Qaeda, and ISIS were wrong. In fact, even those mainstream analysts who have suggested that the foreign invasion was actually a legitimate rebellion were apparently mistaken.

Thankfully, the mainstream press has discovered the true cause of the Syrian crisis – global warming.

No, this is not a joke. Mainstream outlets are actually suggesting that climate change is responsible, albeit indirectly, for the creation of ISIS and the scores of Western-backed terrorists flooding Syria as well as the now international military involvement in the war.

This is merely the latest silly narrative being promoted by the likes of Slate, Wired, The Telegraph,NBC, and The Guardian among many others.

Slate, by no means, is the sole purveyor of such abjectly stupid claims nor are the other media outlets listed above. Still, one need only read the Slate article to see how the “climate change is the real reason for the Syrian war” claim is being presented. Slate writes,

By now, it’s pretty clear that we’re starting to see visible manifestations of climate change beyond far-off melting ice sheets. One of the most terrifying implications is the increasingly real threat of wars sparked in part by global warming. New evidence says that Syria may be one of the first such conflicts.

We know the basic story in Syria by now: From 2006-2010, an unprecedented drought forced the country from a groundwater-intensive breadbasket of the region to a net food importer. Farmers abandoned their homes—school enrollment in some areas plummeted 80 percent—and flooded Syria’s cities, which were already struggling to sustain an influx of more than 1 million refugees from the conflict in neighboring Iraq. The Syrian government largely ignored these warning signs, helping sow discontent that ultimately spawned violent protests. The link from drought to war was prominently featured in a Showtime documentary last year. A preventable drought-triggered humanitarian crisis sparked the 2011 civil war, and eventually, ISIS.

A new study published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science provides the clearest evidence yet that human-induced global warming made that drought more likely. The study is the first to examine the drought-to-war narrative in quantitative detail in any country, ultimately linking it to climate change.

At this point, given the detailed nature of “climate science,” I will spare the reader a summation of the thoroughly debunked theory of Anthropogenic Man-Made Global Warming, at least as it relates to the non-existent and entirely invented theory of CO2 as a poisonous and planet killing gas. I will spare the reader historical data that proves the earth was much hotter in the past, thus indicatingthat we are well within the norm of climate ups and downs. I will also spare the reader the details regarding the fact that global warming has not taken place in the last eighteen years despite therigging of science equipment and faulty computer models to prove the opposite, thus calling into question whether the planet is actually still warming at all.

Unfortunately, Slate and its peers spared the readers the same information, leading hordes of hapless trendies to believe that CO2-Global Warming is actually a real issue and that it somehow is the guiding force behind terrorist cells, beheadings, and jihad. Leaving behind any and all knowledge of history of any form is generally important in order to be able to follow the logic provided by the recent mainstream press narrative about the Syrian war.

For instance, while US and UK media outlets attempt to suggest that global warming is responsible for the lagging Syrian agricultural sector and the fate of Syrian farmers, it conveniently fails to mention the US sanctions on Syria that helped plunge its economy into despair. While environmental factors undoubtedly play a role it is true that environmental factors always play a role in farming and agriculture in any country of the world at any time period. The false threat of CO2 does not change this fact.

Compounding the normal concerns and economic hardships of farmers with international sanctions, however, is not the result of too much CO2, it is the result of a concerted effort to destroy a sovereign and secular government for the purposes world hegemony.

Of course, these media outlets make no mention of the sanctions or the worldwide economic depression and place the blame firmly on the shoulders of Assad who allegedly “largely ignored these warning signs.”

Thus, Slate writes that “A preventable drought-triggered humanitarian crisis sparked the 2011 civil war, and eventually, ISIS.”

FALSE.

Global warming did not create ISIS. A drought did not create ISIS. The United States and NATO created ISIS.

As I have documented in my article, “The Roots of ISIS,” ISIS is nothing more than a name change in a long line of many name changes for the same terrorist organization (al Nusra, al-Qaeda, IEIL, FSA, etc.) that the US openly funded since as far back as the late 1970s and has continued to fund, direct, control, and use across the world ever since.

The suggestion that a drought, global warming, or any other weather event created ISIS and its cannibal army is atrociously stupid and an unfortunate example of the intellectual depths to which we have sunk as a nation. The fact that such a claim can be written with a straight face by numerous major media publications is more of a sad comment on the state of the American public than it is on the state of the corporate media. After all, corporate media has always been garbage but, in the past, it was somewhat necessary to maintain a professional and respectable air so as to maintain some level of credibility.

Unfortunately, the reality is that the result of these articles and the frivolous study it cites will be that, in discussion of the Syrian crisis with trendies, hipsters, and academics, one will now undoubtedly be forced to endure having to debunk global warming along with the assertion that global warming created ISIS. Well done mainstream media. Well done.

Of course, if the study cited by Slate and other mainstream media outlets are correct in their claim that global warming produces terrorist outfits like ISIS and al-Nusra, then we have much more to worry about than the Syrian crisis. Surely we will soon be overcome by polar bear suicide bombings and penguins shouting “Allahu Akbar!!”

Still, Slate continues,

The study’s authors are clear that global warming did not directly cause Syria’s civil war—it took a mix of underlying social vulnerability and an antagonistic government to do that. But it does provide compelling evidence that, when combined with the effects of increased population pressure and the poor policies of the Assad regime, the drought made a bad situation worse.

To be fair, it is clear that the lack of availability of food, poor economic conditions and societal tensions can contribute and even cause mass social upheaval. This much is a fact.

However, to go to the lengths to which the mainstream press has gone, i.e. suggesting that global warming was the root cause of the Syrian crisis is absurd.

Its attempts to blame Syria and Syrians in general in regards to “the effects of increased population pressure” are nevertheless typical of Anglo-American population control and reduction initiatives as well as propaganda pieces that have been flooding Western culture in earnest since the early 1970s. Slate and its compatriots are therefore good Malthusians as much as they are good eugenicists because, apparently, the food issue never would have gotten out of hand if there been less Syrians to begin with. Fortunately for the mainstream press, its CIA advisers, and corporate owners, the problem of “too many Syrians” has been thoroughly dealt with.

But the question of the responsibility for the crisis lying with “an antagonistic government” is a bit more difficult to decipher. Antagonistic government? What does Slate mean? Is it referring to the Syrian government who has done nothing but protect minorities and its citizens from the likes of ISIS and the FSA and who was criticized by the majority of the Syrian people early on for not doing enough to destroy the so-called rebels?

Or is it referring to the United States who organized, directed, funded, trained, and facilitated the death squads for the last 5 years and even long before that?

Perhaps it is referring to Turkey, who has also funded, armed, and facilitated terrorists across its borders so that they can unleash hell on earth upon Syria?

Is Saudi Arabia a candidate for the title of “antagonistic government?” After all, the Saudis have been at the forefront of arming the jihadist fanatics dragging their knuckles across Syria today.

Or perhaps Slate meant Israel – the country that has bombed Syria numerous times in support of ISIS and has acted as a veritable Red Cross for injured jihadists?

No, clearly, Slate reserves its understanding of “antagonism” for the targets of NATO and US imperialism. In the eyes of the Western Press, Syria is antagonistic simply for having the audacity to exist outside the dictates of the Anglo-American purview.

While it is true that the world is facing an alarming environmental catastrophe, it is also true that the world faces an equally alarming economic crisis. Likewise, it is facing the possibility of total world war fought between nuclear powers.

But these impending catastrophes are not the result of CO2. They are the result of an insane world oligarchy.

Articles like those suggesting that Global Warming was the genesis of ISIS are nothing but propaganda pieces designed to draw the reader and the American public so far off track they begin to regurgitate utter nonsense where critical thinking once reigned supreme.

Brandon Turbeville is an author out of Florence, South Carolina. He has a Bachelor’s Degree from Francis Marion University and is the author of six books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1and volume 2, and The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria. Turbeville has published over 500 articles dealing on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville’s podcast Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV.  He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com. 

Monsanto is now instantly recognized as the company dominating the global food supply with its more than 7000  current worldwide patents. But today’s Monsanto is not a corporate newcomer. Although its literature heralds the company as having a clear and principled code of conduct and a pledge to demonstrate integrity, respect, ethical behavior, and honesty in everything they do, the truth is that this company has a legacy of contamination and cover-up that dates back more than a century.

The Rise of  one of ‘The Worst Corporations in the World’

At the turn of the 19th century, John Queeny founded Monsanto Chemical Works to produce such nefarious products as saccharin, synthetic vanillin, and laxative and sedative drugs. The company was well positioned as a leading force in the dawning American chemical industry.

From the 1920’s until the late 1960’s, Queeny’s son, Edgar Monsanto Queeny, expanded the company into a global franchise, and changed its name to Monsanto Chemical Company in 1933. He added sulfuric acid, PCBs, DDT, synthetic fibers, and an array of plastics that included polystyrene to the product line.

During this time, Monsanto also created Agent Orange, one of the herbicides and defoliants used by the U.S. military as part of its herbicidal warfare program, Operation Ranch Hand, during the Vietnam War from 1961 to 1971.

Agent Orange was a combination of equal parts of two herbicides, 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D. The 2,4,5-T used to produce Agent Orange threw off dioxin as a byproduct, a compound the World Health Organization classes as highly toxic. Dioxin can cause reproductive and developmental problems, damage to the immune system, hormone disruption, and the initiation of cancer. Dioxin persists in the environment and accumulates in the body, even at minimal exposure.

In areas where Agent Orange was used, the concentration of dioxin was hundreds of times greater than the levels considered safe by the Environmental Protective Agency (EPA). This resulted in a host of terrible health consequences for anyone exposed. and led to decades of litigation during which Monsanto fought tooth and nail to avoid paying for the horrific damage military personnel suffered from. The class action case that followed was settled out of court in 1984 for $180 million, reportedly the latest settlement of its kind at the time.

Read: Sorry Monsanto – Organic Food Demand is Exploding

More than 60 years of Contamination and Cover Up

Dioxin Leak at Nitro – $93 Million Settlement

From 1929 until 1995, Monsanto operated a chemical plant in the small town of Nitro, West Virginia, where it manufactured Agent Orange. In 1949, a pressure valve blew on a tank of the herbicide, sending plumes of smoke and vapors containing dioxin throughout the town, coating residents and the homes they lived in with powdery residue.

In a short time, some people developed skin eruptions and were diagnosed with an enduring and disfiguring condition known as chloracne. Others had prolonged pain extending from their chest to their feet. According to a medical report following the explosion, “It caused a systemic intoxication in the workers involving most major organ systems.”

Monsanto’s reaction? The company down-played it, claiming the chemical was slow-acting and just a minor irritant.

To get rid of the dioxin, the company dumped it into storm drains, streams and sewers, and stored it in landfills. Dioxin persisted in waterways and in the fish that lived in them. When residents sued for damages, they were told by Monsanto that their allegations had no merit and that the company would defend itself vigorously.

The residents of Nitro or their descendants finally received $93 million from Monsanto in 2012.

PCBs Contaminate the Town of Anniston, Alabama

PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) are used in many industries as hydraulic fluids, sealants, and lubricants. These chemicals have been demonstrated to cause cancer, as well as a variety of other adverse health effects on the immune, reproductive, nervous, and endocrine systems.

Monsanto’s plant in Anniston, Alabama produced PCBs from 1929 to 1971. Since then, tons of contaminated soil have been hauled away from the plant, but the site continues to be one of the most highly polluted areas in the country.

Why was it such a mess? During its production years, waste PCBs were dumped  into a nearby open landfill, poured into a creek that ran alongside the plant,  or just allowed to run off the property during storms. During those years, the townspeople drank from their wells, ate fish they caught, and swam in the creeks, oblivious of the PCBs. When public awareness began to mount, authorities found high levels of PCBs all over the place, and in the bodies of those people, where it will remain forever.

In 1966, a Monsanto biologist testing waterways near the Anniston plant found that when live fish were added to the water, “All 25 fish lost equilibrium and turned on their sides in 10 seconds and all were dead in 3 1/2 minutes.”

In 1970, the FDA found high levels of PCBs in fish near the Anniston plant, and Monsanto jumped into cover-up mode. A leaked internal memo from a company official outlined steps for the company to take to limit disclosure. The strategy called for engaging public officials to fight the battle for them. “Joe Crockett, Secretary of the Alabama Water Improvement Commission will try to handle the problem quietly without release of the information to the public at this time,” the memo promised.

A statement eventually released from Monsanto’s world headquarters in St. Louis stated, “Quoting both plant management and the Alabama Water Improvement Commission, the PCB problem was relatively new, was being solved by Monsanto and, at this point, was no cause for public alarm.”

The class action suit for Anniston was finally settled  in 2003, when Monsanto was forced to pay $700 million.

More PCBs Dumped into the Environment

In 1977, Monsanto closed its PCB plant in Whales, but not before dumping thousands of tons of waste into the quarry of the town of Groesfaen. Authorities there say the site is still one of the most contaminated in Britain.

Internal papers indicate that Monsanto knew about the PCB dangers as early as 1953, when toxicity tests on the effects of PCBs killed more than 50% of the lab rats subjected to them. In 2011, Monsanto reluctantly agreed to help in the clean up after an environmental agency found 67 chemicals at the quarry site that were exclusively manufactured by Monsanto. Yet that effort remained underfunded and the quarry remains contaminated.

The Guardian reported that Monsanto wrote an abatement plan in 1969 which admitted “the problem involves the entire United States, Canada, and sections of Europe, especially the UK and Sweden.”

Navy Rejects Monsanto Product Because it was ‘Too Toxic’

Monsanto tried to sell its hydraulic fluid, known as Pydraul 150, to the navy in 1956, and supplied test results in their sales pitch. But the navy decided to do its own testing, and the company was informed that there would be no sale because the product proved to be too toxic. In an internal memo divulged during a court proceeding, Monsanto’s medical director stated that“no matter how we discussed the situation, it was impossible to change their thinking that Pydraul 150 is just too toxic for use in submarines.”

Monsanto Moves into Food, Biotechnology

Monsanto’s move into biotech began in the 1970’s, and in 1983 the first genetic modification of a plant cell had been achieved. Synthetic bovine growth hormone (rBST) was on the horizon. Monsanto’s public relations department portrayed GM seeds as a panacea for alleviating poverty and feeding the hungry. In 1985, the company bought NutraSweet artificial sweetener, a branded version of aspartame – the compound responsible for 75% of the complaints reported to the FDA’s adverse reaction monitoring system.

Monsanto Seeks Clean Image, Creates Solutia

In the late 1990’s, Monsanto created a new company known as Solutia, and off-loaded its chemical and fiber businesses. L. Bartlett and James B. Steele, chronicling the rise of Monsanto for Vanity Fair magazine, noted the reason for the spinoff was to channel the bulk of Monsanto’s mounting chemical lawsuits and liabilities into the spun-off company, thereby creating a clean image for Monsanto. Solutia became Monsanto’s solution!

As the company, now known simply as Monsanto, moves through the 21st century, it has a ‘new cleaned-up image,’ and a fine sounding mission statement. It refers to itself as a relatively new company that promotes sustainable agriculture and delivering products that support farmers around the world.

Except Monsanto is the 3rd most hated company in the world.

Monsanto’s legacy of contamination and cover-up should be a wake up call for you to run from the GMOs they have spawned. Remember the old adage that says leopards can’t change their spots?

Follow us: @naturalsociety on Twitter | NaturalSociety on Facebook

Israel Supports Al Qaeda Militants in Syria: Photographic Evidence, Press TV, March 07, 2015

Press TV has obtained photos showing al-Qaeda-linked militants next to Israeli soldiers in the occupied Golan Heights.

Turkey’s Military Invasion of Syria Aimed at Creating a “Buffer Zone”, Steven MacMillan, March 07, 2015

Syrian MP Khalil Mashhadiyah stated earlier this week that the Turkish military operation in Syria is aimed at creating a “buffer zone” in Northern Syria.

Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad: “The West has no Desire to Combat Terrorism”. West Channels “Money and Armaments” to ISIS, Bashar al Assad, March 06, 2015

This crisis has affected every part of Syria, every Syrian citizen regardless of his affiliation or allegiance. It affected his livelihood, food, medicaments, medical care, basic requirements like education.

From Far Away: Syria central to the 18th World Festival of Youth and Students in Ecuador, Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Norman Finkelstein, and Nagham Salman, March 06, 2015

Ecuador, which has been under the yoke of America, is hosting more than ten thousand anti-American [anti-imperialist] youths.

CIA Asset Joins Islamic State in Libya – Abdelhakim Belhadj Worked with U.S. and NATO to Overthrow Gaddafi, Kurt Nimmo, March 05, 2015

Belhadj is a former al-Qaeda operative who was a key player in the overthrow of Moammar Gaddafi. He worked directly with the U.S. and NATO.

Israel’s IDF Supports Syrian Opposition Rebels: Shin Bet Secretly Arrests Golani Druze, Accusing Him of Exposing Rebel-IDF Collaboration, Richard Silverstein, March 03, 2015

The Shin Bet doesn’t want any further leaks about such collaboration because it allows the Syrian regime to paint the rebels as Israeli stooges.

Is Barack Obama Actually Trying To Help the Islamic State (ISIS) Take Over Syria?, Michael Snyder, March 01, 2015

What we do know is that the size of the territory that ISIS controls in Syria has doubled since airstrikes began last summer…

War Propaganda: Human Rights Watch Accuses Syria of ‘Barrel Bomb’ Damage Created by US Attacks, Global Research News, March 01, 2015

Human Rights Watch has been part of a sectarian, anti-Syrian propaganda campaign.

The US Justice Department released a report on Wednesday documenting systematic and wanton brutality, violence and outright criminality on the part of police in Ferguson, Missouri, carried out in violation of the legally protected constitutional rights of the city’s population.

The report found that the Ferguson police—the department responsible for the killing of unarmed teenager Michael Brown in August—engaged in

“stops without reasonable suspicion and arrests without probable cause in violation of the Fourth Amendment; infringement on free expression, as well as retaliation for protected expression, in violation of the First Amendment; and excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment.”

The report documented numerous examples of egregious abuse at the hands of the police. It noted that in one incident, police sicced a dog on a fourteen-year-old boy, then “struck him while he was on the ground, one of them putting a boot on the side of his head.” The officers were “laughing about the incident afterward.”

The report also found that the city operates what one judge likened to a “debtors’ prison,” issuing vast numbers of arrest warrants and throwing the poor in jail in order to force them to pay traffic tickets. It notes that, for the city’s poor and low-income residents, “Minor offenses can generate crippling debts, result in jail time because of an inability to pay, and result in the loss of a driver’s license, employment, or housing.”

The conditions described are a devastating indictment of the American economic and political system. The actions of the police in America are much more in line with what would be expected in an economically backward dictatorship than a major industrial power, one that declares itself to be a role model of democratic rule for the whole world.

Obama responded to the Ferguson report on Friday with his typical admixture of cynicism and deceit. Calling the police practice in Ferguson “oppressive and abusive,” Obama declared that “it turns out” that protestors against police violence in the city “weren’t just making it up.” He added, however, that the abuse revealed was “not typical.”

“The overwhelming number of law enforcement officers have a really hard, dangerous job and they do it well,” Obama said in South Carolina. “They do it fairly, and they do it heroically.”

Obama’s paeans to the “heroic” police in America notwithstanding, the actions detailed in the Ferguson report are not an aberration. Indeed, the Justice Department itself found similar misconduct in reports on police in Albuquerque and Cleveland over the past year.

In the past two years alone, there have been nearly two thousand police killings in the US. All over the country, people in poor and working-class communities live in fear of the police, who are given legal immunity to harass and brutalize the population in service of the ruling elite.

Obama’s comments followed earlier remarks by Attorney General Eric Holder in announcing the report. Holder declared that the findings showed that the concerns of demonstrators “were all too real.” As he put it, “Some of those protesters were right.”

A serious reporter, if such a thing existed in the White House press corps, would have asked Holder: “If the protestors were in fact right, why did you go to Ferguson during the height of the police crackdown against peaceful protestors against the killing of Brown and stage a photo op where you embraced Ron Johnson, who was coordinating the crackdown on peaceful demonstrators?”

This was, after all, the same White House that worked with Missouri Governor Jay Nixon to mobilize the National Guard against protestors, and sent over a hundred FBI agents to spy on those involved.

The White House combined its empty acknowledgment that protesters “were right” with its absolute defense of the decision not to bring charges against Darren Wilson for gunning down Brown in broad daylight. Obama made it a point Friday of explicitly defending the decision of the Justice Department not to charge Wilson—which followed a sham grand jury proceeding last year—as if the actions of the killer cop were not entirely of a piece with the outrageous conditions described in the Ferguson report released the very same day.

The criminality of the police in the US is of a piece with the operation of the state as a whole, and of the corporate and financial aristocracy that runs the country. As for the response of the Obama administration, it follows a definite playbook. Whenever the criminality of the American state comes bubbling to the surface and is revealed before the public, Obama admits the crimes while making sure that the people responsible for them go unpunished and acting as if the White House itself had no hand in the matter.

In May 2013, Obama gave a speech in which he declared,

“I do not believe it would be constitutional for the government to target and kill any US citizen—with a drone or with a shotgun—without due process. Nor should any president deploy armed drones over US soil.”

This was after the president had already carried out the drone murders of multiple American citizens, and only two months after Holder had declared the right of the president to carry out drone assassinations “within the territory of the United States.”

Then there is the question of the government’s complicity in torture. In August of last year, Obama declared that over the past decade and a half, “We tortured some folks… We did some things that were contrary to our values.” And yet, none of the torturers, whose activities were exhaustively documented in the Senate Intelligence Committee report released last year, have been punished. Only a few months later, the corporate-controlled media now acts as if the report never existed.

The same pattern is evident in numerous revelations of outright criminality on the part of the banks and financial speculators. The US Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations’ 2011 report on the Wall Street crash proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that individual executives at major banks, including Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank and others, have committed crimes mandating prison sentences. The Senate turned over the report to the Justice Department, but no one was charged, much less prosecuted.

In all of these scandals, the entire political establishment works to ensure that no one will be held accountable. In relation to the Ferguson report, despite its damning revelations, it concludes with only a few empty and toothless proposals for “reform.”

No one can be held accountable because all of these great crimes are part of an even greater criminal conspiracy by the financial oligarchy to keep the great mass of the population in poverty and subjection.

More than 7,700 immigrant children have been ordered deported over the past 18 months without ever appearing in court, according to statistics released by the federal government recently and reported by the Los Angeles Times Friday.

The Times account was based on data supplied by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University, which processes data from Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other federal agencies.

Legal proceedings had been brought against 62,363 children over the past 18 months. In at least 7,706 cases, the children were ordered deported after they failed to make a court appearance. No figures were available on how many of these children were even aware of their hearings—they range in ages from toddlers to adolescents. But 94 percent of those ordered deported had no attorney to represent them.

Attorneys and advocates for the undocumented children said that many of these hearings are held without any notice given to those facing deportation. This problem has been exacerbated by an Obama order that immigration judges fast track such hearings, holding them within 21 days of ICE seeking a deportation order. With children scattered across the country, in detention facilities, foster care or staying with relatives, the fast-track hearing process makes timely notice extremely difficult.

ICE has not reported the total number of children deported in its efforts to combat the “surge” of refugees from Central America that began in late 2013. The agency reported that 1,901 unaccompanied children were deported during fiscal year 2014 (October 1, 2013 through September 30, 2014), but some of these may have been detained earlier. ICE has not released figures on child deportations over the past five months.

The fact that deportations of unaccompanied children take place at all is outrageous. That the numbers are in the thousands, if not higher, demonstrates the brutality of the crackdown on Central American migrants conducted by the US government, in direct contradiction to the public pretense of sympathy adopted by President Obama.

The Obama administration has carried on a two-faced policy on immigration ever since taking office in January 2009. Obama claimed to advocate a more tolerant approach to undocumented immigrants and to support measures for their legalization and citizenship. But his government has deported more immigrants than any previous administration, more than two million men, women and children. Deportations are being carried out at nine times the rate of 20 years ago.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement began the latest crackdown at the end of 2013, when Central American women and children began arriving at the US southern border in much larger numbers than previously. The numbers swelled during the summer of 2014, leading to the detention of tens of thousands of unaccompanied children, mainly from Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras.

The vast majority of the women and children were fleeing gang violence and military death squads in their home countries, as well as desperate poverty, conditions that are byproducts of a long history of oppression by American imperialism and its local henchmen in the wealthy oligarchies that rule Central America.

At the high point of the crisis, Jeh Johnson, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, declared that the mass jailing of mothers and children was intended as a deterrent against the continued flight of refugees. In other words, he effectively conceded that the administration policy was deliberately punitive, and in violation of due process norms.

Last month a federal judge in Washington DC ordered the administration to stop the jailing of children, whether accompanying their parents or alone. The Department of Homeland Security is considering whether to appeal.

In another federal courtroom, in Seattle, Washington, the American Civil Liberties Union has brought suit seeking the appointment of defense counsel for all children facing immigration or deportation hearings.

The plaintiffs in this lawsuit, J.E.F.M. v. Holder, are all unnamed, in view of their ages, but their descriptions in the court filing suggest the dimensions of the social crisis in Central America from which they have fled. As detailed in the court documents, the plaintiffs include:

* A three-year-old boy conceived when his mother was raped when she was only 15 years old. After she faced continuing threats from her rapist, his mother fled El Salvador and left her son in the care of his aunt. However, because his family continued to fear for his safety in El Salvador, he was brought to the border in Texas, taken into custody by the government, and put into deportation proceedings.

* A 10-year-old boy, his 13-year-old brother, and 15-year-old sister from El Salvador, whose father was murdered in front of their eyes. The father was targeted because he and the mother ran a rehabilitation center for people trying to leave gangs.

* A 14-year-old girl who had been living with her grandparents, but was forced to flee El Salvador after being threatened and then attacked by gang members.

* A 15-year-old boy who was abandoned and abused in Guatemala, and came to the United States without any family or friends.

* A 16-year-old boy born in Mexico who has lived here since he was a year old, and has had lawful status since June 2010.

* A 16-year-old boy with limited communication skills and special education issues who escaped brutal violence exacted on his family in Honduras, and who has lived in Southern California since he was eight years old.

* A 17-year-old boy who fled gang violence and recruitment in Guatemala and now lives with his lawful permanent resident father in Los Angeles.

The lawsuit charges numerous agencies of the federal government with violating the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution, as well as provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act requiring a “full and fair hearing” before an immigration judge. Such a fair hearing is impossible for a child deprived of both parental support and legal counsel.

This is the brutal reality of US immigration policy, behind the play-acting and stage-managed conflicts in Washington. President Obama and congressional Republicans engaged in such a mock battle over the past two weeks over funding of the Department of Homeland Security, which the Republicans had delayed in an effort to force the White House to abandon the executive order issued by Obama last November, providing limited work authorization for about four million undocumented immigrants.

The fight ended, as the WSWS predicted, with full funding for the DHS, one of key agencies of the emerging American police state, and with Obama’s immigration order unchanged. With only a few exceptions, corporate America supports the Obama policy, which makes available a supply of cheap labor for agribusiness, construction and other industries, while maintaining the overall framework of brutal police repression of undocumented workers.

Image: Monks mingle in the background with protesters marching against attempts to recognize and empower stateless Rohingya refugees. Racism, bigotry, and savagery are hallmarks of this street mob which also so happens to be the same mob supporting “democracy icon,” Aung San Suu Kyi.

Not unlike other US-backed “color revolutions” around the world, Myanmar’s “Saffron Revolution” is sold as an ultra-liberal pro-democracy, progressive movement, with one of the West’s most successful neo-colonial creations to date, Aung San Suu Kyi, portrayed and revered as a modern day, secular “saint” of neo-liberalism and Western democratic values.

Underneath the pageantry and spin, however, is harbored ultra-right racism and unhinged violence that if ever truthfully reported on, would end the “Saffron” wave, and spell the absolute end of both Suu Kyi’s political career and her legacy.

Most recently Suu Kyi’s “Saffron” movement took to the streets, not to call for greater “freedom” or to defend “human rights,” but to condemn the government’s move toward giving hundreds of thousands of stateless Rohingya refugees citizenship.

Australia’s ABC News would report in an article titled, “Myanmar scraps temporary ID cards amid protests targeting ethnic minorities without citizenship,” that:

Myanmar’s government says identity cards for people without full citizenship, including Muslim Rohingya, will expire within weeks.

The scrapping of ID cards snatches away voting rights handed to them just a day earlier (Tuesday), after Myanmar nationalists protested against the move.

The Rohingya, along with hundreds of thousands of people in mainly ethnic minority border areas, who hold the documents ostensibly as part of a process of applying for citizenship, will see their ID cards expire at the end of March, according to a statement from the office of president Thein Sein.

Some might call it strange for a so-called “pro-democracy” movement to take to the streets to specifically deny hundreds of thousands their right to be represented. Indeed, the move was instead entirely driven by Suu Kyi’s political bloc and its attempt to skew upcoming polls with a large, well oiled political machine built with decades of support and billions of dollars funneled in from the United States and the United Kingdom, the latter having had colonized Myanmar and who still refers to the nation as “Burma,” its colonial nomenclature under British colonial rule.

In a related incident, Australia’s ABC News would also report in an article titled, “Myanmar monk who called UN envoy a whore ‘could hurt Buddhism’,” that:

A Myanmar Buddhist monk who called a UN human rights envoy a “whore” has violated his monastic code and could damage his religion, another prominent monk says, but he is unlikely to face censure. Ashin Wirathu denounced Yanghee Lee, the UN special rapporteur on human rights in Myanmar, in a speech in Yangon on Friday, after she questioned draft laws that critics said discriminate against women and non-Buddhists.

Wirathu, also known as the “Buddhist Bin Laden,” led Aung San Suu Kyi’s “Saffron Revolution” in 2007 and his followers regularly fill the ranks of street mobs organized in support of her political party, the National League for Democracy (NLD). Both Suu Kyi’s NLD and her “Saffron” mobs, are fully funded, backed, protected by, and in absolute servile obedience to both US and British special interests.

America’s Bottomless Pockets Fund Myanmar’s Terrorists and Traitors 

A 2006 36-page document out of the “Burma Campaign UK” explicitly details the enormous amount of money and resources both the US government and its corporate-funded foundations have poured into Suu Kyi’s image and her “movement.”

The most telling information begins on page 14 of 36 of the report’s PDF file. Titled, “Failing the People of Burma?” the report enumerates the vast resources the West has invested in building a “pro-democracy” movement, and argues that even more support be given to initiate a “transition” in Myanmar.

The report details the specifics of each organization involved, including the National Endowment for Democracy (NED):

The National Endowment for Democracy (NED – see Appendix 1, page 27) has been at the forefront of our program efforts to promote democracy and improved human rights in Burma since 1996. We are providing $2,500,000 in FY 2003 funding from the Burma earmark in the Foreign Operations legislation. The NED will use these funds to support Burmese and ethnic minority democracy-promoting organizations through a sub-grant program. The projects funded are designed to disseminate information inside Burma supportive of Burma’s democratic development, to create democratic infrastructures and institutions, to improve the collection of information on human rights abuses by the Burmese military and to build capacity to support the restoration of democracy when the appropriate political openings occur and the exiles/refugees return.

The role of US State Department-run Radio Free Asia (RFA) and Voice of America (VOA) is also discussed in detail, including the revelation that US foreign policy specifically supports and actively promotes Aung San Suu Kyi and “her” agenda, stating:

Both Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) have Burmese services. VOA broadcasts a 30-minute mix of international news and information three times a day. RFA broadcasts news and information about Burma two hours a day. VOA and RFA websites also contain audio and text material in Burmese and English. For example, VOA’s October 10, 2003 editorial, “Release Aung San Suu Kyi” is prominently featured in the Burmese section of VOAnews.com. RFA’s website makes available audio versions of 16 Aung San Suu Kyi’s speeches from May 27 and 29, 2003. U.S. international broadcasting provides crucial information to a population denied the benefits of freedom of information by its government.

The US also pours vast resources into organizations affiliated with Aung San Suu Kyi, including “Prospect Burma”:

The State Department provided $150,000 in FY 2001/02 funds to provide scholarships to young Burmese through Prospect Burma, a partner organization with close ties to Aung San Suu Kyi. With FY 2003/04 funds, we plan to support Prospect Burma’s work given the organization’s proven competence in managing scholarships for individuals denied educational opportunities by the continued repression of the military junta, but committed to a return to democracy in Burma.

NED is also cited as behind the creation of a vast propaganda network including the New Era Journal, the Irrawaddy, and the Democratic Voice of Burma (DVB) radio, all posing as “independent” media sources despite the fact they are in reality fully-funded by the US government.

Additionally, a 2007 Reuters article titled, “Myanmar information window closing, says dissident,” would reveal another propaganda outlet created by and maintained not by the people of Myanmar, but by the US State Department. Reuters reported:

The United States helps fund Mizzima through its National Endowment for Democracy, one source of the generals’ assertions that the protests are the result of outside agitation.

Reuters would also report that the Editor-In-Chief of US-funded Mizzima was (and still is) Soe Myint, a terrorist guilty of hijacking a passenger liner – a terrorist act committed before receiving US funding to start his propaganda outfit. Reuters would report:

Myint and a friend hit the headlines in 1990 when he hijacked a Thai International Airways plane to protest the junta’s rejection of elections won by pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy. He used fake bombs made out of soap cases to hijack the plane flying from Bangkok to Yangon with 220 passengers on board. The two friends were released in 1991 after a three-month jail term and were recognised as refugees in India.

The abhorrent racism, bigotry, and violence exercised by Suu Kyi’s “Saffron” mobs could best be compared to that of America’s Ku Klux Klan or violent anti-Semitic pogroms seen in Europe, particularly during the rise of Nazism. Led by the above mentioned violent demagogue Ashin Wirathu, the mobs enforcing Suu Kyi’s rising political order depend on constant and substantial cover provided by the Western media.

Despite this cover, kernels of truth still make their way through the propaganda smokescreen.

In CNN’s 2013 article, “Armed Buddhists, including monks, clash with Muslims in Myanmar,” it was reported that:

Buddhist monks and others armed with swords and machetes Friday stalked the streets of a city in central Myanmar, where sectarian violence that has left about 20 people dead has begun to spread to other areas, according to local officials.

In the western state of Rakhine, tensions between the majority Buddhist community and the Rohingya, a stateless ethnic Muslim group, boiled over into clashes that killed scores of people and left tens of thousands of others living in makeshift camps last year.

Most of the victims were Rohingya.

Similar violence in September of 2012 revealed the name of one of the leading “monks.” AFP’s article, “Monks stage anti-Rohingya march in Myanmar, refers to the leader of these mobs as “a monk named Wirathu,” referring of course to Ashin Wirathu himself.

In March 2012, Wirathu had led a rally calling for the release of so-called “political prisoners,” so designated by US State Department and its stable of faux-human rights NGOs. Wirathu himself was in prison, according to AFP, for inciting hatred against Muslims, until released as part of an amnesty, an amnesty US State Department-funded Democratic Voice of Burma claims concerned only “political prisoners.”

Real monks don’t do politics. The “venerable” Wirathu (front, left) leads a rally for “political prisoners” loyal to Aung San Suu Kyi’s “pro-democracy” movement in March, 2012. Wirathu himself has been often portrayed as an “activist monk” and a “political prisoner” who spent years in prison. In reality, he was arrested for his role in deadly sectarian violence in 2003, while Suu Kyi’s “pro-democracy” front is actually US-funded sedition. Wirathua has picked up right where he left off in 2003, and is now leading anti-Rohingya rallies across the country and has most recently labelled a UN envoy a “whore” for defending the Rohingya minority against his and his followers’ savagery.

Human Rights Watch itself, in its attempt to memorialize the struggle of “Buddhism and activism in Burma” (.pdf), admits that Wirathu was arrested in 2003 and sentenced to 25 years in prison along with other “monks” for their role in violent clashes between “Buddhists and Muslims” (page 67, .pdf). This would make Wirathu and his companions violent criminals, not “political prisoners.”

While Western news agencies have attempted to spin more recent violence as a new phenomenon implicating Aung San Suu Kyi’s political foot soldiers as genocidal bigots, in reality, the violent, sectarian nature of her support base has been back page news for years. AFP’s more recent but uncharacteristically honest portrayal of Wirathu, with an attempt to conceal his identity and role in Aung San Suu Kyi’s “Saffron” political machine, illustrates the quandary now faced by Western propagandists as the violence flares up again, this time in front of a better informed public.

An alleged monk, carries an umbrella with Aung San Suu Kyi’s image on it. These so-called monks have played a central role in building Suu Kyi’s political machine, as well as maintaining over a decade of genocidal, sectarian violence aimed at Myanmar’s ethnic minorities. Another example of US “democracy promotion” and tax dollars at work.

During 2007’s “Saffron Revolution,” these same so-called “monks” took to the streets in a series of bloody anti-government protests, in support of Aung San Suu Kyi and her Western-contrived political order. HRW would specifically enumerate support provided to Aung San Suu Kyi’s movement by these organizations, including the Young Monks Union (Association), now leading violence and calls for ethnic cleansing across Myanmar.

The UK Independent in their article, “Burma’s monks call for Muslim community to be shunned,” mentions the Young Monks Association by name as involved in distributing flyers, demanding people not to associate with ethnic Rohingya, and attempting to block humanitarian aid from reaching Rohingya camps.

The Independent also notes calls for ethnic cleansing made by leaders of the 88 Generation Students group (BBC profile here) – who also played a pivotal role in the pro-Suu Kyi 2007 protests. “Ashin” Htawara, another “monk activist” who considers Aung San Suu Kyi, his “special leader” and greeted her with flowers for her Oslo Noble Peace Prize address earlier this year, stated at an event in London that the Rohingya should be sent “back to their native land.”

Hands up for recolonization and genocide. One of the US State Department’s favorite “activism 2.0” gags is having activists write on their hands and photographing it to show solidarity for a cause across social media. Aung San Suu Kyi (photo courtesy of Soros.org) herself promoted the recolonization of Myanmar by Western interests in this way. Ironically, her supporters who had used the tactic to support Suu Kyi and others in her movement, are now writing pro-genocide slogans on their hands.

The equivalent of Ku Klux Klan racists demanding that America’s black population be shipped back to Africa, the US State Department’s “pro-democratic” protesters in Myanmar have been revealed as habitual, violent bigots with genocidal tendencies. Their recent violence also casts doubts on Western narratives portraying the 2007 “Saffron Revolution’s” death toll as exclusively caused by government security operations.

While in late 2012 the Western media attempted to ignore the genocidal nature of Suu Kyi’s “Saffron Monks,” now it appears that more are catching on. The International Business Times has since published an article titled, “Burmese Bin Laden: Is Buddhist Monk Wirathu Behind Violence in Myanmar?” stating:

The shadow of controversial monk Wirathu, who has led numerous vocal campaigns against Muslims in Burma, looms large over the sectarian violence in Meikhtila.

Wirathu played an active role in stirring tensions in a Rangoon suburb in February, by spreading unfounded rumours that a local school was being developed into a mosque, according to the Democratic voice of Burma. An angry mob of about 300 Buddhists assaulted the school and other local businesses in Rangoon.

The monk, who describes himself as ‘the Burmese Bin Laden’ said that his militancy “is vital to counter aggressive expansion by Muslims”.

He was arrested in 2003 for distributing anti-Muslim leaflets and has often stirred controversy over his Islamophobic activities, which include a call for the Rhohingya and “kalar”, a pejorative term for Muslims of South Asian descent, to be expelled from Myanmar.

He has also been implicated in religious clashes in Mandalay, where a dozen people died, in several local reports.

The article also cites the Burma Campaign UK, whose director is attempting to rework the West’s narrative in Myanmar to protect their long-groomed proxy Suu Kyi, while disavowing the violence carried out by a movement they themselves have propped up, funded, and directed for many years.

It would be bad enough if US “democracy promotion” had only caused such bloodshed and perpetual injustice in Myanmar alone, propelling the absolute worst elements of society into prominence, but unfortunately similar movements of violent, US-backed criminals have attempted to seize power in neighboring Thailand, led by billionaire mass murderer Thaksin Shinawatra, and around the world including in Libya, Syria, and most recently in Ukraine.

If Aung San Suu Kyi, patron saint of US “democracy promotion,” can be exposed and prevented from seizing power in Myanmar, Washington’s other schemes around the world can also be overturned. And even with the monumental illusions constructed around Suu Kyi, both domestically and abroad, the veneer has begun to peel. Hiding her “Saffron” enforcers will become increasingly difficult, and with a fully mobilized alternative media, when the final push begins, the public will already be one step ahead of the professional liars who have already long-allowed this injustice to fester for decades.

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

We have the honor of interviewing First Deputy Prime Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Donetsk People’s Republic, Mikhail Mhukhin. He speaks to us about the ongoing crisis in the DPR, the history of Donbass and its relationship to Ukraine, and initiatives currently being implemented to end the conflict. For further correspondence, you can visit the official MOFA DPR website at mid-dnr.ru/en/.

HANEUL: One year after the US-backed Euromaidan coup, Ukraine is still engaged in a long and bloody civil war. What progress have you made in the fight against the fascist Ukranian military, Svoboda, and Right Sector?

MIKHAIL: First and most importantly, we have built an independent state. Even though some parts of our territory are still controlled by the Ukrainian Armed Forces, the state system of the DPR is fully functional and controls all vital operations. We can pay salaries and social dowries, form state budgets, and arrange foreign trade.

At present, the DPR has legitimately elected authorities: the Head of the Republic, [Prime Minister] Alexander Zakharchenko, and the supreme legislative body, the People`s Council. The elections for local Councils will take place soon.

It should be stressed that we have achieved all these goals during unceasing hostilities and blockades made by the Ukrainian authorities, in addition to the critical humanitarian situation in the region. In our opinion, all of these problems are the main arguments in the fight against our enemy. We managed not only to survive, but also to develop a full-fledged state.

Militarily, the DPR Army has demonstrated to the whole world its ability to act effectively, and the number of magnificent victories over Ukrainian troops vindicates this. One should note that the number of UAF soldiers exceeds ours, as does their military equipment.

Nevertheless, we will always insist on and continue to desire a peaceful resolution to the conflict. We have never sought to annihilate Ukraine and the Ukrainians; however, our key issue is to provide the security of our people and to create the conditions for a normal, peaceful life. We are always ready for dialogue, even with Kiev.

HANEUL: After the May 11th referendum, the DPR declared itself independent from Ukraine, yet the international community has denounced your right to do so. Can you tell me what this signifies about democracy building?

MIKHAIL: The issue of DPR recognition remains urgent, indeed. This is the main priority for our Ministry`s work today, and we make progress gradually in this direction. The Republic of South Ossetia has officially recognized the DPR, and we are establishing diplomatic contacts now. The Republic of Abkhazia also announced its readiness to recognize the DPR.

Furthermore, we work in other areas of cooperation and with all countries on any continent. Some of them are officially recognized and some are not. Additionally, we are now actively promoting cooperation with other social and political movements to support the self-determination of their territories. This process is rather long and complex.

As for the position of a number of Western countries towards us, we understand extremely well the reasons of it. One should decide whether or not to recognize our Republic; it does not depend on us. From our side, we can ensure this process by proving our consistency as a full-fledged member of the international community. It is paradoxical that, even though the citizens of our state are similar to those in the USA, Britain, or Japan, we still have to prove our right to exist. In this regard, we have huge expectations of the public’s opinion, especially in western countries, as it starts to change. People from all over the world are getting to learn more truths about us, and we hope that your authorities will take an objective stance towards the DPR.

HANEUL: Can you give us a history of the Donetsk Oblast and its history in relation to Russia? Why did the DPR decide to remain autonomous instead of integrating into the Russian Federation like Crimea?

MIKHAIL: Donbass was always a place of enormous accumulated human resources’—the place where people of all nationalities united in order to labor together and use Russian as their common language. As a result, a unique political platform has arisen in Donbass; the consequences of which we can observe today. All this explains why Donbas has always strived for autonomy and independence.

Crimea has made its own long journey and has finally returned to Russia. However, we are two distinct regions and have formed differently. We do not have the goal to join Russia as a priority now, but instead follow our path to forming an independent state. We have resolved the social and economic problems brought about by Ukraine’s military aggression and complete transport and economic blockade of our land.

HANEUL: Historically, Ukrainians experienced the 1941 pogroms in Lyiv in which the Ukrainian Insurgent Army worked with the Nazis to murder thousands of Polish and Ukrainian citizens. Do you believe that you are reliving this nightmare? Who should be held accountable for this?

MIKHAIL: We stress that the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UIA or UPA) did not act alone during World War II. With the support of foreign states, the UIA successfully existed in some regions from 1946 until 1948 as a local instrument of the Cold War. However, the ideologies of Ukrainian nationalists have not changed; just their owners.

Repetition is a peculiar feature of history. The tragedy in Odessa—the repression of dissidents and multiple war crimes—proves this fact. The above-mentioned organizations and people unfortunately follow the examples of their historical leaders and idols. However, they should remember the fate of the UIA and its leaders, which will partially help them to predict their own.

You can see throughout history the actions of the UIA and other nationalist groups, which were directed not only against Poles but also Russians, Jews and representatives of other ethnicities. Those who support neo-Nazism in Ukraine should think about where the Nazis would turn their weapons tomorrow.

HANEUL: Which international organizations are working with your government to provide humanitarian aid to your citizens, and how long do you estimate this crisis to last? How can people around the world become involved in reporting, assisting, or donating to your cause?

MIKHAIL: We are open to dialogue and are always ready to accept help from all organizations and private persons. There are a number of organizations operating in the DPR, such as the International Red Cross, Medicines Sans Frontiers, and dozens of other charity funds and communities.

Our experiences have shown that we are not alone—that many people from numerous countries are ready to help us sincerely and freely. For example, we have received a few trucks with medicaments from all over Germany, collected with the assistance of some Bundestag MPs.

Remember that Donetsk currently has a full economic blockade. The direct deliveries of financial assets, food products, and other goods to the DPR are impossible now, but we are trying to solve this problem everyday. We are very pleased and appreciate the desire of people from the entire world to help us.

HANEUL: Do you believe that PM Alexander Zakharchenko should have taken part in the second Minsk agreement in Belarus? Why didn’t the Normandy Four (Russia, Ukraine, Germany, and France) include Donetsk, Luhansk, and Crimea into the peace talks? How have the peace talks helped ease tensions in Donbass, and do you believe that there should be separate talks between the DPR and other groups?

MIKHAIL: The situation surrounding the DPR, the LPR and Crimea cannot be combined in the negotiation process, as Crimea is already a part of Russia.

The Donetsk People`s Republic is one of several parties in the conflict, so without Alexander Zakharchenko`s participation, a negotiated resolution is impossible. However, we can explain Kiev’s harsh stance and attempts to ignore the DPR and LPR in the Normandy Four negotiations. Ukraine considers the truce as a period to accumulate military forces and prepare for further hostilities, and Kiev has never shown its full readiness for a lasting peace.

The real conflict is between the people of the southeast and Ukrainian government, whom should actually negotiate. Apart from that, the DPR’s entrance into the negotiation process means that it will achieve its new status, which Ukraine is trying to prevent. Alongside this, Ukraine is trying to expand the number of participants involved in the conflict, such as Germany and France, in order to supply them weapons. We hope this will not happen.

We are satisfied with Germany and France’s viewpoint; they have started to change their positions on events happening in Donbass. We expect that, instead of more sanctions, they will initiate humanitarian missions here in order to stop the catastrophe, not deteriorate it.

We are sure that peace will finally come, but we cannot achieve it with regular concessions from one side and continuous breaches from the other. Peace is always a compromise and we are ready for it, but only after ensuring the safety of our citizens.

HANEUL: The UAE has already committed weapons to the Ukrainian military, and the United States has considered arming the junta directly. If this occurs, how will this affect the current situation? Will this escalate to a large conflict between superpowers?

MIKHAIL: According to present information, the weapons contracts made between Ukraine and the UAE are not a significant concern, and we personally believe those contracts were made just for PR. We doubt Kiev managed to convince its partners to supply weapons on credit, and it does not have enough money to buy them. Another issue is the USA’s weaponry. According to confirmed information, they never stopped supplying weapons to Ukraine. Along the whole frontline, after each Ukrainian force’s retreat, one can easily find weapons made in America, including heavy artillery. Besides, the large amount of American personnel training Ukrainian soldiers invokes serious concern. In what way should we estimate [the outcome]? Exposing Washington`s participation in the Donbass conflict is difficult, but direct interventions take place and grow with every passing month, so it is very difficult to predict such consequences.

For more information, please visit The Last Defense at thelastdefense2012.tumblr.com or following us on Twitter at @thelastdefense

Press TV has obtained photos showing al-Qaeda-linked militants next to Israeli soldiers in the occupied Golan Heights.

New photos from the Golan Heights further prove Tel Aviv’s support for al-Qaeda-linked militants, especially al-Nusra Front, that have been wreaking havoc in Syria.

Image: The undated photo obtained by Press TV shows Israeli soldiers speaking face-to-face with foreign-backed militants near the Israeli occupied Golan heights in Syria.The photos obtained by Press TV show Takfiri militants from the terrorist al-Nusra Front next to Israeli soldiers.

Israel is known to have been providing medical, intelligence and military support for militants fighting to topple the government of President Bashar al-Assad in Syria. A number of militant commanders wounded in government attacks on terrorist have reportedly been hospitalized in the occupied territories.

The images obtained by Press TV shows Israeli soldiers speaking face-to-face with militants in Golan.

Cooperation aimed at targeting resistance

The Israeli military’s close cooperation with the militants also assisted the regime’s bombing of a convoy belonging to Lebanese resistance group Hezbollah on January 17. The attack led to the killing of six Hezbollah members as well as an Iranian general. Hezbollah later announced that the attack was coordinated between Tel Aviv and the al-Nusra militants.

“The assault has revealed the degree of cooperation between Takfiris and Israel,” Sheikh Naim Qassem, Hezbollah deputy leader, said during a ceremony seven days after the Israeli attack in Qunaitra, an area close to the Syrian Israeli border.

Late last year, a UN report confirmed contact between militants in Syria and the Israeli army across the Golan cease-fire line, especially during heavy clashes between the terrorists and the Syrian troops.

The report also confirmed that militants had been taking their wounded comrades into the Israeli-occupied part of the Golan Heights for treatment. The UN also confirmed the delivery of boxes by the Israeli army to militants on the Syrian side of the ceasefire line.

At dawn on Sunday the 22^nd of February, Turkey launched a military operation into Syria to purportedly rescue Turkish soldiers who had been surrounded by Islamic State (IS/ISIS/ISIL) fighters for months. The troops were guarding the tomb of Suleyman Shah, the grandfather of the founder of the Ottoman Empire. The military operation involved drones, tanks, reconnaissance planes and nearly 600 soldiers (including special forces) according to Reuters, with the Syrian government denouncing the operation as an act of “flagrant aggression”.

The official justification for the invasion is suspicious to any informed reader as Turkey has been a major player in supporting and aiding ISIS, in addition to the tomb of Suleyman Shah being the subject of a leaked conversation between top Turkish strategists discussing a false flag attack on the tomb to justify war with Syria.

Buffer Zone in Syria

Syrian MP Khalil Mashhadiyah stated earlier this week that the Turkish military operation in Syria is aimed at creating a “buffer zone” in Northern Syria.Mashhadiyah told Fars News:

“Turkey’s aggression against the Syrian territory is within the framework of joint efforts with Israel to create a buffer zone, especially North of Aleppo, to delay the Syrian army’s operations and this shows Turkey’s clear support for the Takfiris.”

Some reports suggest there is already a de facto buffer zone in the Southwest of Syria near the Golan Heights, although this is an undeclared zone in an area that will be hotly contested in the coming months. A buffer zone in Northern Syria is often promoted by NATO powers under the auspices of humanitarian concerns, which is a disgrace considering the humanitarian disaster in Syria is a direct result of NATO powers and their allies funding and supporting a rebel invasion of Syria to oust the regime in Damascus.

A buffer zone in Syria would serve as a rebel mini-state where fighters would be trained by foreign military personnel to launch attacks against Syrian government forces. As the Brookings Institution admits in an article titled: What Would the Turkish Buffer Zone Mean for Syria’s Displaced:

“Beyond humanitarian concerns, the buffer zone likely has politico-military functions: the cleared zone could be used as an area to train forces opposed to Assad.”

Turkey has repeatedly called for buffer zones which will almost certainly be accompanied by no fly zones in Syria, although the Turkish government has often termed them as “safe zones” in a bid to obfuscate the public. The Syrian Foreign Ministry has rejected the creation of buffer zones on its territory as it views such proposals as a violation of its sovereignty.

In November of 2014, Bloomberg View reported on an alleged plan between the US and Turkey to create an “air-exclusion zone” in Syria along the Turkish border, which would be a zone policed by Turkish soldiers on the ground and the US air force in the sky. The US has so far refrained from imposing a no fly zone in Syria, but this could change in the coming months.

Was the Turkish invasion of Syria a test to see how the Syrian government would respond to such an act of aggression, in addition to monitoring the response of regional players? This could merely be a test in preparation for a real ground invasion of Syria in the future.

If NATO powers manage to implement a buffer zone accompanied by a no fly zone in Northern Syria in the future, it would weaken the al-Assad regime.“As we saw with Libya, a “no fly zone” is merely a euphemism for aerial bombardment and aggressive regime change,” as Paul Joseph Watson wrote in 2012.

Attempting to impose a no fly zone may even provoke a direct military response by the government in Damascus. The Syrian government has been under relentless military assault by an assortment of regional players and NATO powers, but it has responded with restraint and strategic astuteness so far. But how much more can the al-Assad regime endure before it responds to a Turkish attack or an Israeli attack, or to NATO powers attempting to implement a no fly zone?

The entire Middle East is balancing on a knife’s edge with the possibility of the region exploding becoming more likely by the week….

Steven MacMillan is an independent writer, researcher, geopolitical analyst and editor of  The Analyst Report, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Toronto is in the midst of an unprecedented strike by over 10,000 Teaching Assistants (TA) and contract faculty at York University and the University of Toronto: the country’s two largest universities. Only blocks away from the University of Toronto picket lines, the Liberal government in Queen’s Park has been waging a war against the Ontario Public Service (OPS), represented by OPSEU, raising the prospect of the first OPS strike since 2002. From universities to the public service, from healthcare to municipal services, the Ontario Liberal austerity regime has now lasted longer than Mike Harris’ time in office.

Their approach has usually been different from the frontal assault of the Harris years. The Liberal government, especially under Wynne, has been adept at carrying out austerity by isolating potential struggles. Cuts and tough bargaining are directed against one sector of the public service, while others are temporarily left alone, to suffer under a slow strangulation of funds.

When it comes to revenue problems, the Liberals are happy to blame the lack of federal transfers on the Harper Tories. But this is only half the story. The Liberals have repeatedly cut the corporate tax rate, have written off $1.4-billion in owed corporate taxes, and wasted billions on privatized “P3” hospital construction.

The gas plant scandal cost the province a billion dollars, while the Ornge air ambulance scandal is only the tip of the iceberg of large, steady salary increases for top management in public services – while frontline workers are getting squeezed, contracted out, and legislated back-to-work.

Unwilling to tax the rich, or tax the corporations, or bring revenue-generating services under public control (like Highway 407 or the Beer Store), the Liberals are only looking for savings by cutting services and holding down wages.

Their answer to everything is turning the screws on workers and when that doesn’t work, using heavy-handed legislation, like Bill 115 against the teachers.

Healthcare Battles

With labour battles plaguing every level of the education system, a parallel battle is taking place in healthcare. Essential service legislation and arbitration means Ontario’s hospitals have largely avoided major labour disruptions. But in all other healthcare sectors, government agencies and private healthcare companies are pushing workers to strike over the fundamentals.

Poverty wages led to the SEIU home care workers strike at Red Cross in December 2013, and another PSW strike by OPSEU members in Renfrew County in September and October 2014. Only last month, healthcare workers represented by the Ontario Nurses’ Association went on strike at most of the province’s Community Care Access Centres.

As more services and costs are downloaded onto municipalities from the province, municipal workers are also bearing the brunt of austerity. Eager to avoid strikes and lockouts, most municipal governments have cut costs by slashing services, like childcare, and contracting out services such as snow-clearing.

But there have also been difficult strikes, like the one by Durham Region municipal workers against the employers’ effort to divide the local by targeting the minority of paramedics with major concessions. At the crossroads of municipal service and healthcare cuts, paramedics are facing particularly grim working conditions.

The Private Sector

The Liberal assault on the public sector is mirrored by policies that aid and abet what can only be described as a war on workers in the private sector. Low oil prices and a lower dollar may help the province’s manufacturing somewhat, but the reality is manufacturing (and food processing) has been decimated. The slashing of corporate tax rates has done nothing to offset the tens of thousands of jobs destroyed since the 2008 recession.

Again and again, the Liberals have allowed corporations to run roughshod over workers and the towns they live in. Like Harper’s Tories, when the employers have the upper hand, it’s hands off. When Heinz decided to abandon Leamington so people like Warren Buffet – the 3rd richest person in the world – could collect bigger dividends, no effort was made to stop it, broker a new buyer, or create the legal and financial space for a cooperative to be built.

In London, Kellogg’s was allowed to shut down its unionized factory despite the province handing $4.5-million to the corporation to revamp its non-union Belleville factory only two years earlier.

In Toronto, workers at Crown Holdings, a factory which produces beer cans, have been on strike for 18 months battling two tier wages and the use of scab labour. The Liberals are happy to let them stay out.

But when workers exercise real power, like Ontario teachers or Toronto transit workers, their rights are stripped away. The Ontario Liberals have successfully appealed a court ruling which knocked down laws against agricultural worker unionization. Meanwhile, the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board continues to deny help to workers most in need while the WSIB management continues to rake in huge salaries.

Connecting the Struggles

Until policies are changed to collect revenues on those who can afford to pay – corporations and the rich – the Ontario Liberals will continue to push for concessions from workers, rolling back the gains that generations of Ontario workers fought for.

This won’t happen without a fight and until now, the battles of workers in Ontario have been too fragmented. Where real successes have happened, like the fight for a higher minimum wage, labour has come together and bridged the gap between union and non-union workers through on-the-ground activism.

The first step now is to hit the picket lines at the universities and with striking Steelworkers at Crown Holdings. There are plenty of students and striking TAs who will take on the #BottlesNotCans campaign.

Bringing together these strikes with the burgeoning OPS contract fight, and showing up at OPSEU’s numerous rallies and info pickets, Ontario workers can begin to build some real solidarity and power capable of taking on the Liberals.

David Bush and Doug Nesbitt are editors at RankandFile.ca, where this article first appeared.

Image: Richard Miles a.k.a father of Color Revolution

One of the most prominent Color Revolution experts in America’s coup d’état toolkit has been hurriedly recalled from retirement for immediate deployment to Kyrgyzstan. Richard Miles, the engineer of the first Color Revolution in Serbia and the Rose Revolution in Georgia, has been appointed as charge d’affaires in Kyrgyzstan until a new ambassador is confirmed by the Senate, because the former one, Pamela Spratlen, has been reassigned as the US Ambassador to Uzbekistan. While it is not known how long Miles will remain in Kyrgyzstan, which will be the Eurasian Union’s weakest economy when it joins in May of this year, ordinary citizens there already suspect that foul play is being planned against their country and have protested his arrival. Given that Miles’ track record of regime change makes him worthy of the ‘Male Nuland’ moniker, it’s appropriate to investigate what tricks the US may be up to in Central Asia, and how it may be trying to force the Ukrainian scenario onto Russia’s southern doorstep.

“The Male Nuland”

Richard Miles has kept a relatively low profile throughout the years and hasn’t garnered the notoriety that his ideological protégé Nuland has, but this doesn’t mean that he’s any less dangerous for the countries he visits. In fact, since he’s the individual who spearheaded the Color Revolution tactic in the first place, he can even be referred to as a ‘proto Nuland’, owing to his ‘successes’ in Serbia and Georgia that helped make EuroMaidan possible in the first place. While he was no longer the American Ambassador to Yugoslavia when the 2000 Bulldozer Revolution overthrow Slobodan Milosevic, he certainly paved the way for its implementation during his work over the three years prior, including overseeing the NATO War on Serbia. As regards Georgia, he served as US Ambassador from 2002-2005 and repeated the Belgrade template in Tbilisi.

Afterwards, he became the Executive Director for the Open World Leadership Center for most of 2006, during which he fostered the creation of thousands of pro-American ‘leaders’ in the former Soviet Union. To Center’s own mission statement concisely describes the type of work that it does:

“Begun as a pilot program in 1999 and established as a permanent agency in late 2000, the Center conducts the first and only international exchange agency in the U.S. Legislative Branch and, as such, has enabled more than 17,000 current and future leaders from Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russia, Ukraine, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan to meaningfully engage and interact with Members of Congress, Congressional staff, and thousands of other Americans, many of whom are the delegates’ direct professional counterparts.”

The above statement can be read as an admission that the Center’s purpose is to create pro-American proxies that can seamlessly interact with and do the bidding of their Washington patrons, thereby essentially making it an NGO front for the US intelligence community’s cultivation of Color Revolution assets. The organization doesn’t hide the fact that its purpose is to promote American interests and profit, brazenly bragging that:

“Open World offers an extraordinary “bang for the buck” in terms of efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and value. The Center boasts an overhead rate of about 7 percent, every grant contains cost-shared elements, and more than 75 percent of our appropriation is plowed back into the American economy every year. The Center might best be described as both a mini-stimulus plan as well as a true international exchange program.”

Bearing in mind Miles’ experience in running this Color Revolution recruitment front, as well as his contribution to managing two ‘successful’ regime change operations in Serbia and Georgia, he can easily be identified as one of the most dangerous people in the US deep state establishment, and the fact that he was recalled from retirement to urgently take the ‘temporary’ post in Kyrgyzstan during these tense geopolitical times must absolutely be seen as a warning about Washington’s nefarious intentions.

Uzbekistan’s Role In The US’ Central Asian Strategy

While Washington is poised to destabilize Kyrgyzstan, it’s showing strong signals that it’s ready to do the opposite in neighboring Uzbekistan, and has been reingratiating itself with Tashkent over the past couple of years in a bid to shore up what it intends to become its Lead From Behind proxy in the region.

Safeguarding The Strategist:

Before going into the specifics and forecast for this strategic partnership, it’s necessary to look at how the US’ latest ambassadorial arrangement is meant to facilitate all of this. Ambassador Pamela Spratlen’s reassignment from Kyrgyzstan to Uzbekistan must be seen as something other than a simple diplomatic shuffle. Spratlen’s biography shows that she’s one of the US’ premier strategists for Central Asia, having previously held the posts of Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Astana, Director of Central Asian Affairs, and Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Central Asia, et al. Thus, given her importance in crafting the US’ regional strategy for Central Asia, it’s not likely that her handlers would allow such a valuable asset to sit smack dab in the middle of their next targeted state, considering that their hefty investment in her may go to waste if she’s killed or kidnapped in the proceeding violence that’s being planned. Such a mistake was made with Ambassador Christopher Stevens, one of the architects of the US-supported Libya-Syria terrorist nexus, and the US is keen to avoid having Spratlen meet an untimely end in such a shameful and embarrassing manner. Rather, seeing as how she’s a strategic specialist and not a tactical one like Miles, it’s more useful to place her in a safe location where she can supervise, assess, and direct events as they develop, hence why she’s been ordered to Tashkent.

MRAPs are largely ineffective in combating drug smuggling and terrorism, but acquire their real importance in crowd control.

The Lead From Behind Blueprint:

Spratlen’s diplomatic experience in handling Central Asian affairs makes her possibly the best candidate that the US can send to Uzbekistan to seal the deal on a strategic partnership. First things first, it’s worth noting that relations between Washington and Tashkent have been on the mend since the 2005 Andijan Incident led to the practical destruction of bilateral ties. In the years since, the US lifted its military embargo on the country and even bequeathed it with 308 Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles and 20 additional support vehicles from Afghanistan earlier this year, with Uzbekistan only paying the cost of transporting them. On the surface this may only seem to be a symbolic gift of friendship, but in reality, there’s a lot more to it. For instance, Uzbekistan will now be dependent on US-supplied parts and expertise for upkeep, thereby implicitly deepening the military-technical cooperation between the two countries. On top of that, it’s been noted that the MRAPs are largely ineffective in combating drug smuggling and terrorism, but acquire their real importance in crowd control. This factor becomes exceptionally important when one recognizes how close the country stands to the precipice of chaos, but for the time being, it doesn’t look like the US has the intention of stirring the bubbling pot of destabilization (which could still overflow regardless of American meddling), and instead is opting to reinforce the state for its own gain.

The US vision for Central Asia thus deserves further examination in order to figure out its true nature then, since it’s known that the US could easily instigate the creation of a Black Hole of Chaos in Uzbekistan by manipulating the many levers of destabilization there at any time that it sees fit. This would certainly carry with it immense strategic value for the US in its quest to cripple Russia, but it also has one major vulnerability, and it’s that Uzbekistan could receive Russian and Chinese assistance in combating the US-directed chaos and emerge from the crisis as a stronger and more closely integrated member of Eurasian integrational structures, beginning with the SCO and possibly even ending with integration into the Eurasian Union and reintegration into the CSTO. If Russia and China are successful in assisting Uzbekistan (and they’ve been already been expecting some vague form of regional destabilization after the 2014 NATO drawdown), then the end result would be the near-complete removal of American influence in Central Asia after the carnage has ended, meaning that non-West would be secured (despite at what may be devastating costs) in the face of the Reverse Brzezinski’s ultimate failure.

Overcoming The Competition With Russia:

Understanding that such a black hole gambit can be deployed at any time, the US seems to instead have chosen to fortify Uzbekistan as their Lead From Behind partner in the interim, with the hopes that the region’s largest military and population could project increased anti-Russian influence on all four of the other former Soviet republics that it abuts. As it stands, Uzbekistan is still formally opposed to any form of Russian-led integration, as President Islam Karimov said in January that his country will never join any “alliance similar to the U.S.S.R.”, and it even withdrew from the CSTO in 2012. Be that as it may,

Russian President Vladimir Putin (L) and Uzbek President Islam Karimov attend a meeting at Kuksaroy residence in Tashkent on December 10, 2014.

Russia has been making strong strides in renewing its formerly close relations with the country. Putin visited Karimov in December and spoke about the mutual benefits of Eurasian integration, and announced that both sides had begun consultations on a possible deal between Uzbekistan and the Eurasian Union. To top it off, the Russian President even declared that Moscow would write off $890 million of Uzbekistan’s Soviet-era debt (with only $25 million of it still having to be paid), in what The Diplomat analyzed as demonstrating Russia’s commitment to strengthening ties with Tashkent.

In such a situation, it’s doubtful that Uzbekistan would turn against Russia on its own prerogative and agitate against Moscow’s interests in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. But still, Uzbekistan knows that it’s a battlefield in the ‘New Cold War’, and that it can play this role to its advantage to enact even greater concessions from both Washington and Moscow. One needs to keep in mind that the US wants to transform Uzbekistan into its Lead From Behind proxy for Central Asia (seeing as how it has the potential to become the regional powerhouse and counteract Russia’s Kazakh, Kyrgyz, and Tajik partners), but it can’t do this if Uzbekistan retains positive relations with Russia. Thus, it needs to make sure that Uzbekistan does not have a rapprochement with Russia that would endanger American interests (be it naturally occurring or as the result of Russian assistance in defending against an American-inspired chaotic subversion), hence why it aims to drive a militant wedge between Tashkent and Moscow in the same way as it has done between the latter and Kiev. This is precisely the reason why it wants to create a Black Hole of Chaos in Kyrgyzstan via yet another Color Revolution there, since the expected aftershocks (to be described in the follow-up article) run the high chance of being manipulated to the point where they can turn Uzbekistan and Russia into enemies, which would ‘naturally’ make Tashkent the US’ Lead From Behind proxy. Should this plan fail, then the US can always follow up with ‘Plan B’ and unleash uncontrollable chaos inside the country (as was described earlier).

The Central Asian Front

Strategic Theory:

The US’ primary goal in creating chaos in Central Asia is to split Russia’s focus in dealing with the Ukrainian Crisis and create a situation where its decision makers are unable to adequately protect the country’s entire periphery. This is envisioned as leading to the penetration of chaotic dynamics directly into the Russian Federation itself (be it from the west or the south), which could contribute to the realization of the ‘Eurasian Balkans’ end game of dividing the country into ethnic and regional fiefdoms and indefinitely prolonging the US’ unipolar moment. In order to get to such a grand finale, a series of steps must be taken in the countries around Russia to provoke such a scenario.

The unravelling of the Ukrainian state represents the theory’s application in Eastern Europe, the threat of a continuation war in Nagorno-Karabakh fulfills the Caucasus component of this idea, and the looming Kyrgyz catastrophe wraps up the Central Asian front for the US’ pan-Eurasian campaign against Russia. Each of these simmering conflicts has the potential to (re)explode at any time, and if they occur in near-simultaneity, then Russia will be hard-pressed to deal with them all, and may predictably fumble in its approach and create even larger openings for more chaos to rip through its borders.

Even if these aforementioned conflicts don’t break out concurrently, the fact that three massive vacuums of destabilization are sitting on the Russia’s doorsteps means that the threat always remains that one, two, or all of them can heat up sometime in the future. This accordingly leaves Russian decision makers continually on edge and siphons off strategic resources into crafting contingency measures against these probable scenarios that could be of more productive use elsewhere, such as in preparing foreign policy initiatives that could for once place the West on the strategic defensive (for example, protecting Macedonia and promoting the ‘New South Stream’).

The 21^st-Century Reagan Doctrine:

All of the abovementioned strategic imperatives aren’t the realm of speculation, however, since then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton firmly declared in December 2012 that it will do whatever it can to sabotage Russian-led integration processes in the former Soviet sphere. Referring to the Eurasian Union, she said:

“There is a move to re-Sovietise the region, It’s not going to be called that. It’s going to be called a customs union, it will be called Eurasian Union and all of that, but let’s make no mistake about it. We know what the goal is and we are trying to figure out effective ways to slow down or prevent it.”

This is none other than a 21^st-century application of the Reagan Doctrine, whereby the US will now seek to aggressively roll back Russian influence in the Near Abroad instead of Soviet influence across the world. Seen through this context, the US’ integrated strategy in Ukraine, the Caucasus, and Central Asia makes more sense. Ukraine would have been the second-largest economy in the Eurasian Union and could have provided a valuable contribution to its overall strength, should the EuroMaidan Color Revolution not have derailed any realistic hopes for it joining in the near future. In the Caucasus, Eurasian Union-member Armenia is geographically cut off from the rest of its partners, being separated by EU-aspiring Georgia and hostile Azerbaijan. This lays the pretext for a coming EU-Eurasian Union crisis in the Caucasus, which could massively destabilize Russia regardless if a continuation war occurs in Nagorno-Karabakh or not.

Completing the encirclement, an outbreak of violence in Kyrgyzstan as a result of yet another Color Revolution there could lead to the formation of a terrorist hotspot inside the Eurasian Union’s newest member, as well as creating an almost irresistible temptation for Russia and the CSTO to fall for a disastrous Reverse Brzezinski intervention. In all three theaters, American foreign policy and regional meddling are the engines for destabilization, while Russia and the Eurasian Union are the ultimate targets, just as Hillary threatened they would be nearly three years ago. In the time since, Ukraine has fallen to Western domination and is rapidly being integrated into Shadow NATO, Nuland is conspiring to reignite the Nagorno-Karabakh war, and now the ‘Male Nuland’ is ready to wreak havoc in Kyrgyzstan, showing that the 21^st-century Reagan Doctrine is in full swing.

To be continued…

Andrew Korybko is the political analyst and journalist for Sputnik who currently lives and studies in Moscow, exclusively for ORIENTAL REVIEW.

On March 4, Nuland addressed House Foreign Affairs Committee members.

She called murdered US-funded, Boris Nemtsov a “freedom fighter, Russian patriot and friend.”

She absurdly called Ukraine “central to our 25 year Transatlantic quest for a ‘Europe whole, free and at peace.’ ”

Fact: Washington wants Ukraine used as a dagger against Russia’s heartland – with menacing US bases on its borders threatening is sovereign independence.

Nuland called US planned and implements year ago Maidan violence using well-trained Nazi thugs “peaceful protest(s) by ordinary Ukrainians.”

“They braved frigid temperatures, brutal beatings and sniper bullets…Ukraine began to forge a new nation…holding free and fair election…and undertaking deep and comprehensive economic and political reforms.”

Fact: US-deposed President Viktor Yanukovych’s police showed remarkable restraint.

Fact: Washington-supported Nazi thugs bore full responsibility for beatings, sniper killings and other violence.

Fact: Ukrainian parliamentary and presidential elections were farcical – with no legitimacy whatever.

Fact: So-called economic reforms involve crushing hardships on already impoverished Ukrainians in return for loan-shark-of-last-resort IMF blood money.

Fact: No responsible political reforms exist. None are planned. It bears repeating. Ukraine is a US-installed fascist dictatorship.

Nuland lied claiming

“enhance(d) (Ukrainian) transparency in public procurement, reduce(d) government inefficiency and corruption, (laws) making the banking system more transparent, and measures to improve the climate for business and…foreign investment.”

Ukrainian banking is a black hole of grand theft. State farmland and enterprises are being sold to Western predators at fire sale prices.

Corruption is worse than ever. Government and military officials are stealing everything they can get their dirty hands on – at the expense of imposing crushing austerity on deeply impoverished millions.

Hyperinflation grips the country. The “breadbasket” of Europe can’t feed its people. Rationing was imposed.

Energy prices skyrocketed to unaffordable levels. Ukraine symbolizes humanitarian disastrous conditions wherever America shows up.

Nuland recited a litany of Big Lies about the “new Ukraine,” – a Nazified menace to its people

Claiming it’s “building a peaceful, democratic, independent” nation is polar opposite truth.

She aimed the worst of her rant at Russia and Donbass freedom fighters.

She lied about Crimea “under illegal occupation” – ignoring near Crimean unanimity to reverse a historic mistake and rejoin Russia.

She turned truth on its head claiming

“(i)n eastern Ukraine, Russia and its separatist puppets unleashed unspeakable violence and pillage.”

“MH17 was shot down. Hundreds of Russian heavy weapons and troops poured across the border, fueling the conflict.”

“Sixteen Russian uninspected ‘humanitarian convoys’ entered Ukraine in violation of agreements with the Ukrainian government, the ICRC and the international community.”

“Donetsk airport was obliterated…Debaltseve, a key rail hub beyond the ceasefire lines, fell to separatist and Russian forces six days after Minsk was signed…”

“This is a manufactured conflict controlled by the Kremlin, fueled by Russian tanks and heavy weapons; financed at Russian taxpayers’ expense and costing the lives of young Russians…”

Fact: Kiev collaboratively with Washington launched naked aggression against Donbass residents wanting democratic rights everyone deserves – wanting to live free from the scourge of fascism.

Fact: No Russian hoards “poured across (Ukraine’s) border.” Kiev’s own military chief said so.

No evidence whatever shows Russian involvement. None exists except photos exposed as fakes.

Fact: Washington and Kiev bear full responsibility for unleashing unspeakable violence against Donbass residents.

Fact: One or more Ukrainian warplanes downed MH17- a US/Kiev false flag. Russia and rebels had nothing to do with it.

Fact: Russia is the only nation delivering vitally needed humanitarian aid – inspected by ICRC representatives.

Fact: Minsk ceasefire terms included nothing about Debastseve.

Fact: Washington and Kiev “manufactured” Donbass’ conflict – not Moscow or rebels.

Not a single House Foreign Affairs Committee member challenged Nuland’s obvious and outrageous Big Lies.

They accepted them as gospel. They let an unindicted war criminal insult them.

Russia and rebels are consistently and wrongfully blamed for US/Kiev crimes.

Obama wants war, not peace. He wants unchallenged control over America’s newest colony. He wants it pillaged for profit.

He wants it as a stepping-stone toward long sought regime change in Russia – replacing its sovereign independence with pro-Western puppet governance.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.” http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com. Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network. It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs.

Asahi Shimbun, Feb 28, 2015 (emphasis added): The nation’s nuclear watchdog body slammed [TEPCO] over its failure to disclose information on the leakage of radioactive rainwater into the sea… TEPCO President Naomi Hirose… apologized profusely… TEPCO became aware more than a year ago that the concentration of radioactive materials in the water flowing… was high [first disclosing it to regulators] January 2014… TEPCO continued to conceal details, including the fact that the concentration became high whenever it rained… However, TEPCO had decided long ago there was no need to monitor rainwater for radioactive materials.

NHK transcript, Feb 27, 2015 : Experts and local government officials visited the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant to examine sources of contaminated water flowing into the sea…Experts urged the operator to investigate whether rooftops of other reactor buildings are also sources of tainted water.

Yomiuri Shimbun, Feb 26, 2015: NRA chief slams TEPCO for data reporting delay… after rainwater contaminated with high-level radioactive materials leaked… into the sea… TEPCO reported in January last year that the radioactivity concentration in that trench was higher… TEPCO at last announced… high-level radioactivity [in water] on the rooftop of the No. 2 reactor building… might be one of the sources of contamination… The Economy, Trade and Industry Ministry… pointed out the likelihood of there being other sources of contamination… The Fisheries Agency on Wednesday conducted an emergency hearing with TEPCO officials… and told the utility firm to take measures to minimize damage impacting marine products… “We urge TEPCO to make details clear.”

Japan Times, Feb 26, 2015: [Tepco] admitted Thursday that its latest problem with radioactive water has shattered the trust it was building in Fukushima… and that the decommissioning of the Fukushima No. 1 plant might be delayed [after] the surge in radiation detected in the water draining into the sea… The utility said the source of the contamination is the roof of the No. 2 reactor building, which… remains heavily contaminated.

Naohiro Masuda, head of Tepco’s unit in charge of scrapping Fukushima Daiichi: “The trust of the people in Fukushima is the most important thing… we have damaged that trust… Due to the damaged trust, all of the schedules for the decommissioning tasks could be delayed.”

Arirang, Feb 26, 2015: Tokyo under fire for alleged cover-up of radioactive water — [TEPCO] is under heavy fire for staying silent over a radioactive leak… flowing into the Pacific Ocean.

Watch Arirang’s broadcast here | Watch NHK’s broadcast here

Latin America is beginning to reap the fruits that it sowed in Haiti during the last decade. Its armies have become so fat as to control, either byquiet coups or default, the superficial democracies in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Peru, and Uruguay, and the outright dictatorships in Honduras and Paraguay. The most obvious consequence has been the return home to roost of the “peacekeepers”: soldiers of fortune who are so inured to urban warfare against black and brown people that they can, as part of their armies and militarized police, cheerfully participate in domestic “pacification”. Today, we have a big shot returning from the United Nations Mission for the Stabilization of Haiti (MINUSTAH), one who descends from the Guatemala of Efrain Rios Montt (1982-1983), the genocidal dictator whose sentence was annulled in 2013 after a hopeful court case turned into a project to demoralize an entire population: we have Edmond Mulet, the Assistant Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations at the UN and probably Guatemala’s next president.

Edmond Mulet and Haitian President Martelly

On January 30, 2015, investigative journalists Pilar Crespo and Sebastian Escalon of Plaza Publica published a thorough and comprehensive report alleging that Mulet had been part of a child-trafficking operation in the early 1980s when he was a young lawyer in Guatemala taking his tentative first steps into politics. In 2010, the same report would have caused some major changes in Haiti. For one, the spotlight on international adoptions might have exposed the machinations of adoptive services, like the French “SOS Haiti”, after the earthquake, to have their governments tie emergency aid to a relaxation of controls on international adoptions, or to the legalization ex post facto of the kidnapping of children. For another, the allegations might have prevented Mulet, together with Hillary Clinton, from installing the Michel Martelly regime. The results ofPlaza Publica’s investigations were not published, however, until Mulet began to eye the Guatemalan presidency. It is already too late. Mulet will almost certainly rise to the presidency of Guatemala, where he will be well positioned to grow the country’s repressive army by expanding its “peacekeeping” operations. He might even experiment with UN nation building at home.

The 6,800-word story about Mulet’s export of children exploded after it got picked up and summarized as a Boston Globe editorial. I will not recount either the full report or its summary here but rather limit myself to the most salient points of the original report and focus on some implications that have been ignored or poorly elaborated.

It all began around 1977, when Mulet, a 26-year-old lawyer in Guatemala, went to a party at the home of Mrs. Louise Depocas de Morel and met Jean and Lise Francoeur, a Canadian couple who had come to the country to adopt a child. Mulet and the Francoeurs immediately became such good friends that Mulet served as the witness to their “decency and integrity” for the adoption of a baby girl. Seven months after the first baby’s adoption, the Francoeurs returned for a boy from the same Guatemalan orphanage. They also became chummy with the orphanage’s director and soon thereafter founded Les Enfants du Soleil (Los Ninos del Sol, or Children of the Sun) a supposed “non-profit organization for information on international adoption.” Thus a partnership was struck in which Louise Depocas de Morel served as the president of Les Enfants du Soleil in Guatemala, Jean Francoeur as the legal adviser in Montreal, and Edmond Mulet as the lawyer and notary in Guatemala.

Other players in Les Enfants du Soleil and more details of its operation came to light when four Canadian women were arrested in Guatemala City’s luxurious Camino Real hotel on November 24, 1981, for intent to remove several children from the country. In the ensuing court inquiries, the testimonies pointed to a well-organized network, with a woman called Ofelia Rosal de Gamas being the person who tracked down, in the city’s parks and markets, the impoverished pregnant women who might consent to give up their children for adoption. Ms. de Gamas was the sister of General Oscar Humberto Mejia Victores, who became the de facto president of Guatemala from 1983 to 1985 and has been charged with genocide. From de Gamas, the biological mothers were turned over to a midwife called Hilda Alvarez Leal who delivered the children. Shortly after the births, the mothers were taken to Mulet’s office to sign notarized deeds consenting to the children’s adoption. Subsequently the children were taken to the Elisa Martinez State Orphanage, where they remained until the adoption proceedings were complete.

The Canadian women from the raid at Camino Real hotel had come to take away five Guatemalan children. Lise Francoeur, from Les Enfants du Soleil, and her mother, Simone Bedard, had with them two children for two adoptive Canadian couples who could not travel because of work. Another Canadian woman, Monique M. had picked up her three-year-old adoptive son and an infant of less than two months for a couple of friends; Diane W. had collected her own adoptive newborn. All the adoptive parents had initially contacted Les Enfants du Soleil in Montreal, Canada, which had advised them to hire Edmond Mulet as their lawyer in Guatemala.

In 1981, for an adoption to be legitimate in Guatemala, a social worker would have had to attest to the suitability of the adopters to take charge of a minor; the office of the attorney general (PGN) would have had to approve the adoption; two witnesses would have had to testify that the adopters were honorable and moral people; a deed of adoption would have had to be drafted in the presence of the birth and adoptive parents; finally, only after forwarding this deed to the civil registry so that the child could be renamed by the adoptive parents, would the Guatemalan immigration authorities issue a passport for the child to travel with its new parents. This process typically took about one year.

As the lawyer and notary for all five adoptions, Edmond Mulet was also arrested because he had followed none of these steps. Instead, the police investigator found five requests signed by Mulet for the issuance of expedited passports to the children. Every request gave the reason for travel as being “tourism” and the child’s address in Guatemala as being Mulet’s law firm. Apart from this, Mulet had prepared only the deed of consent of the biological parents and another document that gave the children to Les Enfants du Soleil. Mulet’s fast-track procedure for adoption took as little as two months for some adoptive parents, and the detective who interrogated him attributed to him the creation of a “system for the export of minors.”

It is noteworthy that in legitimate adoptions the new identities of the children are known to Guatemalan authorities, as well as the identities of the adoptive parents, who leave the country, together with their children, as a family. By contrast, in the Mulet adoptions, the children were shipped abroad as Guatemalan “tourists”, in fact as so many parcels, sometimes with strangers as their courriers, to become lost to all oversight from their birth country.

For various reasons, the most important one being that child trafficking was not yet recognized as a crime in Guatemala in 1981, the women from the hotel were released from jail after 15 days and the case against them was dismissed. The biological mothers were also released after a short detention. Mulet, who was then also starting his political career by running for Member of Parliament in the National Renewal Party (PNR), was freed after a single day’s detention when he brought some political pressure to bear on the police. Even a promised misdemeanor charge for acting against the interests of his clients did not see the light of day after Rios Montt came to power. One of Mulet’s major supporters then was Alejandro Maldonado Aguirre, one of the judges of the Constitutional Court that, in 2013, anulled Efrain Rios Montt’s sentence for genocide.

Mulet has expressed no remorse about his past conduct. Indeed, in a 2015 interview he argued that “If children are abandoned and there is someone who wants to adopt, educate them, give them a chance in life,… it is something to be thankful for. Adoption has saved the lives of many children not only in Guatemala, but also around the world…. Over the years, I could follow the development of these children, and this has given me great satisfaction, because if they had remained in Guatemala, orphaned, abandoned, they would have starved, had been street children, who knows what would have happened to them.” This all sounds rather altruistic, but it paints an unrealistic picture of his fast-track adoption system. It is highly improbable that Mulet could follow up on any significant fraction of the children that he had shipped to Canada and other places, given that it has been impossible even to count their number. The fact remains that the main purpose of expedited international adoptions, and the reason why some “adoptive parents” pay so handsomely for them, is precisely to dodge oversight. In such clandestine arrangements, children are not transferred to impatient loving parents by overzealous humanitarians, as Mulet would have us believe. At best, the prospective parents do not qualify in their home countries as adoptive parents because of criminal records or physical or mental disabilities. At worst, the children are transferred from one illegal network to another more nefarious ones, such as the organized-crime networks for child prostitution or even organ donation, where the newborns are used for parts and thrown away.

More than anything, this sordid story exposes the predatory “humanitarianism” of the UN mission in Haiti, which has so far treated its cases of child prostitution and trafficking as mere aberrations despite harboring alleged criminals at its highest levels. After the discovery on January 29, 2010 that Baptist missionaries had tried to kidnap 33 Haitian children during the confusion of the earthquake, then Haitian Prime Minister Jean Max Bellerive called a moratorium on international adoptions, and in an uncharacteristally ballsy move, said in a televised interview that children were being trafficked from Haiti for their organs. Around the same time, Edmond Mulet proposed instead that all adoptions should require the Prime Minister’s approval. The idea that someone with Mulet’s history could have any authority on decisions about international adoption would be laughable if it was not tragic.

The outstanding investigation by Plaza Publica will likely be of no consequence to Mulet. He cannot be convicted for acts that were not criminal in Guatemala in 1981. Furthermore, many of the main actors in the network from 34 years ago (such as the recruiter, midwife, and adoptive parents) have either died, disappeared, or signed documents to renounce all legal action against Mulet. Finally and sadly, despite these revelations, in a presidential race many Guatemalans would consider Mulet, who is famous in his country because of his prominence in the UN, to be the lesser evil.

During the past decade, Haiti has become a gathering place for the corruptible: a pasture where they are grown before being returned to their home feedlots for finishing. Given the greater incentives to investigate veteran “humanitarians” as they gain prominence, we are bound to learn a lot more about them while they make their way home to become major political players. But if they are to be neutralized, it is before they reach this stage that they must be exposed. As things stand, Edmond Mulet, an expert on misery’s stabilization, is set to promote a climate in Guatemala where the likes of Efrain Rios Montt will be comfortable. If Mulet had been disgraced in 2010 or 2011, both Haiti and Guatemala would have been spared his rule. We must do better. Truth is all well and good, but the timing of truth matters.

Rios Montt

Sources: Haiti Chery | Documents three and five from Plaza Publica; photographs four by Johan Ordonez/AFP, six by Logan Abassi/UN/MINUSTAH, and seven by Helena Hermosa.

Isa Munaiev, the late Chechen commander’s long shadow needs to be investigated. The Chechen connection is a major potential piece in the puzzle. (Credit: dunyabulteni.net / Click images to expand.) 

Translated from Russian by J.Hawk  

The Nemtsov murder investigation has focused on the theory that the crime was organized  by a Chechen militant commander Adam Osmayev, of the Dzhokhar Dudayev battalion, who also was named in the case concerning the attempt to assassinate Vladimir Putin. Investigators are allowing for the possibility that the militants, who fought against DPR and LPR, operated at the behest of Ukrainian secret services, since the murder of the opposition leader would have discredited the Russian leadership and destabilize the political situation.

A law enforcement source had told the media that the investigating group has evidence that Ukrainian secret services played a role in Nemtsov’s murder. On the day of the murder the Investigative Committee spokesperson Vladimir Markin announced that the investigators are studying the possibility the murder was intended to destabilize the political situation in the country.

“The murder could have been used as a provocation to destabilize the situation, with Nemtsov becoming a sort of a sacrificial lamb for those who are not overly choosy in their political methods,” Markin told Izvestiya.

The investigators are also working on other versions: political, extremist, business, and personal. However, judging by the quality of preparation and implementation, it was done by professionals. The Izvestiya source said that the killer shot Nemtsov only a few tens of meters from the Kremlin, and it since became known that the murder took place in a spot not covered by a surveillance camera. Moreover, they chose a time during which there are no traffic jams, but there is still heavy traffic in the center which allowed the killers’ car to become lost among other vehicles.

The information that Ukraine’s special services ordered the murder is being verified. The assassins may have performed a mission assigned by Ukrainian secret services, but also avenged the death of their former leader Isa Munaiev. He was killed on February 1 during the battle for Debaltsevo, after which the battalion’s command was taken over by Adam Osmayev.

The so-called Dzhokhar Dudayev international peacekeeping battalion is fighting on Ukraine’s side, and was formed by Munaiev in March 2014. Munaiev fought in the first Chechen campaign against Russian forces, and after 1999 he declared himself the commander of the South-Western sector and participated in organizing acts of terrorism.

Munaiev fled Chechnya in 2006 for Denmark, where he received asylum. He founded the movement “Free Caucaus” which, according to secret services, financed terrorists. When in 2014 the Ukrainian government launched the ATO against LPR and DPR, Munaiev went to Ukraine and declared the formation of his battalion. Russian sources indicate that he was personally invited by (Ukrainian oligarch) Igor Kolomoisky, who financed the battalion. The battalion’s core were Chechen immigrants in Denmark, and citizens of other countries who belonged to terrorist organizations.

Isa Munaiev was one of the individuals, along with the commanders of Azov and Dnepr, who supported terrorism on Russia’s soil and who were ordered delivered to Chechnya by Ramzan Kadyrov.

Russian services are trying to establish how many people participated in the preparation and implementation of Nemtsov’s murder. It cannot be ruled out that, in addition to killers and spotters, there were also “controllers” in Moscow who observed the murder’s aftermath and political effect. One of them may have been the Ukrainian deputy Aleksey Goncharenko. Experts who were questioned by Izvestiya believe the theory of foreign secret service involvement to have merit.

J.Hawk’s Comment: If true, that would have been about as big a blow as imaginable that could have been struck by the Ukrainian secret services, because it is aimed at several fissures all at once. It not only creates yet another irritant in Russia’s relations with the West, but also threatens to undermine peace in Chechnya, and to stir-up anti-Chechen sentiment in Russia. Moreover, many members of the “liberal” “opposition” in Russia (especially Aleksey Navalnyy) are stridently anti-Chechen (and anti-minority in general) and lean in the direction of ethnic Russian nationalism.

Finally, Ukrainian nationalists have more than once called for the resumption of the “jihad” against Russia, and applauded when Islamist militants struck in Groznyy a few months ago.

Israel used the “disappearance” of a soldier in Gaza as a pretext to kill 225 Palestinians over a three-day period last summer, a new study suggests.

On 1 August last year, the Israeli military reported that one of its lieutenants, Hadar Goldin, had gone missing in the Rafah area, close to Gaza’s border with Egypt. Israel’s response was one of “shooting at anything and anybody,” according to an analysispublished this week by the Palestinian human rights group Al-Haq.

Rafah came under attack from the ground, sea and air. Most of the 225 Palestinians who died were killed on the first day. By 3 August, a total of 2,579 houses in Rafah had been destroyed completely or partially.

Israel reportedly invoked the “Hannibal directive” after learning that Goldin had gone missing. That procedure allows the military to kill one of its own soldiers in order to prevent his or her capture by resistance fighters. The assault on Rafah took place at a time when a temporary ceasefire was supposed to have been in place.

More than 2,200 Palestinians were killed during Israel’s 51-day attack on Gaza in July and August.

The Al-Haq study demonstrates that civilians bore the brunt of the attack. More than 43,500 families were affected by the destruction of homes. Around 125,000 children lived in those homes.

Mosques targeted

It also suggests that Israel deliberately targeted hospitals and places of worship. A total of 61 mosques were completely destroyed and 121 partially destroyed, it says. Seven health facilities were destroyed completely and 27 partially.

Seven schools were also completely destroyed and 57 suffered serious damage. And the report states that facilities for children of pre-school age were attacked, too. Of those facilities, eight were destroyed completely and 44 partially. A total of 556 Palestinian children were killed during the 51 days.

Al-Haq accuses Israel of pursuing a “divide and conquer” strategy. Earlier in 2014,Hamas, which has been administering Gaza, and Fatah, which controls the Palestinian Authority in the occupied West Bank, had agreed to form a “unity government.” After making plain its hostility towards that agreement, Israel launched military operations in both the West Bank and Gaza.

The timing of these offensives and their indiscriminate nature indicates they were “punitive” and “motivated by Palestinian reconciliation,” according to Al-Haq. The attacks formed part of Israel’s “over-arching policy” of separating Gaza from the West Bank with the “desired end-goal” of conquering both, the group says.

Al-Haq refuses to accept Israeli assurances that it tried to spare civilians by giving them advanced notice of bombings. Perhaps the most infamous method of providing such warnings is known as a “knock on the roof.” It involves an initial bombing of a home as a precursor to a larger and deadlier attack.

Five minute warning

According to Al-Haq, all bombings of homes amounted to an attack on civilian life and infrastructure.

Such “warnings” also did not absolve Israel of its responsibilities under international law. Civilians are not obliged to leave their homes once a warning is received. And “knocking on the roof” showed no mercy towards vulnerable groups such as the elderly, children or people with disabilities.

In some cases, there was a very short gap between a “knock on the roof” warning and a larger attack. In one such bombing in the Khan Younis area, the gap was only five minutes. A pregnant woman and her one-year-old daughter were killed in that incident.

Israel had claimed that the objective of sending ground troops into Gaza was to destroy underground tunnels used by Palestinian fighters. Al-Haq argues that it is unlikely the existence of such tunnels would have provided Israel with an “overriding imperative reason” to uproot hundreds of thousands of people.

With only ten tunnels reportedly found by 20 July, the displacement of civilians was “grossly disproportionate to any direct military advantage gained,” Al-Haq adds. For that reason, it can be viewed as a form of collective punishment, something that is forbidden under international law.

The new study provides solid evidence that Israel committed crimes against humanity last summer. Hopefully, it will boost efforts to bring Israel before the International Criminal Court.

Ukrainian Minister of Energy and the Coal Industry Vladimir Demchishin has suggested the EU should partly pay the costs for filling underground gas storage facilities in his country to cut the risk of possible interruptions in transit to Europe.

“The commissioners are developing worst-case scenarios. They are putting all the costs on us,” he said to the Wall Street Journal (WSJ). “We are ready to commit to a base case and pay for it. And [the cost of] worst-case scenarios maybe should be shared.”

Ukraine has to accumulate about 20 billion cubic meters of gas in storage to ensure stable supplies to Europe during the winter. It has to start purchasing gas in April, according to the European Commission. However, Demchishin considers 14-15 billion cubic meters will be enough, he said in an interview with WSJ.

Ukraine pays 15 percent more for Russian gas than for the fuel from Slovakia and other EU countries, said Demchishin, adding that it will need an extra $1.5 billion to accumulate an additional 5 billion cubic meters of gas.

The ‘winter package’ sealed last October fixed the price at $378 per 1,000 cubic meters. However, a drop in the cost of oil led to lower prices, with gas now supplied to Ukraine at $329.

He warned that Kiev may decide to turn off the gas supply to the self-proclaimed republics of Donetsk and Lugansk, as local distribution companies have paid for only 20 percent of deliveries since August.

Naftogaz transferred another $15 million to Gazprom on Friday as an advance payment for March deliveries and the sum will be enough until the middle of the month. Gazprom spokesperson Sergey Kupriyanov said 10 million cubic meters has been paid for, and Gazprom will deliver it.

In late February, Russian Energy Minister Aleksandr Novak considers the risk of Ukraine halting gas transit as high, as only 8 billion cubic meters of ‘active’ gas was left in its underground storage facilities as of March 3. Novak said that 5-6 billion of the 8 billion cubic meters of so-called ‘buffer gas’ should always remain in the storage facilities.

Ukraine started withdrawing gas from storage on October 20 at the start of the heating season. Gas supplies from Russia were suspended in mid-June because of the billions of dollars of debt, and resumed only on December 9 when Gazprom received a prepayment.

Ukraine has been making frantic efforts to reduce its dependence on Russian gas. Earlier in February the government increased consumer energy prices by nearly 300 percent in order to receive financial assistance from the IMF. Demchishin says raising the gas price will help cut consumption and, along with other changes in Ukraine’s internal energy market, help make his country independent of Russian gas deliveries within three to four years.

Unearthed articles from the 1960s detail how nuclear waste was buried beneath the Earth’s surface by Halliburton & Co. for decades as a means of disposing the by-products of post-World War II atomic energy production.

Fracking is already a controversial practice on its face; allowing U.S. industries to inject slurries of toxic, potentially carcinogenic compounds deep beneath the planet’s surface — as a means of “see no evil” waste disposal — already sounds ridiculous, dangerous, and stupid anyway without even going into further detail.

Alleged fracking links to the contamination of the public water supply and critical aquifers, as well as ties to earthquake upticks near drilling locations that are otherwise not prone to seismic activity have created uproar in the years since the 2005 “Cheney loophole,” which allowed the industry to circumvent the Safe Drinking Water Act by exempting fracking fluids, thus fast tracking shale fracking as a source of cheap natural gas.

Now, it is apparent that the fracking industry is also privy to many secrets of the nuclear energy industry and, specifically, where the bodies are buried, err… dangerous nuclear waste is buried, rather — waste that atomic researchers have otherwise found so difficult to eliminate.

TruthstreamMedia.com uncovered several published newspaper accounts from the Spring of 1964 concerning a then-newly disclosed plan to dump nuclear waste produced by the atomic energy industry into hydraulic fracturing (fracking) wells using a cement slurry technique developed by Halliburton & Co. The top two fracking companies in the nation at the time were Halliburton and Dowell, a subsidiary of Dow Chemical.

And here we thought fracking was a relatively new industrial phenomenon growing in popularity over just the last couple of decades. Boy were we wrong. Revealed within these articles is Halliburton’s long-standing relationship with the secret government and deep ties between the oil and nuclear industries.

Teaming up with the U.S. Government and Union Carbide Corp., who operate nuclear materials divisions at the Oak Ridge National Laboratories in Tennessee, Halliburton was then credited with “solving” the radioactive waste problem faced by America’s secretive nuclear industry. Dumping waste via fracking had apparently been going on since 1960, according to the reports, but was only made public here in 1964.

Out of Sight, Out of Mind

Each of the articles Truthstream found carries the same account under different headlines, with four of them using identical copy; and the fifth, published in the San Antonio Express, slightly rewritten based upon the same source information. The photo captions of each story also add some useful tidbits:

May 3, 1964 edition of the San Antonio Express News. Click for larger image view.

These ran in the:

April 19, 1964 edition of the Great Bend Tribune,

the April 22, 1964 edition of the Warren Times-Mirror,

the April 26, 1964 edition of the Lubbock Avalanche Journal,

the May 3, 1964 edition of the San Antonio Express News (original)

and the June 15, 1964 edition of the Denton Record Chronicle.

The story read, in part:

Two techniques originated by the petroleum industry for its own uses are expected to solve a major problem in the development of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. The problem is the disposal of dangerous, sometimes deadly, radioactive waste by-products.

Researchers at Halliburton Co’s. Technical Center here working with Oak Ridge National Laboratory scientists, have combined the oil well cementing technique with the hydraulic fracturing production stimulation technique to entomb radioactive wastes in an impermeable shale formation a thousand feet underground.

The method used at Oak Ridge begins by mixing the waste with a cement slurry, pumping the mixture down a hole drilled into the Conasuaga shale and then fracturing the shale to create a horizontal crack. The crack fills with the mixture to form a thin, horizontal sheet several hundred feet across. The mix sets to permanently hold the radioactive waste in the formation.

Union Carbide Corp., which operates facilities at Oak Ridge for the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, and Halliburton, which provides specialized oil field services such as cementing fracturing worldwide, have collaborated on the project since 1960.

The mix remained liquid for 48 hours before it was supposed to permanently set and remain there, entombed, forever.

The articles make clear that the Atomic Energy Commission was preparing to use fracking as a means of disposing of nuclear wastes at additional facilities, with Oak Ridge being simply one of the largest, and the first to publicly disclose these out-of-sight disposal procedures:

Oak Ridge has a radioactive waste disposal problem typical of the nation’s nuclear sites. Each year about four million gallons of waste, including such fission products as strontium 90, cesium 137 and ruthenium 103, are generated at Oak Ridge.

Among the disposal methods already tried have been dumping concrete-encased barrels of waste in the ocean or burying the waste in lead-lined containers. These are considered either too dangerous or too expensive or both.

Unfortunately, the ocean has been used as a giant trashcan not only by the nuclear industry, but municipal garbage and landfill companies and many other entities as well, without any real concern about its significant effects on the food supply and larger ecosystem of the planet.

If this process is successful for disposal of Oak Ridge National Laboratory intermediate-level wastes, it has potential application at other atomic energy sites where suitable geological conditions exist,” the Atomic Energy Commission says.

The slightly different version in the San Antonio Express News added these details:

A couple of techniques used by oilmen when they have hopes of production may soon be used by the Atomic Energy Commission for – of all things – radioactive garbage disposal.

Final tests are now under way at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, in trying a combination of oil well cementing plus hydraulic fracturing to entomb radioactive wastes in an impermeable shale formation a thousand feet underground.

Meanwhile, the Great Bend Tribune added information about the Halliburton executives involved in the plan in their caption for a photo which shows businessmen looking at a diagram explaining how nuclear waste like strontium 90 is mixed with cement and injected into shale formations:

Halliburton engineer Mack Stogner, left, reviews the project with Harry P. Conroy, senior vice president and general manager of the oil field service firm, and W.D. Owsley, senior vice president.

The process includes remote controlled operation of the hydraulic fracturing drill in order to shield workers from the “medium level” radioactive substances being dumped into the Earth’s crust, as the Warren Times Mirror in Pennsylvania notes in the caption:

Disposing of Waste – Working behind shielding and wearing film badges, Halliburton Company personnel use demounted oil field service units to dispose of radioactive waste generated at the Oak Ridge, Tenn. nuclear site.

How often this procedure has been used at other facilities since then is not entirely clear, though we know from reports discussed below that the practice continued and there is no indication that it ever stopped.

Five years later, the October 22, 1969 edition of the San Bernardino County Sun carried a report titled, “3 Ways to Manage Radioactive Waste.”

It discussed the ongoing and growing problems with nuclear waste, naming three principle strategies for managing the toxic stuff, summed up as “(1) delay and decay, (2) concentrate and confine and (3) dilute and disperse,” discussing how materials with lower half lives can supposedly be safely sequestered and later dumped, while other materials can be simply diluted and poured into existing groundwater supplies and systems.

The UPI story originating out of Oak Ridge states, in part,

Since the start of the atomic era in the 1940s, nuclear reactors around the nation have produced 75 million gallons of hazardous high level radioactive waste materials.

And scientists here and elsewhere around the nation still are wrestling with the problems of what to do with this material, which promises to become even more plentiful as more and more commercial nuclear reactors go into power production.

Oak Ridge proclaims that it found a solution to dealing with high level nuclear wastes, which has thus far been to keep it,

…buried a few feet underground in storage tanks – tanks which must be periodically replaced because of the natural deterioration of the steel and other materials of which they are fabricated.

It is in this area of confining the high level wastes, whose radioactive half life ranges up to 30 to 50 years, that the Atomic Energy Commission is pushing dramatic new concepts.

One disposal system, involving materials in the medium range of radioactivity, is the hydraulic fracturing procedures. This system is now being used at Oak Ridge and involves mixing the liquid radioactive waste with concrete to form a grout which is pumped into shale formations 500 to 800 feet underground.

Note, this article cites a shallower depth, at levels as shallow as 500 feet, after the 1964 articles claimed a further removed depth of 1,000 feet to 5,000. The even “higher level wastes” were disposed of in abandoned salt mines, according to Oak Ridge. 

Nuclear Waste ‘Safely Flushed Away’ into the Water Supply

The 1969 article states that “low level waste” is “material which can safely be flushed away into rivers and lakes or released into the atmosphere because the level of radioactivity is so low that is presents no hazard when diluted and flushed into man’s natural environment. The more difficult problem is involved in the high level, liquid and solid wastes which are produced in the reprocessing of used fuel elements from nuclear reactor cores.”

The idea that the waste dumped into water supplies was so “low level” as to be completely harmless is likely dubious and hopeful at best. Fluoride, a by-product of the nuclear power industry, was one of those constituents, and was transformed from being known as a rat poison to being known as a dental benefit by the original spin doctor and propagandist, Edward Bernays.

In his book The Fluoride Deception, author Christopher Bryson revealed how the nuclear industry also used fluoridation of the public water supply as a means of secretly dumping industrial waste after fluoride was a major by-product in the uranium enrichment process for building the atomic bomb. Bryson told Democracy Now:

The Manhattan Project needed fluoride to enrich uranium. That’s how they did it. The biggest industrial building in the world, for a time, was the fluoride gaseous diffusion plant in Tennessee the Manhattan Project and Dr. Hodge as the senior toxicologist for the Manhattan Project, were scared stiff less that workers would realize that the fluoride they were going to be breathing inside these plants was going to injury them and that the Manhattan Project, the key — the key of U.S. Strategic power in the Cold War Era, would be jeopardized because the Manhattan Project and the industrial contractors making the atomic bomb would be facing all these lawsuits from workers, all these lawsuits from farmers living around these industrial plants and so Harold Hodge assures us that fluoride is safe and good for children.

More recently, an Associated Press investigation found in 2011 that 48 of 65 nuclear sites in the United States were leaking tritium, a radioactive form of hydrogen, into groundwater supplies via corroded pipes and tunnels. AP found at least 37 locations were in direct violation of federal drinking water standards for tritium, in some cases hundreds of times over.

Fracking Nuclear Waste ‘Safe for Millions of Years’… Unless It Leaks

Some 30 trillion gallons of toxic waste has been kept out of sight, out of mind by U.S. industries that have injected it hundreds and thousands of feet underground into wells since the 1960s.

Scientists who work for these corporations have used computer modeling to assure the Environmental Protection Agency that this waste poses no threat to our aquifers and that layers of rock deep within the Earth would safely store this stuff like Tupperware for millennia.

Already, several incidents have proven that scientific computer models are no match for reality.

It is clear from a December 21, 1973 article that disposal of nuclear waste via fracking continued, along with promises that it would be safe for millions of years to come.

The Dixon Evening Telegraph wrote in “Geologists look at energy crunch”:

The U.S. Government is disposing of approximately 250,000 gallons of intermediate-level wastes each year using a technique called hydraulic fracturing. Liquids are pumped into impervious shales 1,000 to 5,000 feet below the surface. High pressure is applied causing the rocks to fracture and the liquid moves out laterally. Because the rock and radioactive wastes it contains will not be exposed to the biosphere for millions of years, this method should be safe unless leakage into an overlying aquifer occurs.

That is, as the article points out, unless there are leaks.

As we found in research, leakage is exactly what has happened time and again throughout the years, including at disposal sites for Oak Ridge National Laboratories, according to reports in the following cases. Via ProPublica:

In April, 1967 pesticide waste injected by a chemical plant at Denver’s Rocky Mountain Arsenal destabilized a seismic fault, causing a magnitude 5.0 earthquake — strong enough to shatter windows and close schools — and jolting scientists with newfound risks of injection, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.

A year later, a corroded hazardous waste well for pulping liquor at the Hammermill Paper Co., in Erie, Pa., ruptured. Five miles away, according to an EPA report, “a noxious black liquid seeped from an abandoned gas well” in Presque Isle State Park.

In 1975 in Beaumont, Texas, dioxin and a highly acidic herbicide injected underground by the Velsicol Chemical Corp. burned a hole through its well casing, sending as much as five million gallons of the waste into a nearby drinking water aquifer.

And these are hardly the only examples… in fact, it is just scratching the surface of an issue that is almost as incomprehensible as it is unfathomable.

Then in August 1984 in Oak Ridge, Tenn., radioactive waste was turned up by water monitoring near a deep injection well at a government nuclear facility.

Bingo…

There it is. The infallible, permanent, and “impermeable” deep injection wells that Halliburton and the Atomic Energy Commission considered as a solution to nuclear waste for eons to come were found turning up radioactive nuclear waste at the very Oak Ridge site where these 1960s disposal projects were taking place.

Subterranean Waste Disposal a ‘Cornerstone of the Nation’s Economy’

Those cemented wells, filled with injected disposal substances may be safely secured for a few years or even decades, but that is no guarantee for the years down the road and its certainly not the millennia as promised by Halliburton and others in the industry. In fact, many of the wells have been forgotten, abandoned, and are lost to the record books.

As ProPublica reports:

There are upwards of 2 million abandoned and plugged oil and gas wells in the U.S., more than 100,000 of which may not appear in regulators’ records. Sometimes they are just broken off tubes of steel, buried or sticking out of the ground. Many are supposed to be sealed shut with cement, but studies show that cement breaks down over time, allowing seepage up the well structure.

And many of these are injection wells, where all kinds of unwanted, toxic substances are dumped in order to be forgotten… though not necessarily gone.

Not only are these practices taking place, they are widespread… and widely defended, even with the known failures and safety issues.

Many scientists and regulators say the alternatives to the injection process — burning waste, treating wastewater, recycling, or disposing of waste on the surface — are far more expensive or bring additional environmental risks.

Subterranean waste disposal, they point out, is a cornerstone of the nation’s economy, relied on by the pharmaceutical, agricultural and chemical industries. It’s also critical to a future less dependent on foreign oil: Hydraulic fracturing, “clean coal” technologies, nuclear fuel production and carbon storage (the keystone of the strategy to address climate change) all count on pushing waste into rock formations below the earth’s surface. (source)

Sure, maybe it’s better than dumping it directly into the waterways, but still. This isn’t just playing with fire, this is playing with the lives of everyone in the nation for generations to come.

Please read ProPublica’s full series of reports on this, starting here. Things have to change.

These people should not have started messing with something they did not know how to fully and safely manage.

How long can this madness continue until it winds up tainting every drinking glass in America?

Engineer Mario Salazar, who worked as a technical expert for 25 years with the EPA’s underground injection program in Washington, told ProPublica’s Abrahm Lustgarten something that should give us all pause about how radioactive nuclear waste and industrial pollutants in general are being handled, and where they may ultimately end up:

In 10 to 100 years we are going to find out that most of our groundwater is polluted. A lot of people are going to get sick, and a lot of people may die.

Aaron Dykes and Melissa Melton created TruthstreamMedia.com, where this article first appeared, as an outlet to examine the news, place it in a broader context, uncover the deceptions, pierce through the fabric of illusions, grasp the underlying factors, know the real enemy, unshackle from the system, and begin to imagine the path towards taking back our lives, one step at a time, so that one day we might truly be free…

• 

  Terrorists Supported by America: U.S. Helicopter Delivering Weapons to the Islamic State (ISIS), Shot Down by Iraqi “Popular Forces”

  By Fars News Agency, March 1 , 2015

• 

  China Warns U.S. to Stop Its Ukrainian Proxy War Against Russia

  By Eric Zuesse, March 3 , 2015

• 

  Totalitarian Rule in America: False Flags, Secret Prisons, Extrajudicial Assassinations, Media Censorship, The Rounding Up of Alleged “Terrorists” …

  By Joachim Hagopian, March 1 , 2015

• 

  Despite Russian Warnings, US Will Deploy a Battalion to Ukraine by the End of the Week

  By Tyler Durden, March 4 , 2015

• 

  US-NATO Preparing for War Against Russia: Holding Largest Arctic War Games in Decade; Training and Arming Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine

  By Stop NATO, March 4 , 2015

• 

  Fukushima Nuclear Radiation Spikes 7,000% as Contaminated Water Pours into the Ocean

  By Global Research News, March 1 , 2015

• Russian Opposition: Putin Did NOT Assassinate Opposition Leader Boris Nemtsov

  By Global Research News, March 2 , 2015

• 

  Iraqi Army Allegedly Downs A US Helicopter For Providing Weapons To ISIS: Report

  By Brandon Turbeville, March 3 , 2015

• 

  America’s “Global War on Terror”, Al Qaeda and the Islamic State (ISIS)

  By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, March 1 , 2015

• 

  Google Moving to Shut Down Alternative Media by Ranking Sites on “Facts” Rather than Popularity

  By Steve Watson, March 2 , 2015

• 

  Fifty Years of Imperial Wars: Global Neoliberalism and America’s Drive for World Domination

  By Prof. James Petras, March 2 , 2015

• 

  The Boris Nemtsov Assassination: Russia’s “Non-system” Opposition Refuses to Blame the Kremlin

  By The Saker, March 1 , 2015

• 

  911 Truth: Distinguished Scientist Dr. Niels Harrit Sues Danish Newspaper for Libel

  By Richard Gage, March 3 , 2015

• The Impacts of Genetic Engineering: Not Science, Just Lies and Propaganda: The Massive Fraud Behind GMOs Exposed

  By Colin Todhunter, March 5 , 2015

• 

  False Flag in Moscow? The Boris Nemtsov Assassination, the Anti-Putin Demonization Campaign

  By The Saker, March 1 , 2015

• 

  Big Pharma’s Mass Vaccination Agenda: Propaganda Assault on Informed Consent

  By Prof. James F. Tracy, March 3 , 2015

• 

  Is Barack Obama Actually Trying To Help the Islamic State (ISIS) Take Over Syria?

  By Michael Snyder, March 1 , 2015

• 

  Netanyahu Is “The Right Man” to Address the US Congress on Iran

  By Prof. Yakov M. Rabkin, March 3 , 2015

• Is Russia Aware of the Threat? Washington Intends to Destabilize Russia and Overthrow the Russian Government

  By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, March 3 , 2015

• 

  Fukushima: A Nuclear War without a War: The Unspoken Crisis of Worldwide Nuclear Radiation

  By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, March 1 , 2015

• 

  Azerbaijan Should Be Very Afraid of Victoria Nuland

  By Andrew Korybko, March 3 , 2015

• 

  Cui Bono: US State Department Admits Russia had Nothing to Gain from Killing Boris Nemtsov

  By Tony Cartalucci, March 1 , 2015

• 

  Gitmo in Chicago

  By Stephen Lendman, March 3 , 2015

• 

  Towards Police State Canada? Anti-terrorism Bill C 51, To be Adopted by Parliament, The Media Campaign

  By Michael Welch, March 2 , 2015

• 

  BBC Foreknowledge of Collapse of WTC Building 7? Brother of 9/11 Victim goes to Court with the BBC over Alleged Cover Up

  By Peter Drew, March 6 , 2015

On March 5, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave a warmongering, backward speech to an extraordinary joint session of the US Congress attacking Iran, Syria, Yeman and Lebanon.

The US Congress interrupted the Israeli’s speech 39 times to applaud. Twenty three of these times were standing ovations. Over 10 minutes of the 40-minute speech consisted of applause. In other words, 27 per cent of the time Netanyahu spoke was actually the US Congress applauding and doing standing ovations.

Israel gets over $3 billion a year in mostly U.S. military aid. More than 90 per cent of Netanyahu’s election campaign money comes from the United States, according to records published by Israel’s State Comptroller Office … “Why get money from Israel when you can get it from the U.S.?” SHEERA FRENKEL in BuzzFeed News

But then Netanyahu (Nitai) also holds American citizenship. Those currently asking whether the US Congress represents the USA or Israel might ask just whom this Zionist represents.

***

Jordanian campaigners are demanding that an agreement on importing gas from Israel be scrapped.

At least 26 organizations, including trade unions and political parties, have joined the Jordanian Campaign to Stop the Zionist Gas Deal.

The state-owned National Jordanian Electric Power Company (NEPCO) has signed a $15 billion agreement to buy 300 million cubic feet of natural gas from Israeli-controlled parts of the Mediterranean Sea over a 15 year period.

The gas will be extracted from the Leviathan gas field situated in the eastern Mediterranean. The extraction project is being led by the US giant Noble Energy.

The Israeli government stands to make $8.4 billion from the deal because of clauses relating to taxes and royalties, according to a report published by the campaigners.

“Israel has tried very hard to push normalization with the Jordanian people over the past twenty years in various areas including the economic and cultural spheres, but it has failed,” Hisham Bustani, a spokesperson for the campaign, said.

Energy minister Mohammed Hamed has tried to justify the gas deal by claiming it would allow Jordan to diversify its sources of gas. Jordan has for many years been reliant on gas imports from Egypt.

But the supply of Egyptian gas has been interrupted in recent years because of problems in the Egyptian energy market.

Yet many of Jordan’s members of parliament do not share Hamed’s view. Only 15 of 225 parliamentarians supported the gas deal in December.

“Dubious deals”

Though the majority voted against the gas deal, the decision was non-binding because the Jordanian government has not put the gas deal up for parliamentary approval.

Ali Abu Sukkar, deputy secretary-general of the Islamic Action Front, the largest opposition party in Jordan, said the gas deal “contradicts the will and the conscience of the Jordanian people.”

“The Jordanian people reject all the dubious deals with our enemy that aim to normalize relations. The regime must reconcile itself with its people,” Abu Sukkar told The Electronic Intifada.

Though Jordanian supporters of the gas deal have attempted to present it as an agreement with the Texas-based Noble Energy, the consortium behind the project includes the Israeli firms Delek Drilling, Avner Oil Exploration (a subsidiary of Delek) and Ratio Oil Exploration.

In 1994, Jordan signed the Wadi Araba Agreement, a peace treaty with Israel — normalizing relations at the expense of Palestinian rights, according to critics.

“There should not be any relationship with this enemy,” Abd al-Majeed Dandees, a member of the leftist Jordanian Democratic Popular Unity Party, told The Electronic Intifada. “In general, Jordanian political parties, trade unions, professional associations and activist groups reject the Wadi Araba treaty as a whole and not just this gas deal.”

Jordan yet again expanded its economic cooperation with Israel in February when it signed an $800 million agreement on exploiting the Dead Sea’s resources. The Jerusalem Post reported that the deal will give Israel access to water treated at a desalination plant in the in the Jordanian city of Aqaba.

Protests

Jordan forged ahead with the gas deal last year even as it professed to protest Israel’s violations of Palestinian rights.

Last November, as Israel cracked down on Palestinians in occupied East Jerusalem and limited their access the al-Aqsa mosque, Jordan recalled its ambassador to Israel. However, Walid Obeidat, the ambassador, was sent back to Tel Aviv last month.

Meanwhile, thousands marched in cities across Jordan last November as Israel escalated its attacks on Palestinians in the occupied West Bank. The protesters demanded that Jordan scrap the Wadi Araba agreement and close the Israeli embassy in Amman.

Earlier in the year, in March, protests were held outside the Israeli embassy in the Jordanian capital after the fatal shooting of Raed Zuaiter. A Palestinian-Jordanian judge and father of two young children, Zuaiter was attempting to cross from Jordan into the West Bank at the King Hussein (Allenby) crossing when he was shot by an Israeli soldier.

Muhammed Abu Ghanaimah is president of the Jordanian Professional Associations Council and the Jordanian Agricultural Engineers Association, both of which are against the gas deal.

“This campaign is important because it represents the feeling and conviction that we all have that this deal will be a knife at the throat of Jordan and the Jordanian people,” Abu Ghanaimah told The Electronic Intifada.

“The consequences of this deal will be very dangerous, in economic as well as political terms and in its effect on Jordanian sovereignty,” he added.

Further protests against the gas deal are planned for Friday.

Thoraya El-Rayyes contributed translation.

Patrick O. Strickland is an independent journalist and regular contributor to The Electronic Intifada. His website is www.postrickland.com. Follow him on Twitter:@P_Strickland_.

Lawrence Wittner points out that the United States will soon be the only nation on earth that has not ratified theConvention on the Rights of the Child.

And why not? Wittner focuses on general backward stupidness: the treaty would “override” the Constitution or the importance of families or the rights of parents. He points out the treaty’s support for parents and families and the impossibility of overriding the Constitution — which we might note in any case says nothing on the subject.

Then Wittner mentions some more substantive reasons for opposition:

“… in fairness to the critics, it must be acknowledged that some current American laws do clash with the Convention’s child protection features. For example, in the United States, children under the age of 18 can be jailed for life, with no possibility of parole. Also, as Human Rights Watch notes, “exemptions in U.S. child labor laws allow children as young as 12 to be put to work in agriculture for long hours and under dangerous conditions.” Moreover, the treaty prohibits cruel and degrading punishment of children―a possible source of challenge to the one-third of U.S. states that still allow corporal punishment in their schools.”

That’s actually a pretty major in-fairness-to-the-critics point. The United States wants to maintain the ability to lock children in cages for the rest of their lives or to work them in the fields or to physically abuse them in school. In fact, the child prison industry is a major presence in the United States.

And there’s another industry that has a dog in this fight. The U.S. military openly recruits children.

And let’s not forget that there are children on the drone kill list and children who have been killed with drone strikes.

There are other nations that engage in some of these same abuses. Is it better to ratify a basic human rights treaty and violate it or to refuse to ratify it because you intend to act against it as a matter of principle?

I’m inclined to think the latter suggests the further remove from decent tendencies.

Reading the lead stories on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to Congress about Iran in five prominent US papers–the New York Times, Washington Post,LA Times, Wall Street Journal and USA Today(all 3/3/15)–what was most striking was what was left out of these articles.

None of them mentioned, for example, that Israel possesses nuclear weapons. Surely this is relevant when a foreign leader says that it needs the United States’ help to stop a rival state from obtaining nuclear weapons: The omission of the obvious phrase “of its own” changes the story entirely.

The Washington Post’s coverage of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to Congress included “Top 10 Applause Lines From Netanyahu’s Speech.”

Another thing largely left out of the story is the fact that Iran has consistently maintained that it has no interest in building a nuclear weapon. There was one direct statement of this in the five stories–the New York Times‘ reference to “Iran’s nuclear program, which [Iranian] officials have insisted is only for civilian uses.” The Washington Post alluded to the fact that Iran denies that it has a nuclear weapons program, referring to “a program the West has long suspected is aimed at building weapons,” Iran’s “stated nuclear energy goals” and “the suspect Iranian program.” Elsewhere the military nature of Iran’s nuclear research was taken for granted, as when the LA Times said that the issue under discussion was “how to deal with the threat of Iran’s nuclear program.”

Entirely absent from these articles was the fact that not only does Iran deny wanting to make a nuclear bomb, the intelligence agencies of the United States (New York Times, 2/24/12) and Israel (Guardian, 2/23/15) also doubt that Iran has an active nuclear weapons program. Surely this is relevant to a report on the Israeli prime minister engaging in a public debate with the US president on how best to stop this quite possibly nonexistent program.

Instead, these articles generally seemed content to cover the subject as a debate between Netanyahu and US President Barack Obama, perhaps with some congressmembers thrown in–as if these were the “both sides” that needed to be covered in order to give a complete picture of the controversy. When Iranian officials were quoted for a few lines in these pieces–which some neglected to do altogether–it seemed an afterthought, despite the fact that Netanyahu’s speech was mainly a long litany of allegations and threats against their country.

(Though I’m confining my analysis to what seemed to be the most prominent and comprehensive article on the speech on each paper’s website, it’s worth mentioning that the New York Times‘ website featured a piece by Iran’s ambassador to the UN, Gholamali Khoshroo, rebutting Netanyahu’s speech. Reading it one is struck by how different the news pieces would read if Iran’s perspective on Iran’s nuclear program were given equal weight with Israel’s and the US’s views.)

None of these news articles mentioned the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, signed by both the United States and Iran but not by Israel, which guarantees“the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.”

One article–the New York Times‘–had a reference to Netanyahu’s decades-long record of making false nuclear predictions about Israel’s enemies. And even that was framed in partisan terms: Netanyahu “did not succeed in mollifying all Democrats, who recalled a history of what they deemed doomsday messages by him.” A reporter, of course, could look up Netayahu’s previous projections to see if they came true or not–as Murtaza Hussain of the Intercept (3/2/15) did–but holding officials accountable for what they have said in the past is not something an “objective” journalist is likely to do.

Another striking omission from these articles, about a speech in which Netanyahu talked about Iran’s “aggression in the region and in the world,” were words like “Palestine,” “Palestinian,” “occupation” or “Gaza”; none of these  came up in any of the five articles. USA Today headlined its piece “Netanyahu: Stop Iran’s ‘March of Conquest'”–as though it were Iran, not Israel, that hasconquered, occupied and in some cases annexed its neighbors’ territory.

A new study published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives provides fresh insight into why millions of people living in the developed world today suffer from severe autoimmune disorders that were virtually unheard of before the advent of vaccines.

Researchers from the University of Michigan Medical and Public Health Schools in Ann Arbor found that mercury, like the kind added to vaccines as a preservative, is a major trigger of autoimmunity in women of childbearing age.

Dr. Emily Somers, Ph.D., and her colleagues looked at government data on women between the ages of 16 and 49, comparing their respective levels of mercury exposure to antinuclear antibody positivity, an indicator of autoimmune activity.

Autoimmunity, as you may already know, is essentially an abnormal immune response in which errant antibodies attack the human body, causing systemic inflammation. The result is a variety of illnesses, often debilitating, that leave a person weak and unable to function normally.

In women with high levels of mercury exposure, autoantibodies, or the antibodies responsible for triggering autoimmunity, were found to be more prevalent. A direct correlation between the two was observed, leading researchers to conclude that mercury is a major risk factor in autoimmunity.

Mercury found to be “main risk factor” for autoimmune disease

Based on the team’s findings, Dr. Somers concluded that exposure to mercury is actually the main risk factor for autoimmunity, which would explain why so many children who had been vaccinated according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines now suffer from various autoimmune diseases.

“In our study, exposure to mercury stood out as the main risk factor for autoimmunity,” stated Somers, adding in her study’s conclusion that exposure to mercury “at low levels generally considered safe” can still lead to subclinical autoimmunity among reproductive-age females.

“Autoantibodies may predate clinical disease by years, thus methylmercury exposure may be relevant to future autoimmune disease risk,” the team added.

What this means is that exposure to mercury can cause long-term health problems that may or may not show symptoms in the short term. So a vaccinated child, for instance, could appear healthy and normal in the days, weeks or even months following vaccination, but several years down the road develop an autoimmune condition as a result of the vaccines.

Multi-dose flu shots and other vaccines still contain mercury, which can trigger autoimmunity

The way this critical study is being presented in the media, though (if it’s even being covered at all), only warns childbearing-age women to avoid things like tuna fish that are widely known to contain mercury. Nothing about avoiding vaccines like Novartis’ Fluvirin and Sanofi Pasteur’s Fluzone that still contain added mercury is anywhere to be found in the media reports.

This is perhaps due to the fact that much of the mainstream media is currently in irrational denial of the fact that mercury is still being used in vaccines. The specious claim that “vaccines don’t contain mercury!” is patently false, and yet nearly every major news outlet is right now making this claim to deter free-thinking parents from making an educated decision against vaccines.

“Mercury is a known neuro-toxin which can cross the placenta and blood brain barrier and concentrate in the blood and brain but can also affect the immune system, kidneys and lungs,” explains the National Vaccine Information Center. “Some autistic children have been found to have high levels of mercury in their hair as well as heavy metals, such as aluminum and lead,” that are also in vaccines.

Sources :

http://www.empr.com

http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov^[PDF]

https://www.rheumatology.org

http://www.naturalnews.com

http://www.naturalnews.com

http://www.nvic.org

Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chief of the Pentagon’s Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a congressional committee Wednesday that US troops may be sent into Syria to fight alongside so-called rebels who are seeking the overthrow of the Damascus government of President Bashar al-Assad.

“If the commander on the ground approaches either me or the secretary of defense and believes that the introduction of special operations forces to accompany Iraqis or the new Syrian forces … if we believe that’s necessary to achieve our objectives, we will make that recommendation,” Dempsey told the House Appropriations Committee’s defense panel.

Dempsey’s testimony was preceded by that of Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, who allowed that Washington’s strategy in relation to the “Syria piece” is to “create a third force that can combat ISIL [the administration’s preferred acronym for the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria-ISIS] and set the conditions for the eventual removal of Bashar Assad.”

US Secretary of State John Kerry, who was on Thursday in the midst of a trip to Saudi Arabia to reassure the Sunni potentates of the Persian Gulf that US nuclear negotiations with Shiite Iran would not erode Washington’s counterrevolutionary alliance with these monarchical oil states, spoke along similar lines.

Kerry reiterated Washington’s commitment to regime change in Syria. “Ultimately a combination of diplomacy and pressure will be needed to bring about a political transition,” he told reporters, adding that “military pressure may be needed.”

There is a growing sense that, six months after President Barack Obama announced the new US war in both Iraq and Syria, this intervention has reached a turning point that threatens to unleash yet another massive bloodletting on the peoples of the region.

In Iraq, this threat is imminent with the mounting of a major siege of the city of Tikrit, the former hometown of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, who was toppled by the US invasion of 2003 and executed by hanging under the American occupation.

Some 30,000 troops—reportedly two thirds of which are comprised of Iraqi Shia militias operating with Iranian support—have sought to encircle the predominantly Sunni city, which lies approximately 100 miles north of Baghdad on the Tigris River. The siege is preparation for an even bigger onslaught against Iraq’s second city, Mosul.

Roughly 30,000 civilians have reportedly fled Tikrit in fear for their lives, while tens of thousands more remain trapped in the face of mounting artillery bombardment. Shia militia leaders, meanwhile, have openly proclaimed that the assault will be the occasion for revenge for massacres carried out by ISIS.

The US military has stayed out of the Tikrit siege, claiming that the regime in Baghdad had not asked for its aid. In reality, Washington has ruled out any direct military collaboration with Iran, which itself is still a potential target for US intervention.

US officials have warned Iran and the Shia-dominated government of Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi not to fuel sectarianism. “That would tear at the fabric of the country, and weaken the ability of the Iraqis to confront this threat to their country,” declared White House spokesman Josh Earnest.

What hypocrisy! The sectarian tensions are the direct product of the US war and occupation, which killed over a million Iraqis, tore the county’s social fabric to shreds and provoked internecine conflicts as part of a deliberate tactic of divide and rule.

ISIS, the purported target of the US intervention, is a Frankenstein’s monster spawned by both the Iraq intervention and US imperialism’s promotion of a war for regime change in neighboring Syria, where it and other Sunni Islamist militias received funding, arms and logistical support from Washington’s regional allies, all under the guiding hand of the CIA.

Washington’s stated policy of fostering, arming and training so-called moderate rebels to both combat ISIS and serve as a proxy force in the war to topple the Assad regime has become an increasingly criminal and cynical operation.

Last weekend, the last of the ostensible Syrian “moderates,” whose members were armed, equipped and even paid by the CIA—the Hazm, or “steadfastness” movement—officially disbanded after being routed in the northern province of Aleppo by the Al-Nusra front, Al Qaeda’s affiliate in Syria. Advanced US weapons, including TOW missiles, were all surrendered to Al Nusra, while many of the surviving Hazm members joined it.

In the wake of this debacle, there are indications that Washington is preparing to seal a pact with Al Nusra, effectively allying with Al Qaeda itself in opposition to ISIS, a split-off from Al Qaeda. The government of Qatar, a key source of funding for Al Nusra, has reportedly been pressuring the group to drop its formal affiliation with Al Qaeda to facilitate this shift.

The sheer cynicism with which the military-intelligence apparatus and its front man, Barack Obama, wage their “war on terror” found the clearest expression in statements made by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper at the Council on Foreign Relations earlier this week.

“Moderate these days is increasingly becoming anyone who is not affiliated to ISIL,” he said. He indicated that US intelligence and military officials had “picked people that not only are moderate, whatever that is, but also we have to be sensitive to complying with the international rules of law, which in this environment is a pretty tough order.”

Of course US imperialism has operated for more than a decade in the Middle East—from Iraq, to Libya to Syria—in naked contempt for the bedrock provisions of international law, which, since the Nazis were tried at Nuremberg, has banned aggressive war as an instrument for pursuing state interests.

What Clapper is referring to is the international prohibition against arming Al Qaeda, a provision that can be evaded by having Al Nusra drop its formal affiliation.

Anyone attempting to deduce the logic of US policy in the Middle East from the claims made by US officials runs into a mind-boggling maze of contradictions. In Iraq, Washington is effectively in alliance with Iran and Shia sectarian militias to defeat ISIS. In Syria, it is forging ties to Sunni Islamist militias to supposedly fight both ISIS and topple the Syrian government, which is backed by Iran. Nearly 14 years into the “war on terror,” the US military-intelligence apparatus is preparing to turn an affiliate of Al Qaeda into its frontline “anti-terror” and “pro-democracy” fighters.

To the extent that any coherent policy emerges, it is one of stoking the fires of war and political instability everywhere, promoting a struggle of each against all with the aim of weakening every country and government so as to facilitate the US drive to assert its hegemony over the energy-rich region. In turn, this regional policy is directed toward the preparation of even more horrific wars against the allies of Damascus—Iran and Russia.

For the people of the Middle East, this translates into another deadly and tragic phase in their drawn-out encounter with US imperialism. For American working people, this policy—developed behind their backs, with no real debate, much less popular support—also holds the threat of catastrophe.

The Chinese government has lowered its official projection for economic growth this year to “approximately 7 percent” following a year that saw the lowest economic expansion in a quarter of a century.

Chinese Premier Li Kequiang announced the target in his opening address to the annual National People’s Congress which began in Beijing yesterday.

Presenting a gloomy outlook for the world’s second largest economy, he said:

“The downward pressure on China’s economy is intensifying. Deep-seated problems in the country’s economic development are becoming more obvious. The difficulties we are facing this year could be bigger than last year. The next year is a crucial year for deepening all-round reforms.”

In a further sign of economic problems, Li said the government planned this year to run its biggest deficit since the global financial crisis. The deficit will rise to 2.3 percent of gross domestic product this year, compared to 2.1 percent last year. Some of the additional money will be spent on railway, water and agricultural projects, but the chairman of the government’s economic planning agency Xu Shaoshi said it should not be seen as a “massive stimulus.”

Li said the new growth target was what was needed and what was possible, adding that China’s growth model was inefficient and that “difficult structural adjustments” were necessary in order to absorb the effects of previous stimulus measures.

As part of “restructuring,” the government is pushing ahead with measures to reduce its control of the giant state-owned enterprises that dominate much of the economy. It also plans to further open the country’s financial system. This is certain to intensify conflicts within the ruling elite. Significant economic and political power brokers, resting on state-owned enterprises, are the target of a corruption purge led by President Xi Jinping.

The new target of just 7 percent growth is considered by many commentators to be inflated, with real growth probably around 2 or 3 percentage points lower. It is politically significant given that the government has stated in the past that growth of at least 8 percent is needed to maintain “social stability.” The government fears that slowing growth and the consequent increase in unemployment will bring about major struggles by the working class.

Li alluded to these fears, at least obliquely, saying that in order to “defuse problems and risks” China relied on development that required an “appropriate growth rate.” However, at the same time, he continued, “China’s economic development has entered a ‘new normal.’”

The new target is also a reflection of major problems in the world economy as a whole. It underscores the fact that the massive quantitative easing programs of the world’s central banks, which will be further extended when the European Central Bank begins a bond-purchasing program next week, have done nothing to boost real growth. They have served only to fuel parasitism, currency wars and speculation.

Furthermore, it shows that far from providing a new platform for economic expansion, the Chinese economy is being afflicted by the same tendencies that have emerged on a global scale, expressed most sharply in deflationary pressures. Li said that the government was lowering its inflation target to around 3 percent from 3.5 percent in 2015.

Last weekend, in announcing a further cut in official interest rates, the second reduction in three months, the People’s Bank of China said that it was responding to a “deflationary risk” as well as to falling property prices. And in a sign of the growing excess capacity in the economy, factory gate prices of commodities showed a year-on-year decline of 4.3 percent in January.

A product of the deepening global malaise, the Chinese slowdown is, in turn, adding to it. This week iron, which comprise a major component of exports for countries such as Brazil and Australia, fell below $60 per tonne, just one third of the peak it reached four years ago. This fall parallels a similar slide in oil prices.

The Chinese economy is also being severely impacted by the fall in the value of the currencies of its major trading partners. Loosely tied to the rising US dollar, the yuan has risen 60 percent against the Japanese yen and 90 percent against Brazil’s real since the middle of 2012. In the past year it has risen 27 percent against the euro.

Any effort by China to push down the value of the yuan will intensify the incipient global currency war as major countries try to lower the value of their currencies to try to improve their competitive position internationally.

In response to the global financial crisis of 2008–2009, the Chinese government initiated a massive expansion of credit—an amount equivalent to the entire US banking system—in order to boost the economy after 23 million jobs were lost in 2009. Since then, Chinese growth has not been fuelled by expanding exports, as it was in the 1990s and in the years leading up to the financial crisis, but by investment in property and infrastructure financed by credit.

However, this road is now closed. Besides creating a potentially dangerous credit bubble, the additional growth generated by each yuan of new loans is estimated to be a ratio of just 0.2 percent, compared to 0.8 percent before 2008. Most of the additional credit is not being used to finance new investment projects, but rather to rollover existing debts owed by banks and local government authorities. They are being hit hard by the fall in inflation, which increases the real value of their debt exposure.

The revenues of both the central government and local authorities are contracting because of the slowdown in real estate developments, with land revenues reported to have fallen by 21 percent in the fourth quarter of 2014.

The ending of the credit-property bubble threatens major economic consequences. The Japanese finance house Nomura has warned investors that relying on the government to always provide a stimulus where needed could prove dangerous.

Nomura financial analyst Rob Subbaraman told the British Daily Telegraph: “We assign a one-in-three chance of a hard landing—growth averaging 5 percent or less over four quarters—starting within the next two years.”

Such a fall would not only have major consequences in China but would send a shock wave through the global economy and could set off a major financial crisis.

 by Colonel Cassad

Translated from Russian.

The following text is in some regards technical.

It requires careful reading. This report should be examined in relation to previous technical reports pertaining to an examination of the fuselage and cockpit (GR Ed. M.Ch.)

*     *     *

Because since the first day after the moment of the crash of the Malaysian “Boeing”

I adhere to the version where the airplane was shot down by the Ukrainian SU-25 attack jet, I simply cannot refrain from publishing a new investigation, which summarizes the arguments on this topic.

A rod from the “air-to-air” missile R-60M was found among the wreckage of MH17 (below)A model was assembled in Holland using of the fragments of the “Boeing” that was shot down in Donetsk. Using the photos of the fragments from the crash site, it is possible to approximately reconstruct the airframe.Among the photos there were at least two that refute the version of the attack against the plane using the “BUK” complex.

On one of the photos we can see the object, which looks like a rod from the AAM missile R-60M. On the other photo — a round hole in the air intake of the right engine. There are at least nine holes in the skin that are characteristic of the effect of an “air-to-air” missile.

Circular, square, rod-shaped — what hit the Boeing

Already by the next week, on the 3rd, 5th, and 6th March of 2015, almost five thousand people — relatives and friends of those who died in the “Boeing” catastrophe in Donbass — will be able to see the model of the Malaysian Airlines Boeing-777 that is made out of wreckage on the air base Gilze-Rijen in Holland. The last major fragments, a whole truck of them, are still located in Petropavlovka – the Dutch journalists managed to reach them only by February 22 of 2015.

UPD
Photo from the hangar, 03.03.15

 
Source, Source

RECONSTRUCTION

The left side of the “Boeing”. 

The right side of the “Boeing”.

The left side of the pilot cabin immediately attracted the most attention, the aircraft had the most damage there. The largest hole in the center of the fragment has ragged edges, bent outside, which is characteristic for an internal explosion or decompression due to a sharp change in pressure.

   

Further on the photo we see more than 20 large round holes, which penetrated among other things the glass framing and the left side of the cabin. The material of the skin in this area has the highest density — it is made of reinforced aluminum (titanium plates are used according to other data), which is laid out in two layers in order to prevent cabin damage in the case of a possible collision with a bird. According to some data, the thickness of the first layer is 1.8 mm and the thickness of the second layer is 0.8 mm.

We also know that the thickness of the most part of the skin of the fuselage of the “Boeing”-777 is only about 2 mm (0.09 inch)

As we zoom in the photos, we can see a huge number of small marks-“pockmarks” and black patches of soot on the external side of the cabin, and also the edges of the external skin that are bent inside. This suggests that the warhead exploded in close vicinity from the plane’s skin. By some estimates, the distance between the pilot cabin and the epicenter of the explosion could be between 50 cm to 4-5m. At the same time the radius of the impact zone of the “BUK” is 17 m, the missile explodes above and ahead of the target, making a climb, and creates a large cloud made of six thousand shards. (source).

Citation from mh17webtalks: Detonation products — it was precisely them which left the numerous number of traces on the cockpit fragments — lose the ability to inflict mechanical damage (lose the kinetic energy) at the distance from the site of explosion equal to 15…20 radii of the explosive block. Correspondingly, given the explosive block radius of 10–15 cm we get 1.5–3.0 m  The blast wave comes first after the start of the explosion, then go the hot gases, and then, due to being more bulky, shrapnel fragments. But gas slows down very quickly, so its traces can be found only next to the site of explosion.

The “BUK” doesn’t match the photo with respect to the distance from the explosion. Well, perhaps it matches size of the holes?

To find out the diameter of the holes in the skin of the cabin we need to know the diameter of the head of the standard aviation rivet. It is equal to 0,488 inch or 11 mm.

By correlating the parameters we get the size of the holes of about 20-30mm. The diameter of the round holes in the skin of the cabin in the size of 2-3 diameters of the hat of the aviation rivet.

 

 

 
The yellow-red outlines of some holes are faintly visible on the first photo — perhaps, this is a trace from the copper casing of the shell that produced these holes.

(As a bullet penetrates an obstacle, it pushes some of the obstacle’s material forward and widens it, leaving the particles present on the bullet on the hole that is being formed. The band of rubbing, which is several millimeters wide, leaves the particles of the soot produced during the shot, the gun grease, metallic particles from the barrel and from the bullet itself).

However, there is no copper on the shrapnel sub-projectiles from the “BUK”, but there is copper on the shells of aircraft cannons.

 
 
The ribbon of armor-piercing and high-explosive shells in an aircraft cannon, the shrapnel elements have cylindrical shape.

This is shown clearly here: How the aircraft cannon GSh-30 shoots

Besides several tens of round and oval holes, in the front part of the “Boeing” there are at least five more holes, which have rectangular and square shape. However, none of them penetrated the skin on the outside, so it is hard to determine their size. But we can speak of the sizes above 1 cm.

 
 

In the description of the R27 missile characteristics, for example (it can be also mounted on Su-25), the presence of prepared cubes above the rods in the warhead of the missile is mentioned. The former service members of the Russia and Ukraine air force write on their forum that R-60 is equipped with ready-made shrapnel elements in addition to the wolfram rods (a similar description of the shrapnel and rod-based warhead is present on other websites). (A magnified image of the warhead of the R-60 training missile.) Besides this, not a single known hole on the airplane skin, which includes the skin of the pilot cabin matches the last shown element. 

The skin on the side of the pilot cabin attracts attention. The charge of a fragmentation warhead may enter various surfaces of the “Boeing” at various angles. The shape of the hole may be different depending on this — for example it may be round  (if a spherical sub-projectile hits at the right angle) or it may be elongated (at acute angle). Here is how this looks like when a regular bullet hits metal.

Perhaps, this is what explains the presence of holes of various sizes on one of the skin pieces to the side of the pilot cabin (Point 4 on the scheme of the left side of the Boeing).
By comparing the holes with the rivet heads we can see that the width of these holes varies between 3 cm and 10 cm The angle of penetration of these shards may be equal to 25-30 degrees.

 
 

HOW “BUK” FIRES

The 9М38М1 missile, which is used in the “BUK-M1” complexes, consists of the fragmentation warhead 9Н314, which weighs 70 kg In its base there are 32 kg of sub-projectiles (4500 sub-projectiles, each weighing 8 g in the shape of an I-section [something between the shape of Н and Х] and of 1500 cubes, each weighing 4 g). The source

On the internet there is a photo of one of the warheads of the missile complex. The I-secton shrapnel –13 mm. The diameter of cubes is below 10 mm. Source and another source

 

If this type of the “ground-to-air” missile was used to attack the “Boeing”, then the majority of the shrapnel holes would leave characteristic rectangular-shaped traces (the I-shaped fragments have better penetration force capabilities than the cubes).

One of the “Livejournal” users conducted an experiment — the “BUK” would have to leave the following type of traces in the skin of the “Boeing” if at least several sub-projectiles out of 4.5 thousands flew into it at an angle close to the right angle.

A detailed description of the experiment HERE.

On the skin of the discovered fragments of the “Boeing” there is not a single hole of this size.

Furthermore, as the author of the experiment states, the sub-projectiles flying at the speed of 1200 m/s would have to leave a more clear trace in the thin material of the fuselage rather than say in the plating of the cabin, where the aluminum layer is reinforced. With the correction for the HE charge and the penetration angle, the “BUK” fragments may leave traces with the diameter of 18-20mm in the skin. One may read about the real sizes left by the fragmentation charges here, here, and here.
Two square fragments that were found in the cabin were exposed — one of them ended up being made of ceramics, the other one didn’t match due to the beveled edge.How an airplane that was shot down using a “BUK” looks likeOn the internet there are photos of the remains of three airplanes that were shot down over the last 15 years presumably using “BUK” SAM complexes. In all three cases the crew remained alive for some time after the missile strike. In all cases the skin of the airplanes looks roughly the same: many small round or cross-shaped holes. More detail here.

The wreckage of An-26 plane, which was shot down in Ukraine on July 14, 2014, at the height of 6500 m. 

It is well-known that on June 29 of 2014 the militia fighters captured the military unit 1402 in Donetsk, where there was one defective “BUK” vehicle. However, at that time the DPR representatives said that they are not going to repair it. It is also known that the “Osa” complexes that are present in Ukraine are also able to hit the targets like An-26 or Su-25 at the height of 6000 m.

Rod-shaped holes. One of the rods was found

We can see at least three cutting holes among the wreckage: on the left wing, in the area of the second left door, on the elements of the tail (see the scheme Left side of “Boeing”). For example, the hole in the skin next to the second left door has the length of about 10 cm.

 
The left wing

 
The cabin floor near to the second left door.

Next to this hole and the frames that are “cut” along it we can see an elongated element, which is externally similar to a fragment of the rod-shaped sub-projectile from the “air-to-air” aviation missile R-60M. The original photo

The skin of the lower part of the fuselage, next to the second door on the left Source 

 
Left – this is approximately how the rod-based warhead that is used on the Ukrainian attack jets looks like (Source). Right – the warhead of the R-60 missile 

The cross-section of the rocket without the striking elements Source

REFERENCE Su-25M1 attack jet, R-60M missile

The material of the warhead rods is the alloy of zirconium and molibdaine / wolfram. The warhead has relatively low power and is maximally effective by penetrating inside the frame of the target airplane. The detonators are the non-contact radio detonator “Kolibri” (developed in 1971) and also the contact backup detonator. The radius of the radio detonator is 5 m. The damage radius is 2.5 m. Source

Here is a description of the R-60M warhead (the 62M model). The rods used in it are a bit different from the classical thin elongated sagittal rods. In the export variant a set of “pseudo-rods” is used. These sub-projectiles are made of wolfram, which is heavier than steel. “The overlapping sub-projectiles made of wolfram, which is twice heavier than alloy steel. The cut the power wing set, airframes, and engines,” — says the description of the R-60M warhead.

Some sources state the mass of the rods: 3 g. The mass of the warhead is 3 kg. The rods are laid out in the case with a triangular framing — the rods probably have triangular section. “The space between the case and the rod-shaped sub-projectiles is filled with TNT, which has pyramidal holes next to each semi-prepared sub-projectile in the casing. The sub-projectiles weigh 3 g and reach the speed of 7.5km/s” (Source)

“The rod-shaped warhead of R-60M (62М) with wolfram rods laid out perpendicularly would result not in linear but rather in huge delta and diamond-shaped holes.

Only R-62 and, starting from the 80s, R-62M were exported. 70% of both missiles had a shrapnel (or “pseudo-rod based”) rather than rod-based warhead.

Source and HERE – http://vkjournal.ru/doc/3501214

We can see large inbound ragged delta-holes, for example, on the right side in the skin of the second compartment. The soot trace can be seen on one of them. Besides, two similar holes can be seen on the floor of the front baggage compartment, not far from the pilot cabin.

Six delta- and diamond-shaped holes and three cutting holes on the left wing and on the lower part of the skin next to the second left door:

  
Source 
 
Source

The shapes of the holes match the damage that would be expected from the warhead of the R-60M, which is mounted on Su-25M1 attack jets.

The missile could target the “Boeing” engine but explode in 5 m to its side, which may include the area next to the left wing and the floor near the L2 exit, where the two holes characteristic to the rods were found. The Ukrainian PO “Arsenal” worked on modernizing the missile. The missiles were equipped with almost full-perspective infrared guidance system OGS-75T “Komar-M”. (It supports magnification of the view up to 2/4 or even 1/4 (the possibility to launch into the front hemisphere of the target given the bearing at a certain angle), it is provided by the cooling of the photo-receiver of the target-seeking head. Serial production was done by NPK “Progress” (city of Kiev, source). The targeting range — sector of 34 degrees. The maximum speed of target displacement – 35 deg/s).

It is also possible that after activating the lifting charge at the closest distance to the “Boeing” the warhead opened and the carrier R-60 hit the skin of the “Boeing” in the area of the landing gear chassis, close to the engines.

“Shrapnel-rod warheads are typically used on the “air-to-air” missiles due to their compact size. At the moment of the closest approach to the target, the lifting charge is exploded and a beam of rods heads towards the target at almost space velocity. If there is a hit, such a rod may be able to fully penetrate the airplane just due to the kinetics in almost every plane, destroying the internal infrastructure of the airplane and ruining the onboard equipment. The kinetics of the rod is such that it may be able to cut even a titanium longherone in two. Such warhead has another advantage: the missile doesn’t need to be perfectly precise — it is blown up before contacting the target and the rods spread towards the airplane in a cone. Even if only 2-3% of these rods hit the target, the plane is doomed.” Source

HOW THE MH17 “BOEING” WAS SHOT DOWN 

Just seven seconds passed after the moment of the last response by the MH17 crew until the loss of the connection with the airplane. The crew didn’t have enough time to tell the dispatchers about any threatening situation (if we believe the authenticity of the “missing” records from the air traffic control office in Dnepropetrovsk). So, the events in the pilot cabin unfolded rapidly.

After the impact the “Boeing” was turned around, it sharply lost airspeed — from 900 km/h down to 400 km/h and later it was gliding from the height of 10 thousand meters down to the height of about 2 thousand meters. The residents of Grabovo and Torez heard two very loud bangs in the sky. After going below the clouds, the “Boeing” started to disintegrate — a large piece of the fuselage landed in a forest plantation the closest to the original place where the plane was hit. This was a part of business-class and of the second compartment of the economy-class. They were found in Petropavlovka. Next to it, in Rassypnoye they found the separated pilot cabin and the bodies of 40 more people. The tail and the central part of the fuselage, along with the landing gear and the wings flew the farthest — in the field of the Grabovo village.

Between July 2014 and February 2015 the majority of the Boeing pieces were found. The right wing and the right side of the business-class, and also the nose of the “Boing” are missing. Up until now three passengers of the plane have not been identified. Overall, there were 298 people onboard. Metallic fragments were found in the body of the pilot, according to the Malaysian press. Overall, 25 metallic objects that triggered investigators’ suspicion were found.

The left side of the cabin, the skin of floor of the cabin received the most damage from the shrapnel elements. Numerous holes are visible in the crew commander chair, and several holes in the chair of the second pilot. At least four holes are visible in the body of the crew commander. All of these holes have round shape.

 
The back of the seat of the second pilot, numerous holes can be seen on the side and in the back.

Considering the remains of the soot and a large number of small black dots — the traces of impact by the detonation products, the missile charge was engaged in exactly this area — outside the pilot cabin at close range.

Considering the height of this flight – 10 thousand meters, the cabin could be reached either by a SAM complex (S-300, “BUK”) or by an “air-to-air” missile.

And because there are no traces of the impact of rod-shaped sub-projectiles in the pilot cabin, but there are many holes with jagged edges — it was a fragmentation charge that exploded there. Such shells with round contact elements are used in the GSh-30 aircraft cannons, they are also characteristic for the S-200 and S-300 SAMs.

Because there are no cross-shaped traces — the dominating sub-projectiles of the BUK missile, and because the actual explosion occurred at the distance of no more than 5 m, we may reject the version of the use of BUK. The S-200 complexes are “not used” in the Ukraine since 2001, nobody recorded a launch of S-300 missiles in this area.

ATTACK ON THE BOEING FROM THE RIGHT, “IN PURSUIT” 

Thus, the version of one or two Su-25M1 attack jets arose. These are modernized attack jets, which are present in Ukraine (by the moment of the tragedy, the Ukrainian air force had five such jets — one of the six Ukrainian Su-25M1 was shot down one day before the “Boeing” catastrophe).

The modernized Su-25M1 has digital gun sights, which improves the targeting precision by 30% compared to the standard analogs. The practical ceiling of a Su-25M1 is 10000m. The maximum velocity is 975 km/h.

“Due to installing a satellite navigation system, the airplane is able to hit the targets even if the pilot is not visually identifying them but when he knows their coordinates. The airplane is able to use its regular weapons agaist ground targets during both day and night, under the conditions of low visibility and without the need to leave clouds. The altitude on which it is possible to use the weapons was increased substantially, by almost a factor of 3″.

Besides the object found among the wreckage, which is similar to the rod-shaped sub-projectile of the R-60M missile, this version is confirmed by the fragment of the air intake of the right engine of the “Boeing”.

 

The fragment faces us upside-down — on the left side we can see a piece of the internal skin that was torn out and the right side is the other side with faint RR letters — if this piece is turned, then this will be a part of the air intake of the RIGHT ENGINE.

This small hole was discovered on the right engine of the “Boeing” — as stated by the respectable sources of the Wall Street Journal. The edges of the hole are torn to the outside, so in this case the piece of shrapnel penetrated the air intake by flowing from the tail side.

There is another piece of the engine — the rim of the turbine with the traces of the inbound holes, however it is impossible to determine which of the engines it belongs to. It is known that this fragment was found in the outskirts of Petropavlovka, where the right air intake was located. However, the left door was found here as well, which is located in front of the left engine.

If this is indeed a fragment of the right engine, then the fire was performed using an aircraft cannon from the right and the back and later from the right side through the broadside and the right engine towards the pilot cabin. Most likely fire was opened at close range (about 500-700m).

The right side of the “Boeing” skin between the cabin and the second door on the right wasn’t found (at least, there are no photos of it in the open access). Wall Street Journal published the photos of the baggage shelves from the right side of the business-class. At the Gilze-Rijen air base the journalists were not allowed to come close to precisely these fragments of business-class by covering them with squares because the objects are of interest to the investigation.

 
Source Source

Su-25 (Rook).

The aircraft is equipped with double-barreled immobile GSh-30 cannon on the left of the airframe in the lower nose part of the fuselage (the caliber is 30 mm, the ammunition load is 250 shells), which is mostly supposed to destroy weakly armored
targets like APCs. Additionally, up to 4 GSh-23L cannons may be mounted, each of which has a mobile barrel that can veer down by 30 degrees (the ammunition load is 260 shells), and also two “air-to-air” missiles R-60 or R-27. In some variants it is possible to mount the R-77 missiles.

Here is how the first attack using the aircraft cannon from the right and the back “in pursuit” — the bullets penetrate the engine skin, the right side of the business-class and hit the pilots in the back. This version is considered in more detail here.

Either the aircraft cannon GSh-30 with armor-piercing or fragmentation ammunition (see above) with the caliber of 30 mm or the four cannons GSh-23 with the ammunition of 23 mm caliber could be used for shooting. Several holes on the discovered piece of skin of the pilot cabin and also the back of seat of the second pilot were most likely damaged by the shrapnel no bigger than 20-30mm, which flew from the side of the tail. This is suggested by several sources at once (link and another link ).

The pilots didn’t see the attack jet in front of them — they were mortally wounded from the back. Already after this the Su-25 attacked the cabin from the front, when the “Boeing” was turned around. This is how the numerous entry and several exit holes on the cockpit plating were formed.

Entry and exit holes in the pilot cabin

 
 

The back seat of the pilot. It is possible to compare how the holes that form due to penetrating the fabric and the metal here and here

The body of the crew commander with holes in the chest.

CONCLUSION: A combined strike from a Su-25 M1 attack jet was performed against the Malaysian Boeing. The first attack from the Su-25M1 was performed on the course of the “Boeing” flight in pursuit — most likely the attack jet was located on the right side of the tail of the Malaysian airplane and fired while moving towards the right engine — in this direction the jet made several shots using its 23 mm or 30 mm aircraft cannon.

The pilots died after the first attack, a large-scale decompression occurred in the cabin, the electronics went out of order, the plane turned right and the “Boeing” was probably attacked by the attack jet again, but this time on the left side, in the cabin area from the side of the crew commander using the aircraft cannon and a R-60M rocket in the area of the left engine and the left door, on which the traces of penetration by rod-shaped sub-projectiles remained.

P.S. The author of the photo — the Dutch correspondent of RTL Jeroen Akkermans – to whom I referred with respect to this fragment, ignored this topic. Unfortunately, we can only judge based on the photo.

http://evanesce-girl.livejournal.com/79977.html (in Russian) — linkOriginal article: http://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/2077046.html (in Russian)

On March 3^rd, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu issued an impassioned plea to the US Congress to protect Israel by opposing diplomacy with Iran. Referring to “the remarkable alliance between Israel and the United States” which includes “generous military assistance and missile defense,” Netanyahu failed to mention that Israel has an arsenal of 100 or 200 nuclear weapons.  

The Six-Day War 

The day before he delivered that controversial address, Netanyahu expressed similar sentiments to AIPAC, Israel’s powerful U.S. lobby. He reiterated the claim that Israel acted in the 1967 Six-Day War “to defend itself.” The narrative that Israel attacked Egypt, Syria, and Jordan in self-defense, seizing the Palestinian territories in the West Bank, Gaza, Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, and the Sinai Peninsula in 1967, has remained largely unquestioned in the public discourse. Israel relies on that narrative to continue occupying those Palestinian lands. And the powerful film “Censored Voices,” which premiered at Sundance in February, does not challenge that narrative.

 But declassified high-level documents from Britain, France, Russia and the United States reveal that Egypt, Syria, and Jordan were not going to attack Israel and Israel knew it. In fact, they did not attack Israel. Instead, Israel mounted the first attack in order to decimate the Egyptian army and take the West Bank.

 Censored voices uncensored 

For two weeks following the Six Day War, Amos Oz and Avrahim Shapira visited Israeli kibbutzim and recorded interviews with several Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers who had just returned from that war. Largely censored by the Israeli government for many years, those reels have finally been made public. “Censored Voices” features the taped voices of young IDF soldiers, as the aging, former soldiers sit silently beside the tape recorder, listening to their own voices.

 The testimonies documented in the tapes reveal evidence of targeting civilians and summarily executing prisoners, which constitute war crimes. A soldier asks himself, “They’re civilians – should I kill them or not?” He replies, “I didn’t even think about it. Just kill! Kill everyone you see.” Likewise, one voice notes, “Several times we captured guys, positioned them and just killed them.” Another reveals, “In the war, we all became murderers.” Still another says, “Not only did this war not solve the state’s problems, but it complicated them in a way that’ll be very hard to solve.” One soldier likens evacuating Arab villages to what the Nazis did to Jews in Europe. As a soldier watched an Arab man being taken from his home, the soldier states, “I had an abysmal feeling that I was evil.”

 In what proved to be a prescient question, one soldier asks, “Are we doomed to bomb villages every decade for defensive purposes?” Indeed, Israel justifies all of its assaults on Gaza as self-defense, even though Israel invariably attacks first, and kills overwhelming numbers of Palestinians – mostly civilians.  Each time, many fewer Israelis are killed by Palestinian rockets.

 Israel’s false self-defense claim 

 The film begins by showing a map of Israel surrounded by Egypt, Syria, and Jordan, with arrows from each country aimed at Israel. The IDF soldiers felt those Arab countries posed an existential threat to Israel. “There was a feeling it would be a Holocaust,” one soldier observed. The Israeli media claimed at the time that Egypt had attacked Israel by land and by air on June 5, 1967. According to British journalist Patrick Seale, “Israel’s preparation of opinion” was “brilliantly managed,” a “remarkable exercise in psychological warfare.”

 In his book, “The Six-Day War and Israeli Self-Defense: Questioning the Legal Basis for Preventive War,” published by Cambridge University Press, Ohio State University law professor John Quigley documents conversations by high government officials in Israel, the United States, Egypt, the Soviet Union, France, and Britain leading up to the Six-Day War. He draws on minutes of British cabinet meetings, a French government publication, U.S. documents in “Foreign Relations of the United States,” and Russian national archives. Those conversations make clear that Israel knew Egypt, Syria and Jordan would not and did not attack Israel, and that Israel initiated the attacks.

 Egypt was the only one of the three Arab countries that had a military of any consequence. Israeli General Yitzhak Rabin told the Israeli cabinet that the Egyptian forces maintained a defensive posture, and Israeli General Meir Amit, head of Mossad (Israeli’s intelligence agency), informed U.S.  Defense Secretary Robert McNamara that Egypt was not poised to attack Israel. Both the United States and the Soviet Union urged Israel not to attack. Nevertheless, Israel’s cabinet voted on June 4 to authorize the IDF to invade Egypt.

“After the cabinet vote,” Quigley writes, “informal discussion turned to ways to make it appear that Israel was not starting a war when in fact that was precisely what it was doing.” Moshe Dayan, who would soon become Israel’s Minister of Defense, ordered military censorship, saying, “For the first twenty-four hours, we have to be the victims.” Dayan admitted in his memoirs, “We had taken the first step in the war with Egypt.” Nevertheless, Israel’s UN Ambassador Gideon Rafael reported to the Security Council that Israel had acted in self-defense.

“The hostilities were attacks by the Israeli air force on multiple Egyptian airfields, aimed at demolishing Egyptian aircraft on the ground,” according to Quigley. On June 5, the CIA told President Lyndon B. Johnson, “Israel fired the first shots today.”

 Article 51 of the UN Charter authorizes states to act in collective self-defense after another member state suffers an armed attack. Although Jordan and Syria responded to the Israeli attacks on Egypt, they – and Egypt – inflicted little damage to Israel. By the afternoon of June 5, Israel “had virtually destroyed the air war capacity of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria,” Quigley notes. “The IDF achieved the ‘utter defeat’ of the Egyptian army on June 7 and 8.”

 The United States empowers Israel

 U.S. Secretary of State Dean Rusk said that U.S. officials were “angry as hell, when the Israelis launched their surprise offensive.” Yet, Quigley notes, “Israel’s gamble paid off in that the United States would not challenge Israel’s story about how the fighting started. Even though it quickly saw through the story, the White House kept its analysis to itself.”

 Although Security Council resolution 242, passed in 1967, refers to “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war” and calls for “withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict,” Israel continues to occupy the Palestinian territories it acquired in the Six-Day War.

 Israel has abandoned its claim that Egypt attacked first. Yet the international community considers that Israel acted in lawful anticipatory self-defense. Quigley explains how the UN Charter only permits the use of armed force after an armed attack on a UN member state; it does not authorize anticipatory, preventive, or preemptive self-defense.

 “The UN did not condemn Israel in 1967 for its attack on Egypt,” Antonio Cassese of the University of Florence explained. Quigley attributes this to Cold War politics, as the USSR supported Egypt. “For the United States in particular, Israel’s success was a Cold War defeat for the USSR. The United States was hardly prepared to condemn Israel after it performed this service.”

The United States continues to support Israel by sending it $3 billion per year in military aid, even when Israel attacks Gaza with overwhelming firepower, as it did in the summer of 2014, killing 2,100Palestinians (mostly civilians). Sixty-six Israeli soldiers and seven civilians were killed.

If Israel were to mount an attack on Iran, the United States would invariably support Israel against Iran and any Arab country that goes to Iran’s defense. Indeed, Netanyahu intoned to Congress, “may Israel and America always stand together.”

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

President Bashar al-Assad gave an interview to Portuguese State Television, RTP,  the following is the full text:

Question 1: In a few days, it will be 4 years since the protests began in Syria against the government of Bashar al-Assad. From then on it has been a massacre. More than 220 thousand people have died, and there are 4 million displaced people. The arrival of Daesh (Islamic State) has made the situation more grim. For this reasons, it’s important to speak to a key figure in all this process. Today, he gives his first interview ever to a Portuguese media outlet. The Syrian President, Bashar Al Assad.

How do you describe your country today, Mr. President?

President Assad: Let me start by commenting on the number that you mentioned in your introduction, about the number of victims in Syria, which is 200,000, that’s been mentioned in the Western media recently, 220,000. That number is exaggerated. Always the West has exaggerated the numbers in Syria. Actually, it is not about whether they are hundreds of thousands or tens of thousands. Victims are victims, killing is killing, and terrorism is terrorism. Actually, it’s not about being a mere number represented on a graph, on a chart, like a spreadsheet. It’s about families that lost members, lost dear ones, lost relatives. It’s a human disaster we have in Syria.

This crisis has affected every part of Syria, every Syrian citizen regardless of his affiliation or allegiance. It affected his livelihood, food, medicaments, medical care, basic requirements like education. Hundreds of hospitals were destroyed, thousands of schools were destroyed, tens of thousands or maybe hundreds of thousands of students don’t go to school. All that will create the fertile habitat and good incubator for terrorism and extremism to grow. But despite all this hardship, the Syrians are determined to continue fighting terrorism, defending their country, and defying hegemony.

Question 2: Syria is not much of a country nowadays. The Syrian Army does not control all the borders, you have international coalition flying in your skies. On the grounds there are different entities. Is Syria as we have known it lost or finished?

President Assad: You cannot talk about a finished Syria when the people are unified behind their government and their army and fighting terrorism and still have institutions working. We still have subsidies, we still pay salaries, we pay the salaries even in some areas under the control of the terrorists themselves. We still have the-

Question 3: You send money to…?

President Assad: Exactly, we send salaries. Because they are employees, and have their own salaries. We send vaccines to those areas for the children.

Question 4: So you cooperate with the Islamic State?

President Assad: No, no. We don’t. We send them, and we deal with the civilians who are the mediators with the terrorists, or the militants. But at the end, all these basic requirements reach those areas. So, we don’t have “Syria is finished” and we don’t have a failed state, actually. But if you want to talk about something different you mentioned in your question, which is the breaching of our airspace illegally by the alliance airplanes and by terrorists supported or working as proxy to regional countries-

Question 5: And borders.

President Assad: This is a failure of the international system, this international system that’s been represented by the United Nations and the Security Council, and that is supposed to solve the problems and protect the sovereignty of different countries and prevent war. Actually, it has failed in doing so. So, what we have now is a failed United Nations; failed to protect international citizens including in Syria, Libya, Yemen, and in other countries.

Question 6: But you also failed. The Syrian Army also fails, because a lot of Christians have been abducted recently in the north.

The role of the Syrian Army, like any national army, is to protect every single citizen

President Assad: Actually, the role of the Syrian Army, like any national army, is to protect every single citizen, regardless of his affiliation, religion, sect, ethnicities, and so on. If you have mentioned this, I would say yes, we would like to and we wish that the Syrian Army would be able to help every Syrian since the beginning of the crisis. But the main obstacle why the Syrian army couldn’t do so, and as part of this couldn’t help the Christians a few days ago that have been kidnapped by ISIS, is the unlimited support that’s been offered to those terrorists by the Western and regional countries.

Question 7: What we have seen until now is several attempts to have a peace conference that all have failed. What we have until now, it’s talks about talks. What can break this deadlock, Mr. President?

President Assad: Do you mean in Geneva?

Question 8: Geneva 1, Geneva 2, the Russian initiative was a fiasco.

President Assad: The solution is political, but if you want to sit with someone or a party that doesn’t influence the situation on the ground, it’s going to be talk for the sake of talk, that’s correct. We didn’t choose the other party in Geneva. It was chosen by the West, by Turkey, by Saudi Arabia, by Qatar. It wasn’t a Syrian opposition that we made dialogue with. You’re right; if you want to make dialogue, you have to make it with Syrian opposition, Syrian partner, Syrian people who represents Syrians in Syria, not who represent other countries. So, what happened in Geneva wasn’t the model that we have to follow.

Question 9: But, what you are saying, is that an acceptable opposition for you, or…?

President Assad: Of course, any opposition that works for the Syrian, to defend its country, represents Syrians or part of the Syrian population…

Question 10: Within the framework of the Syrian state?

President Assad: No, no. Any opposition who works for the Syrian people. It’s not related to the state, it’s not related to the government.

Question 11: So, you’re excluding the Syrian National Coalition?

President Assad: I don’t exclude anyone as long as he’s Syrian. I’m talking about criteria. Anyone, or any party, who meet with these criteria, we can consider him as opposition. If the coalition is formed in the West or any other country, it’s not considered Syrian. It doesn’t represent the Syrian people. The Syrian people won’t accept him.

Question 12: But are you able to discuss with them or not?

President Assad: Actually, what we have followed since the beginning of the crisis, we didn’t leave any stone unturned. We tried every possible solution in order not to allow anyone to say “if they didn’t do this, that would have happened.” So, we discussed even with the coalition, although we know in advance that it doesn’t represent Syrians, it represents the countries that formed it. And second, it doesn’t have any influence on the ground in Syria, even with the militants, even with the terrorists, even with anyone who is involved in the problem within Syria.

Question 13: So you’re saying that the “Free Syrian Army” doesn’t have influence on the ground? That only al-Nusra and Islamic State have influence on the ground?

President Assad: Even Obama said that, he said that the moderate opposition is a fantasy. Most of the world now knows, what they called moderate opposition, they called it “Free Syrian Army,” they have so many other names, all of them are fantasy. Actually, who is controlling the terrorism arena in Syria are either ISIS or al-Nusra, mainly, and some other smaller factions.

Question 14: So, in the end, the solution for Syria is a military solution, and not a negotiated peace?

President Assad: No, actually, what we have been doing recently, as long as we don’t have a party to make negotiations with who can influence the militants on the ground, we went to make reconciliation with the militants in some areas, and that worked, and this is a very realistic political solution. Actually, that is how you exclude the military solution, by discussing with them making a safe area.

Question 15: About the discussions, you have Geneva 1, Geneva 2, the Russian initiative, in all of that there are not, how shall I say, things in common. Is there anything, any issue that you know it is possible, why not start with them? Is there anything in common between you and them?

President Assad: If you want to talk about what happened in Moscow, it’s different from what happened in Geneva, because they invited some of the opposition, because we can’t talk about one opposition; we have many different oppositions. You don’t put them in one basket. You have some of them represent Syrians, some of them they don’t represent anyone, and so on. So, we have common things with some of the opposition that were invited to Moscow, so this is just the beginning of the dialogue. The dialogue may take a long time. But at the end, if you want to not talk about dialogue, talk about the end results on the ground, the question is, who of those parties that we call opposition, who of them represent Syrian people and can influence the militants on the ground in order to save Syrian blood? That is the question. We don’t have an answer yet, because they have to prove, we don’t have to prove. We know we have our army, the army will obey the government, if the government gives an order, it will follow the order. But what about the others? Who is going to control the terrorists? That is the question.

Question 16: You pointed out that some countries, like France, don’t want a peace conference to succeed. Why is that?

President Assad: Actually, you have two points, or two reasons, let’s say. First one is not related only to the French; it’s related to every official who is complicit and involved in the propaganda and the aggression against Syria during the last four years. It’s about the end of this war will unmask those officials in front of their public opinion, in a country where there is public opinion. I don’t mean Saudi Arabia and Qatar, where there is no public opinion anyway. But generally, they will be unmasked about the question “what is the revolution that you mentioned, that you talked about? How could a revolution collapse or fail if you have the support of the West, the support of regional countries, all this money and armaments and so on, and you supposed that he’s a dictator who is killing his good people, so the people are against him, regional countries are against him, and the West is against him, and he succeeded.It’s one of two options: you’re either lying to us, or you’re talking about a superman. Because you don’t a superman, he’s a regular president, it means he could withstand for four years only because he has the public support. It doesn’t mean full public support, one hundred percent, or absolute public support, but definitely have support from a part, a large amount of the Syrian people.” So, this is a lie that the public opinion in the West and in other countries will ask the officials about. What about the Arab spring that turned out to be – instead of budding flowers – blood and killing and destruction? Is that the spring that you talked about? This is one reason.

The other reason is more specific towards France. Not limited, but more specific, let’s say. It’s about the financial relation between France and the Gulf states. Maybe because they have financial difficulties, I don’t know why. But this financial relations, and I don’t have any proof whether this is about the vested interest of some officials in France or if it’s about public interest, I don’t have any proof, but at the end, these financial interests push those officials in France to exchange their values of liberty and fraternity and democracy, all the things that they used to preach, the exchange those values for petrodollars. So now those French officials and some others in the West, they don’t practice what they preach anymore.

Question 17: But the tide seems to change a little bit. You had French MPs here. It was an organized visit, or it came as a surprise to you?

President Assad: No, no. It wasn’t a surprise, because it wasn’t the first delegation to come to Syria.

Question 18: French delegation?

President Assad: French and from other countries. Different kinds of delegations, activists, mediators, some officials came to deal with us under the table, not-

Question 19: This was organized with your government and…?

President Assad: Yes, it was officially organized, and they had a schedule when they came. It was weeks before, it wasn’t a surprise.

Question 20: With French diplomats as well or not?

President Assad: We had the impression, and it’s a strong impression, that most of the government, the main officials in the government, they know about it in advance, and they didn’t oppose.

Question 21: So, did they send you any message?

President Assad: No, there wasn’t a message, and they came to see the reality on the ground, and I think that’s the reflection – not just this delegation; the delegations that came to Syria recently from different countries, especially from the West, is a reflection of not believing, not taking in with the narrative, the insidious narrative about Syria in the West by their officials. They want to know the truth, I mean it’s a kind of suspicion about the whole propaganda in the West.

Question 22: So, in a sense, the tide is changing because probably there are some people thinking that even though it’s a bad solution, it’s better to deal with Bashar al-Assad than to deal with the worse solution which is going to be the Islamic State.

President Assad: I don’t think the general public thinks about the second part, it’s about the first part, about what’s happening and how everything we said in Syria at the beginning of the crisis they say later. They said it’s peaceful, we said it’s not peaceful, they’ve killing – these demonstrators, that they called them peaceful demonstrators – have killed policemen. Then it became militants. They said yes, it’s militants. We said it’s militants, it’s terrorism. They said no, it’s not terrorism. Then when they say it’s terrorism, we say it’s Al Qaeda, they say no, it’s not Al Qaeda. So, whatever we said, they say later. That created a lot of suspicion in the West. They want to come to understand this part. Why are you saying whatever Syria was saying in the beginning? Of course, in the West, the propagandists, whether officials or media, the added something only to the real story; that ISIS and al-Nusra was created of Assad, or it’s because of his policy, and so on.

Question 23: But you freed a lot of jihadists from the prisons that went to ISIS, to the Islamic State.

President Assad: No, that’s before the crisis. They were sentenced for a few years, and when the sentence ended, they left prison. We didn’t. We never did. So no, we have institutions, we have a judicial system in Syria.

Question 24: Anyway, Europe is facing more and more threats of terrorism linked to jihadist movements, some of them with connections here in Syria, I mean Al Qaeda or the Islamic State. And the question here: is Syria able to help the European countries in fighting these threats of terrorism?

President Assad: This is like a building; you cannot build a building without having the foundation, so what is the foundation that you need in this this case? First, you need officials in Europe to have the will to fight terrorism. This is something that we don’t have to this moment. Second thing, to have prudent policies. We cannot have arrogant, stubborn officials that only adopted egotistical policies. Third, which is very important, fighting terrorism should be a value, should become a value. It cannot be a sort of opportunism, like because now you are suffering in Europe from terrorism, you’re scared, you want to fight terrorism in this region. What about a few years ago? You didn’t suffer.

Question 25: But can you help the…?

President Assad: If they don’t help themselves first, we cannot. If they help themselves, we are ready to help. If you build this foundation, if you have this foundation, you can go to the building. This is where you can talk about how to integrate the community in your country, how to have exchange of information with intelligence, you have many ways. Of course we can, but you need to have the foundation in order to succeed.

Question 26: Mr. President, let me quote, “the Syrian people aspire more freedom, justice, human rights. They aspire to more plurality and democracy.” Your Foreign Minister said this in the Geneva conference. However, the state of Syria is perceived differently in the West. Till now, it’s perceived as brutal, ruthless, dictatorial, and it’s not just a question of image, so how is it possible to convince the people that…?

President Assad: This is illogical and unrealistic, because how can somebody who kills his people and oppresses his people be supported by the same people? How? Tell me about this contradiction. Look at it from the outside. Is it palatable, can you understand? It doesn’t.

Question 27: But, Mr. President, the reality is that if you allow me to go backwards, and try to-

President Assad: Before the crisis.

Question 28: Let me just try to… you started four years ago with peaceful demonstrators that were repressed, then you are blamed, your government is blamed, for a lot of allegations of human rights violations in your own ranks, repression. You have the Cesar reported, defected from the army, with photos of massacres, of torture of the opposition. You have allegations that you have used chemical weapons. You have allegations of using the barrel bombs till now, and so, the human rights reports watcher about Syria, they are not very good for you, your government, and the Syrian Army.

President Assad: You are talking about massive propaganda for four years. We cannot answer every one in one interview, but I will say the demonstrations never were peaceful, because in the first week, we lost many of our policemen. How? How could a peaceful demonstration kill a policeman? It wasn’t peaceful, so, this is the beginning of the lies, it’s the beginning of the propaganda.

Question 29: All lies, all the time? Four years of lies, Mr. President?

President Assad: Exactly, that’s what happened. Because, how do you have ISIS? Suddenly? You don’t have ISIS suddenly, you don’t have armaments suddenly, you don’t have al-Nusra Front suddenly. It’s a long process, you can’t have it just in few weeks. Suddenly, everybody is talking about ISIS. Go back to our statements from the very beginning, and you can see that the evolution of the events was going in that regard from the very beginning, and we said that. They didn’t want to listen; they wanted to listen to their statements.That’s what I say. It’s impossible to only tell lies in the West. How can you tell the truth if you don’t have an embassy in this country? How can you tell the truth if you listen to Qatar and Al-Jazeera that were paying the money to those terrorists?

Question 30: So you blame Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia for being the backbone of the jihadists? You have the proof?

President Assad: Very simple; what is the ideology of ISIS? What is the ideology? It’s the Wahhabi ideology. Do we have it in Syria? Do we have it in Morocco? In the western Arab world? Actually, it existed in Saudi Arabia.

Question 31: It’s the same as in Saudi Arabia.

President Assad: Saudi Arabia and Qatar. This is the Wahhabi ideology. Second, Erdogan is Muslim Brotherhood. He’s a very staunch advocate of the Muslim Brotherhood ideology which was the first organization in the history of Islam, in the beginning of the last century, who promoted violence in implementing political agenda. So, you have those, and that’s enough. Going back to the Western media, in the Western media, and the American media in particular, they say 80% of the terrorists are coming from Turkey. You have another realistic one, what you called in your media Kobani which is called Ayn al-Arab. It took four months to be liberated, in spite of the attack of the alliance. Why? Actually, a similar city, the same size, and the same terrain, it took the Syrian Army two to three weeks. Why? Because it was supported logistically through Turkey on the border. They send them everything, armaments, all kinds of support. The recent event when Turkey-

Question 32: Did you support the Kurds? Did the Syrian Army support the Kurds?

President Assad: Of course.

Question 33: Because they are also fighting the Syrian Army.

President Assad: Before the issue of Kobani. Before that, we did. Before Kobani, we supported the Kurds, because it didn’t start there. It started before, and before the alliance started supporting the Kurds, we did. We sent them armaments. Of course, they’re going to say no, because the Americans said “say no, and we will help you.” If they say yes, the Americans will be angry, just to be cautious, to take precautions about any statement they may say now that we didn’t, we have all the documents about the armaments that’s been sent to them, beside the air raids and so on and the bombardments and everything else.

Question 34: New Syrian troops are being trained in the framework of the “Free Syrian Army” supported by the Americans to fight against the Islamic State. Do you think you will have to fight them as well?

President Assad: You know, and I know, and everybody knows that those 5,000 were announced by the Americans, and this this is my proof that the Western officials don’t have the will to fight terrorism. That is the proof. I told you, the base, the foundation, is to have the will. It means they don’t have the will. If Obama said the moderate opposition is fantasy, so who do you send the money and armaments to? Reality. You don’t send to the fantasy, you send it to the reality, and the reality are the extremists. And those 5,000 are going to be another support to those terrorists, because the same grassroots of the organization that’s been supported by the West, by money and armaments, they joined ISIS with their armaments and with themselves.

Question 35: Two questions to finish this interview. This is your first interview with a journalist from a Portuguese-speaking country. Do you expect anything from these countries?

President Assad: I don’t expect; I hope. I hope the first thing, which is very simple, just for the officials to tell their people the truth, the unbiased truth, without any preconceptions. Just tell your people the truth, and they’ll be able to analyze it. Second, we hope from Portugal as part of the EU to look at the Czech Republic. A small country, ten millions, but it was very wise in dealing with the crisis in Syria. They have their embassy, they can tell what’s going on on the ground, because isolationism is not a policy. When you isolate yourself, when you try to isolate a country by removing your ambassadors or closing your embassies, you isolate yourself from the reality. You shouldn’t isolate yourself, as Europe, from reality. We hope can play that role in the EU to shift this trend that started with the American administration of Bush; when they have a problem with somebody or some area, instead of being more involved, they cut their relation with it. This is not policy.

Question 36: Just one last question, Mr. President. You’re a key player for any possible peace deal. Don’t you feel sometimes doubts, anguish, with this tremendous responsibility? Don’t you feel what history might say about you?

President Assad: Of course, this is the most important thing that any politician or leader must think about, and it’s about, first of all, about having good will and good intention to help your country. Whether you do mistakes or you do right, you do wrong; this is not the issue. People will judge you by your will, by how much you were related to your country, related to your country, how much you are a patriot, not a puppet or a marionette that’s being moved from the outside. This is the most important thing; how much you do, what’s the best you can do to protect your country and protect your people.

Question 37: Thank you, Mr. President, for this interview, and thank you for being with RTP.

President Assad: Thank you.

My name is Paul Kiernan and I am a resident of Tallaght, Dublin, Republic of Ireland. I was politically arrested on Monday 16th February 2015 and face a possible charge of false imprisonment (which has a maximum sentence of 15 years imprisonment) of our Tanaiste Joan Burton (Labour party leader, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Social Protection). I am 1 of 23 people arrested (with a reported 41 due to be arrested) so far which include men and women aged in their 40,s, 50,s and 60,s and children aging from 12-18 years old. There was also 1 TD (MP) and 3 local councilors from the AAA (Anti Austerity Alliance) arrested. At this very moment there are 4 people imprisoned and 1 which will be when he returns from holiday with sentences of 28 days and 56 days for breaching a court injunction which banned them from been within 20 meters from Irish Water Meter Installers. These arrests and imprisonments and others taken place throughout Ireland are taken place against people that are taken part in civil disobedience against a corrupt and inept political system and government.

As you may know there has been a number of national protest marches and many more local marches in the recent months against the water charges which have been attended by hundreds of thousands but what you may not know is that the water charges is the straw that broke the camels back and that although we march under the 1 banner, we march/protest for many reasons. Since the bank collapse and bail out of bond holders (largest fraud in Irish and one of the largest in world history) our nation has endured years of austerity measures that has seen an increase in drug addiction, homicides, tiger kidnappings, aggravated assaults, sexual assaults, aggravated burglaries, armed robberies, serious gang crimes and other serious and minor crimes in cities, towns and rural Ireland.

Despite this we have seen the closure of over 100 Garda (police) stations throughout rural Ireland and a reduction in the force. At the same time this is happening we see Garda been used in high numbers as security for the likes of the Corrab Shell to Sea gas line and civil disobedience protests where they assaulted numerous protesters and at water meter installations throughout the country. They have been used to politically arrest many water protesters with as many as 10 officers at a time dispatched to preform the arrest warrants with dawn raids. They are also used to arrest citizens (quite often mothers) for the likes of non-payment of Television licence (which is a civil matter) who then face days in prison at a far higher cost to the tax payer than the licence itself while corrupt politicians, business people and bankers walk free.

With austerity we have seen a rise in the likes of Income Taxes, D.I.R.T (Deposit Interest Retention Tax) and C.A.T. (Capital Acquisitions Tax, Inheritance) Tax, C.G.T. (Capital Gains Tax), Carbon Tax,  Motor Tax and the introduction of new taxes such as Property Tax, U.S.C. (Universal Social Charge) Tax, Air Travel Tax, Credit Card and Cheques Tax, various Stamp Duties and the introduction and rise of charges such as Banking charges, Bin charges and Plastic Bag Levy. Vehicle owners have also seen an increase in fuel costs, parking fees, parking fines, clamping fees and speeding fines which raise many millions yearly.

Despite the massive rise in taxes and their intake we have seen a sharp decline in Social Services for the most vulnerable in our society suffer with cuts to the likes Children Allowance, Fuel Allowance, Lone Parents Allowance, Live Alone Allowance, Old Age Pension, Job Seekers Benefit/Allowance (with the under 25s taken a 40%+ cut) and Carers Allowance. With all these cuts we have an ever increasing need for charity with a huge increase in families seeking help from the likes of The St Vincent de Paul for food and bill payments. The health system is also in disarray and has seen a sharp rise (record numbers) of patients on hospital trolleys awaiting admission and patients are waiting longer for appointments with consultants and such. The cost of G.P. and hospital admissions for non medical card holders have risen and the number of people eligible for Medical Cards have been slashed and people with long term/fatal illnesses/diseases and people with disabilities have had their cards taken away and find themselves going through an appeals system to have them renewed. We have seen the introduction of Emergency call out charges, Prescription charges and the end of the Funeral grant. While we see a rise in self harm and depression we see the government cut funding to charities like Child Line and the Samaritians.

Rural Ireland has also paid a high price with a rise in violent crime such as home invasions as the many Garda stations close but they have also seen the closures of hospitals (with some also closing for the evening shifts), closures of banks, post offices and the end or reduction of bus services that are vital in linking rural Ireland with the larger towns and cities. Education in Ireland has also suffered with the reduction of school teachers which has lead to an increase in class sizes particularly in the rural areas. Despite Ireland’s large exports of dairy and meat the farmers rely on EU hand outs as they can’t get a fair price for their milk, cattle or poultry and have suffered for many years now with many deaths from accidents which has lead to the introduction of new safety measures which most simply can’t afford. Our fisheries has also suffered under the EU fishing rotas which sees Irish fisher men sail to sea and watch huge foreign trawlers fish in our waters and make billions from them.

Please note that everything above is only a small part of a very large list of hardships our people have suffered over the last 7 years or so. These are all due to the criminal activities of elite bankers and the negligence of a corrupt and inept government in the bank collapse and bail out here. We face decades of poverty and debt that has nothing to do with us as bond holders have their lost bets paid out as winners. These same banks which received billions from the state are now involved in the highest number of repossessions of property, rise in homelessness and emigration since the great famine. At the same time the banks have reduced the number of loans to small businesses, farms and home owners and as businesses go bankrupt, people lose jobs and banks take homes they then sell them to the foreign and domestic elite who then rent them for large amounts that most can’t afford. While the people suffer the politicians (the same politicians that say protesters are the sinister element, the enemy, akin to fascists and I.S.I.S. terrorists in their speeches) and corrupt bankers walk free with huge wages and pensions and bond holders take their riches.

We are in the middle of a campaign that seeks to end all the wrongs on our people and nation and we seek international recognition and media coverage as our own media is mostly owned by Irish Tax exile (shady billionaire business man) Denis O’Brien or the government/public funded RTE which have been constantly bias against our movement. We would be delighted if you could find a way to cover through articles/broadcasts our future marches/ peaceful protests and possibly forward this email to like minded media partners or such as we have few international contacts. If needed we can have freelance film recorders and photographers forward footage directly to whom ever agrees.

My arrest

It was Monday 16th February and my wife, son and I had got up 6 am as we were due to visit the Royal Victorian Eye and Ear hospital for an appointment for my son as he has Glaucoma in his eyes. 1 eye is worse than the other and he had a procedure last year to stop it getting worse and we were told at the time that if it gets worse he could loose his eye in a few years time and require a transplant. Although my son is 21 years old he has A.D.H.D. , O.C.D , has been suffering panic attacks and has been refereed to a specialist for possible diagnoses of Autism or Asperger’s . My sons appointment was at 845 am and we were due to leave at 715 am to drive through rush hour traffic.

At 710 am my wife saw a number of Gardai come into the garden and make their way to the door at which point having been informed I proceeded to get ready for my arrest. I got my wife to record my arrest and as I approached the door I shouted up to my son to inform him I wouldn’t be able to attend his appointment. I opened the door to find a number of Garda  awaiting me. I explained my sons situation to them and was asked if there was someone other than me to bring my son to which I replied my wife was also going but that she also attended a special needs school and had learning disabilities and that it was important for me to be there are certain things they struggle with.

The arresting officer told me this would be taken into account and we proceeded to the local Garda station in Tallaght. While making our way to the station the Garda in the car asked more about my son and I explained and I also talked about myself and the fact that I had been working for over 10 years in my community starting and running children and adult football teams, running a sports club for a local youth club, taken part in my local estate management, volunteering with the local homeless services and running charity events. I explained that I wasn’t the only one arrested that has worked hard in their communities for no personal gain. The Garda treated me very well but believe my circumstances were taken into account and got the feeling that they didn’t want to be arresting us. At one point two of them told me they didn’t agree with water charges either which is something protesters have heard many times.

I was held and questioned and then released 4 hours later and was the quickest of all those arrested to be released, which again I believe was due to my circumstances but others were treated more harshly after their arrest. My wife and son were 45 minutes late for the appointment as they had to travel by bus and foot but my son was seen by the doctors and returned with good news as his eyes haven’t got any worse. I can ask others that were arrested, those that were victims of Garda brutality or those imprisoned to give statements on their situations if needed. I like many others arrested for the Joan Burton protests had spent the entire week before my arrest protesting outside local Garda stations against the Political policing and arrests and had made it known on TV and radio that we were there if they wanted us. We would have expected that maybe an officer would come out and make arrangements for those waiting to be arrested to come down at agreed times so to save man hours for the force. This never happened and as many as 10 officers at a time were sent to arrest us (4 or 5 most mornings) at 6 or 7 am , even the children who missed a day of school.

There is a double march/protest this Saturday 7th March at 1 pm at R.T.E. studios in Donnybrook, Dublin 4 and then a march/car convoy at 4 pm from the G.P.O. O’Connell St to Mount Joy prison where a candlelit vigil will take place for the politically jailed and arrested protesters. With the amount of positive feedback we have received we are confident these marches will have an attendance of over 10,000 with potentially many more and we have arranged for the RTE event to be Streamed live.
https://www.facebook.com/events/800086770083211/

There is a national march on the 21st March run by Right2Water in Dublin at 2 pm, previous marches have been attended by hundreds of thousands and will be expected to have the same or more again.

https://www.facebook.com/events/887346754620142/

There will be many more protests planned in the future.
I can be contacted by email at [email protected] or through phone 00353 (0) 876280835

For the first time in public, though practically the entire world assumed it, an official from The IMF has admitted that the various Greek bailouts were not for The Greeks at all… “They gave money to save German and French banks, not Greece,” Paolo Batista, one of the Executive Directors of International Monetary Fund told Greek private Alpha TV on Tuesday. As KeepTalkingGreece reports, Batista then went on to strongly criticized not only the euro zone and the European Central Bank but also the IMF and the Fund’s managing Director Christine Lagarde for defending Europe much too much…

Oops! “The Greek issues were not the best handled by The IMF… They put too much of a bruden on Greece and not enough of a burden on Greece’s creditors”

Batista thenurged Greece to directly negotiate with the IMF and favored the restructuring of the Greek debt that is been hold by the European partners.

Source: Keep Talking Greece

If ever there was a geo-political bombshell, this is it.

Twelve years after the illegal and inhumane invasion of Iraq based on lies, fabrication and downright arrogance, 6 years after the launch of the Chilcot inquiry, comes today the following allegation. For those who have followed the Iraq story, a must read.

HUMAN RIGHTS LAW RULES CHILCOT INQUIRY INVALID

SIR LAWRENCE FREEDMAN IS NOT IMPARTIAL

To  Sir Richard Ottaway,

Chair of Parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee

House of Commons

SW1A OAA

28 FEB 2015

Dear Sir,

Following the meeting of the Foreign Affairs Committee on  4th Feb 2015 concerning the Chilcot Inquiry, which was unsatisfactory in not establishing a completion date, I shall be grateful if you will investigate a much graver matter concerning the validity of the Inquiry as a whole. That is its failure to be impartial within European Human Rights Law.

At 9 am on  the 18th of January 2010, one hour before Jonathan Powell was due to give evidence to the Chilcot Inquiry, Sir John Chilcot received the following letter from Sir Laurence Freedman,

“Jonathan Powell will be giving evidence today.  I thought it would be helpful to set out, for the record, my involvement in Prime Minister Tony Blair’s speech, delivered to the Economic Club of Chicago on 24 April 1999 on ‘The doctrine of the International Community.

I was asked by Jonathan Powell to submit ideas for this speech on about 12 April 1999 and I submitted the attached memo on April 16th.  I believe I discussed it with Jonathan Powell early the following week, but I made no more submissions.”

Now of these submissions there were, in fact, twelve paragraphs included in Blair’s speech verbatim.

One paragraph of the memo of the suggestions from Professor Freedman was as follows:-

“Many of our problems have been caused by two dangerous and ruthless men – Saddam Hussein and Slobodan Milosevich.  Both have been prepared to wage vicious campaigns against sections of their own community, and Saddam Hussein even occupied a neighboring country.  As a result of these destructive policies both have brought calamity on their own peoples.  Instead of enjoying its oil wealth Iraq has been reduced to poverty, with political life stultified through fear.”

The following are extracts from’THE BLAIR DOCTRINE’ delivered by Blair to the Chicago Economic Club on  April 22 1999,

” Many of our problems have been caused by two dangerous and ruthless men – Saddam Hussein and Slobodan.  Both have been prepared to wage vicious campaigns against sections of their own community, and Saddam Hussein even occupied a neighboring country.  As a result of these destructive policies both have brought calamity on their own peoples.  Instead of enjoying its oil wealth Iraq has been reduced to poverty, with political life stultified through fear.”

The wording, in  turn, is reminiscent of statements two years earlier to be found in  The Project for a New American Century, PNAC, written by Wolfowitz, Perle, Rumsfeld, Bolton, and Cheney. ( All committed zionists,  as is Freedman.)  Freedman must have been aware of the PNAC, and may, as a war strategist, have met its authors and even contributed to its ideas, if not the actual words. Recently, in 2010, he did indeed share a conference platform with Richard Perle,  again compromising his role as an impartial member of the Chilcot Inquiry during its progress from 20069 and 2015.

The Blair Doctrine  was delivered by Blair in Chicago two years before Bush was elected as President, and eleven months before 9/11.  Blair had of course been groomed in America as a young, charismatic, potential leader in the late 1980s and early 1990s with Fulbright International Travel Scholarships, along with Karzai and Gordon Brown.( Tony Benn was convinced Blair was a CIA instrument in smashing the Labour party.)   The PNAC  push to deal with Saddam Hussein had come long before Bush  was elected President.  As Sir Christopher Meyer said to the Chilcot Inquiry , Blair was ” a  firm believer” in removing Saddam Hussein long before 9/11.  In Blair’s own words …”I had a vision … greater than Iraq , greater than the American Alliance, greater than the greatness of our history.”   There was no stopping him . ( cf ” A Journey “p 500 – 501).

Sir Jeremy Greenstock, who gave evidence to the Chilcot Inquiry on its second day, closed his remarks as he was leaving, ” in our conversations  ( a clever word) I was surprised you did not mention Israel.” Certainly the PNAC authors were very concerned  to stop Saddam paying the families of Palestinian  suicide bombers,  as was Freedman.

The second part of my letter deals with the possible deception by Chilcot himself, and, according to European Human Rights Law, the lack of validity of the Inquiry because it can not be considered  impartial.   This lack of validity will cause extreme distress for Military Families Against War, as it is contrary to the protection given by European Human Rights Law to enable those affected to be confident that they can obtain an unbiased hearing.   Rose Gentle will be staggered that she will never obtain justice for her dead son because the Chilcot Inquiry is rubbish. Nor will all the Iraqis ever be compensated whose relatives and  children have been killed, maimed and psychologically damaged in the wreckage of a country in  civil war. The  fact that the  barbarian acts of Lindsey England with her cigarette pointing at the penises of naked Iraqis  at Abu Ghraib or the sexual torture ( “work them hard”)  in Camp Bread Basket will never be exposed in the International Criminal Court along with The Leaders of the war ( whose actions lead to all others), will be a stimulus to continuous violence in the future, as the Joint Intelligence Committee prophesied in the year  2000.

When in a letter of  of 3 March 2011  I challenged Sir John about the Freedman Letter, his secretary  replied that he had known about this “a long time before”.  “and had full confidence in the balance of his team”.

But how long before ? (Cicero in a speech in praise of Pompey used this same legal ambiguity)   Was it 24 hours before? Was it written in panic ?

Was it  2 months before? or at the commencement of his Inquiry in Nov 2009?

Now if it was at the commencement of the Inquiry how was  Chilcot able to say, with a straight face,   that :- 

“We come to this task with open minds and a commitment to review the evidence objectively. Each member of the committee is independent and non-partisan. We are determined to be thorough, rigorous, fair and frank to enable us to form impartial and evidence-based judgements on all aspects of the issues, including the arguments about the legality of the conflict.”

Sir John also made clear that the Inquiry team would be critical if they felt it necessary.

“The Inquiry is not a court of law and nobody is on trial,” he said. “But I want to make something absolutely clear. This Committee will not shy away from making criticism. If we find that mistakes were made, that there were issues which could have been dealt with better, we will say so frankly.”

“We are all committed to ensuring that our proceedings are as open as possible because we recognise that is one of the ways in which the public can have confidence in the integrity and independence of the inquiry process.

How was he able to allow the official Inquiry Biography of Freedman, (which I quote below) still to omit in 2009,  and still go on omitting in 2015,  without alteration, the fact that Sir Lawrence Freedman  was Foreign Affairs Policy Adviser to Blair between 1997 and 2007.

Official Chilcot Inquiry Biography Freedman

Sir Lawrence Freedman has been Professor of War Studies at King’s College London since 1982. He became head of the School of Social Science and Public Policy at King’s in 2000 and was appointed Vice-Principal in 2003.

He was educated at Whitley Bay Grammar School and the Universities of Manchester, York and Oxford. Before joining King’s he held research appointments at Nuffield College Oxford, IISS and the Royal Institute of International Affairs. He was appointed Official Historian of the Falklands Campaign in 1997.

Professor Freedman has written extensively on nuclear strategy and the cold war, as well as commentating regularly on contemporary security issues. Among his books are Kennedy’s Wars: Berlin, Cuba, Laos and Vietnam (2000), The Evolution of Nuclear Strategy (3rd edition 2004), Deterrence (2005), the two volume Official History of the Falklands Campaign (second edition 2007) and an Adelphi Paper on The Transformation in Strategic Affairs (2004). A Choice of Enemies: America confronts the Middle East, won the 2009 Lionel Gelber Prize and Duke of Westminster Medal for Military Literature. His most recent book is Strategy: A History (2013).

If it was at the commencement in Nov 2009  that Chilcot knew of Freedman’s role in composing Blair’s 1999 speech, why was the Official website Biography not updated   to read more accurately as follows :-

Sir Lawrence Freedman was appointed a Privy Councilor  in 2009 on account of his services

as Foreign Affairs advisor to  PM Tony Blair from 1997 to 2007.  Freedman contributed twelve crucial paragraphs, including removing Saddam Hussein, to “The Blair Doctrine” delivered to The Chicago Economic Club in April 1999, a year and a half before 9/11.

Freedman is closely associated with the authors of the Project for the New American Century of 1998. He has also established a Company with the MOD to train military and businesses in  military strategy

I understand that while the Chilcot Inquiry has been in progress  Freedman has been Professor of War Studies at Kings College London and has  recently supervised a Phd study at Exeter on Israeli counter terrorist strategy  and IDF War strategy.  He has written a number of Papers on Israeli IDF anti terrorist  strategy.  He has written papers on the value of nuclear deterrence. He has set up a private company  Simulstat with close association with the MOD teaching strategy to military and business at Cranfield and Shrivenham.. Such a close association  with the MOD would make it hard for him to be critical of the MOD .

As Professor of War Studies he must know the Nuremberg Protocols of 1946 and the 40 Blue Books produced from Courtroom 600 Nuremberg and that planning and executing an aggressive war was considered “the supreme international crime of all  “punishable by death.

In a public hearing it  would only  be human that Sir Lawrence would wish to distance himself from his master Tony Blair and the strategy of regime change, which as Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said “he had advised the Prime Minister on numerous  occasions was palpably illegal”.

One begins to wonder if, in Sir Lawrence Freedman, one is not dealing with Mephistopheles himself .   He has managed to inveigle himself into the position of being both Judge and Jury of his own actions,  and to manipulate as a puppet a man less clever than himself.   We will never know the truth of the first week of Shock and Awe, how little Ali’s burnt body came to be scarred with with charcoal flash marks like Hiroshima plutonium.  We will never know of the mother in Fallujah staring at her beautiful child with a huge cancer on her face and of mothers, giving birth to babies with one eye,  and their innards carried outside their bodies, whether the MOD knew all along that the munitions used with  depleted uranium and plutonium would cause these tragedies, because Freedman himself was advocating the use of nuclear weapons and was himself negotiating with the MOD to form a company from which he would benefit. We do not know if  Freedman himself copied terms such as Shock and Awe ( Sturm und Drang )  and |Storm Shadow Missiles” (Sturmtruppen ) |from Nazi Germany because the whole Inquiry is rotten to the core .  We will not know if Freedman is in touch with Blair’s lawyers extending the maxwellisation Programe by deceit ad infinitum..

I therefore request that you investigate the impartiality of Sir Lawrence Freedman and whether the Chilcot Inquiry should quickly be brought to a close as not complying with European Human Rights Law. Maxwellisation could clearly go on for a very long time indeed without a conclusion.  I suggest that on the morning of Jonathan Powell’s appearance Freedman must have been very worried indeed that the cat might have come out of the bag. Perhaps the Committee was instructed by Chilcot to steer clear of these speeches when questioning Powell.

I shall be pleased to forward to you copies of the many letters I have received from Sir John’s staff.

While writing this letter to you , Bassim  an Iraqi Sheik, to whom I tried to teach English , lost his nephew and youngest brother who were killed in Baghdad. He has now lost all the male members of his family, since his brother was killed, while hooded, by the Americans , and his brother in law by the Shia Militia. You could never meet a kinder or more intelligent man than Bassim. I dedicate this letter to him.

Yours sincerely.

Nicholas Wood . Secretary to the Submission of 19 Nov 2009

Secretary to the Letter from Privy Councillor Tony Benn to Kofi Anan 2003

\Secretary to The Blair War Crimes Foundation.

cc Mrs Rose Gentle, Military Families Against War .

ccThe Editor Private Eye.

Event Details

Date: Monday March 23^rd, 2015

Time:  2.15pm

Venue: Court 1 Hastings Magistrates Court, Bohemia Rd, Hastings TN34 1ND

Contact Details:  UK AE911Truth   [email protected]

Summary Overview

On 23^rd March Matt Campbell of Sussex, United Kingdom, will go to court against the BBC and will claim that the BBC is in violation of UK anti-terrorist legislation in the way that they have covered up evidence relating to 9/11 and evidence relating to the murder of his brother Geoff.  Geoff Campbell was killed while inside the North Tower of the World Trade Centre on September 11^th, 2001.  Mr Campbell will claim that he has reasonable cause to believe that the BBC has been wilfully complicit in the deliberate cover up of vital and incontrovertible evidence relating to how his brother Geoff was killed and that as such the BBC is guilty of complicity with terrorism.

Representing Mr Campbell’s case against the BBC is senior litigation solicitor and human rights activist Mahtab Aziz who has represented a number of well-known public figures such as Imran Khan, the former Pakistan cricketer captain turned politician, Herbie Hide the former 2 time World Heavyweight boxing champion and a number of other internationally well-known artists, singers and sportsmen.  Mr Aziz also advised British Film Director Tony Rooke at Horsham Magistrates Court in 2013 for his similar case against the BBC’s alleged cover up of 9/11 evidence.  That particular court case between Mr Rooke and the BBC was attended by several hundred members of the public and by independent journalists from across Europe where they witnessed Mr Rooke achieve a partial victory against the BBC.

Mr Campbell will also be calling on the support of a number of expert witnesses.

See below for further details of this court case.

Legal details of Mr Campbell’s court case

Mr Campbell claims that the BBC is refusing to inform the public of incontrovertible scientific evidence relating to free fall acceleration during the collapse of World Trade Centre Building 7, and the BBC appears to be supporting a cover up of the true events of that day.  He is therefore pleading “Not Guilty” to having an appropriate TV licence as he has ”reasonable cause” to suspect that by funding the BBC through his TV Licence Fees he would be supporting the purposes of terrorism and he would be guilty of breaking the law under Article 15 Section 3 of the Terrorism Act.

He will also claim that the BBC is guilty of an offence under Section 38B of the Terrorism Act 2000 as amended by Section 117 of Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.  Under Section 38B(2) of the TA 2000 if a person without reasonable excuse, fails to disclose information falling within Section 38B(1).  A person may commit this offence through total inactivity (by not answering police questions or by not volunteering information), through the partial suppression of information, or by relating a false account when the true facts are known.

The cover-up of 9/11 evidence and Geoff Campbell’s murder

Mr Campbell’s brother, Geoff, was on business in the North Tower of the World Trade Centre on September 11, 2001 when the tower was struck by an aircraft and later collapsed killing everyone who was still inside.  The official reason provided for the collapse of both the Twin Towers that day was that fire resulting from the crashed airliners caused a weakening of the structure of the buildings which eventually led to their complete collapse.  The official explanation given to Mr Campbell for who was responsible for the aircraft hitting the North Tower was that it was due to Al Qaeda terrorists who hijacked the aircraft and then deliberately flew it into the tower, and that therefore it was the alleged Al Qaeda hijackers who were responsible for the murder of Mr Campbell’s brother.

However, over the last several years Mr Campbell has been conducting a detailed investigation into the death of his brother and has come up with some startling information and evidence which he believes casts huge doubts about the official explanation he has been provided with for his brother’s murder.  Through Mr Campbell’s own investigations, as well as the scientific analysis of dozens of professional physicists, architects, engineers, demolition experts, and other scientists, Mr Campbell, as well as thousands of professional and technical experts, believes that both the Twin Towers and World Trade Centre Building 7 (a 47 storey tower not hit by an aircraft) collapsed as a result of controlled, explosive, demolition, rather than from fires from the crashed aircraft.  If Mr Campbell’s assertion is correct then it creates a very different picture about what really took place on 9/11, who was potentially involved, and who was actually responsible for his brother’s murder.

Mr Campbell’s court case against the BBC is based upon the allegation that he has reasonable cause to believe that the BBC has been deliberately withholding the available evidence which supposedly proves his belief that the three towers were brought down through controlled demolition.  Mr Campbell claims that numerous professional experts from around the world and more than 500 members of the public have provided detailed evidence and written requests to the BBC demanding that they adhere to their Editorial Guidelines and their Royal Charter and show the public what he claims is incontrovertible scientific evidence and eye-witness evidence.  He claims that this evidence proves beyond any doubt that his brother Geoff was murdered in a way that is very different to what he has been told by government officials and by the coroner.  Mr Campbell aims to present to the court in Sussex evidence showing that the BBC has been deliberately covering up this vital information from the public.

Mr Campbell believes that by covering up this evidence the BBC are supporting those terrorists to get away with their crime which included the murder of his brother.  Therefore, according to Mr Campbell, to pay his TV Licence Fee to the BBC would in fact be a criminal act according to Section 15, Article 3 of the Terrorism Act.  Mr Campbell believes that he has a situation of conflict of law whereby he is prepared to continue paying his TV Licence Fee, but not if it goes to the BBC, because to provide funds to the BBC would be to provide funds to an organisation that is supporting an act of terrorism, according to Mr Campbell and his lawyers.

Evidence to support Mr Campbell’s allegation of controlled demolition

The following are some of the points of evidence that Mr Campbell cites as supporting the allegation that the three towers that collapsed on 9/11 collapsed due to controlled, explosive demolition.  This is not a complete list of Mr Campbell’s evidence:

1. Confirmed free fall of WTC Building 7

World Trade Centre Building 7 fell at free-fall acceleration for at least 2.25 seconds (105 feet/8 stories) as confirmed in 2008 by the official investigators NIST (National Institute for Standards & Technology).  This means that at least 8 stories of the building collapsed with absolutely zero structural resistance within them, and that all 80 of the core steel columns, and all of the steel beam cross connections for those 8 stories had to have been completely severed, all within a split second of each other in order to achieve the perfectly symmetrical free fall collapse that is seen in WTC Building 7. The only thing that can achieve this is controlled-demolition using carefully placed explosives and perfectly timed detonation. Controlled Demolition of a high rise tower cannot be prepared within a few hours.  It takes weeks or months to plan and implement

2. BBC foreknowledge of the unprecedented collapse of WTC Building 7

Apart from the three towers that collapsed on 9/11, no steel frame building has ever collapsed from fire in history, either before or since 9/11.  High rise towers are designed specifically so that this cannot happen.  However on that day the BBC reported on live television that WTC Building 7 had collapsed more than 20 minutes before it actually collapsed.  While the buildings collapse was being reported to the world by a BBC journalist, the fully intact building could still be seen standing in the background in what appeared to be a relatively uncompromised state and no obvious fires of any consequence. This footage is still available to see on YouTube.  This would suggest that someone likely knew that the building was going to come down in a controlled manner and that the BBC reporter had inadvertently been given this information a little too early.

How did anyone know that the building was going to collapse as a result of simple office fires, as is NIST’s official explanation, when fire has never caused this to happen to any other building in history, apart from on that day, and it is physically impossible for fires to reach even close to the required temperature to even begin to weaken steel?  Why did the BBC not actively investigate where that foreknowledge of collapse came from and inform the police or investigators, and the public?  How did the source of that information know that the building was going to come down if a symmetrical collapse at free fall acceleration is impossible from office fires and is unprecedented in history?

3. The BBC’s misinformation & refusal to notify the public about critical and incontrovertible evidence

In 2007 the BBC ran a documentary which claimed that despite what hundreds of professional engineers, physicists, demolition experts, and scientists were claiming about free fall of WTC Building 7, they were in fact wrong and there was no free fall of WTC Building 7.  Even after NIST, the official investigators, officially confirmed the existence of free fall in 2008 the BBC has refused to comply with the requirements of their own Editorial Guidelines and publicly correct their error about this absolutely vital issue.  This is despite a number of professional experts and more than 500 members of the public making written requests in 2012 to the BBC for them to do so.  The BBC still has not corrected this error and still has not informed the public of the quite incredible fact that in 2008 NIST officially confirmed the existence of free fall of WTC Building 7, which can only occur through controlled demolition.

In addition to this, a great deal more incontrovertible evidence supporting the controlled demolition of the three towers has been forwarded to the BBC by numerous professional experts and hundreds of the public, but the BBC has refused to show this evidence to the public.  This includes eye witness testimonies from 118 first responder fire fighters on 9/11 who reported hearing or seeing explosions going off in all three towers.  These eye witness reports were originally suppressed by the US government, but were later forced to be released through the Freedom of Information Act.

4. BBC deliberately misleading the public with biased and inaccurate reporting

Despite having hundreds of people demanding that the BBC show the evidence described above, the BBC has refused to do this and have instead shown documentaries which are seemingly designed only to smear and discredit the reputation of the professional individuals and organisations bringing this evidence forward, and the BBC has instead presented information that is based on methodology that runs in direct contradiction to the BBC’s own Editorial Guidelines for providing accurate and impartial information.  This has included such things as removing the sounds of huge explosions going off in WTC Building 7 moments before it collapsed during one of the BBC’s documentaries which was examining the claims of hundreds of professional experts that WTC Building 7 was brought down with explosives in a controlled demolition.  Why would the BBC remove these sounds of explosions going off in a documentary aimed specifically at examining the claims that the collapse of the towers on 9/11 may have been due to explosives?

Mr Campbell and his support team will be asking these questions and more in the upcoming court case.

This short documentary features a number of individuals who have participated in a conference on Syria and the Middle East in Ecuador while the 18th World Festival of Youth and Students was also taking place in Ecuador. The director took the opportunity to talk about the crisis in Syria with participants from both events being held in Ecuador.

TRANSCRIPT

Narration: Ecuador is a country in South America, covered with tropical trees and full of many volcanoes. Its official name, Republica del Ecuador, means the republic of the equator, which is an imaginary line drawn around the middle of the Earth to divide it into two hemispheres. If you stand on it, one side of you is the North and the other is the South.

The inhabitants of this land started their first uprising against Spanish colonialism, when Spain was a superpower and possessed the strongest warships in the world, in order to achieve an original concept called freedom which is not imaginary or does not know directions like the north or the south.

Currently, Ecuador is in peace. It is a bounteous land, which has rain at night and sunlight at day, with happy and loveable people.

In the last days of fall, which does not mean much in the moderate climate of Ecuador, the capital city of Quito hosted the 18th World Festival of Youth and Students. It is ceremony which is held every three or four years in anti-imperialist or anti-capitalist countries. The youths and students from over a hundred countries take part in this festival. The thousands of youths in the festival are from various cultures, races, and languages but they have, of course, one thing in common. They are all anti-imperialists.

Narrator: In their opinion, imperialism is an economic, political, and military system which intends to seize all world resources and gain the most benefits at any cost. They know America as the symbol of this system. And now, Ecuador, which has been under the yoke of America, is hosting more than ten thousand anti-American [anti-imperialist] youths.

I went to Ecuador to participate in the festival and make a program about it. On the first day of the festival, a flag grabbed my attention. The flag of Syria! Since the beginning of the Syrian crisis, a major part of my professional activities has been about Syria. I travelled to Syria several times and played a role in many events there. I had had many interviews with prominent figures. Syrian issues were interesting to me. However, there, on the other corner of the world, I was surprised when I saw the Syrian flag.

Syrian activist: We are here to say to the whole world that Syria will stand in front against the imperialist attack and the Zionist attack against Syria.

Narrator: Ecuador is one of the farthest inlands to Syria. Syrian and Ecuadorian people do not have any common cultural or religious background, or they even don’t have any trade with each other. However, the Syrian groups have been welcomed warmly. All participants took photographs with them and gave good wishes for them. That is why I went among the participants to know more, and this time, to film Syria from the viewpoint of the people on this side of the world.

VOXPOP [English]: “Where are you from?

Russian activist: Russia.

VOXPOP [English]: Can you speak English?

Russian activist:  Yes

VOXPOP [English]: What is you is idea about Syria?

Russian activist: Syria is our friend, we want that our government of our country help to your country [Syria] because we feel that we are brothers, we want peace on your country and we want good relationship between good countries.”

Third Activist: Based on the bad conflict in Syria, I think it is a very hard strategic by Zionism, by United States, by imperialism. And they are trying to destabilize and they are trying to stop the sovereignty of Syria, the president Bashar Al–Assad because they don’t like Bashar Al–Assad. Why? Because he is not a puppet. He is not a friend of Israel, he is not a friend of United States.”

Fourth Activist: I believe that the Syrian people have the right to defend themselves for many any invading force, terrorist force. Obviously we know the fact that that the US is aiding terrorist extremist.

Third Activist: What they trying to do there is getting terrorist people from Qatar, from Saudi Arabia, from Turkey, Al-Qaeda. I mean I can’t understand why United States are fighting against Al-Qaeda but now they are giving them the guns to come to Syria to fight for freedom. Oh my God, [it is] incredible!

Fifth Activist: Al-Qaeda for example is considered by the United States as a terrorist group, but it is kind of funny I could say or kind of contradictory that the United States joins a terrorist group qualified by the same United State as a terrorist group — that is Al-Qaeda, right? —- to fight against a legitimate government in Syria.

Third Activist: I think that it is conflict that they are doing to stop Bashar Al-Assad. They don’t like that Bashar Al-Assad is not a puppet. He is fighting against Zionism. He helps our brothers in Palestine. He helps our brothers in Lebanon. He is a good man I think and they are trying to stop that regime to get a puppet government like every country that they have invaded in the world.

Second Russian Activist: So I am not really well known in international relations, [but] of course when like some other government support the people who killed somebody and eat their inner things, so it is for us, for Russian people and I think for any human being is not understandable thing.

Narration: A conference on Middle East was held on the sideline of the festival by the Institute of [Advanced] Studies affiliated to Ecuador’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I seized the opportunity and talk with some prominent figures about international issues in order to ask them about Syria.

SOUNDBITE [English], Norman Finkelstein: My name is Norman Finkelstein and I am a writer and lecturer.

SOUNDBITE [English], Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya: My name is Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya I am a sociologist from Canada.

SOUNDBITE [English], Nagham Salman: My name is Nagham Salman and I am originally from Syria.

SOUNDBITE [Arabic], Conversation between a prisoner in hand of Al-Qaeda and his Dad: 

Syrian Son: Dad … they are slaughtering me now … you and Mom! Forgive me.

Syrian Dad: May God forgive you! In this world and hereafter …

Syrian Son: Dad! Dad! Don’t wait for me anymore. They are slaughtering me now … they have just taken me here, to this slaughterhouse …

Syrian Dad: Don’t be afraid, my son! God is with you…

Syrian Son: Dad … Dad …

SOUNDBITE [English], Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya: No its not a revolution. Anybody who thinks that it is a revolution right now in the year 2013 is deluded and lying to themselves. That is not a revolution, killing innocent people, destroying market places…

SOUNDBITE [English], Norman Finkelstein: …and so the aspect of a civil war was much smaller and the proxy war was the much bigger picture…

SOUNDBITE [English], Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya: First of all a lot of these revolutionaries supposedly — so-called revolutionaries — that are doing this [revolution] in the name of Islam, I don’t think that they have read the Quran or know anything about the Quran. For starters it says that Muslims are not supposed to have alliances of non-Muslims where the Muslims — it is very specific from Quran, they [Muslims] cannot have an alliance with non-Muslims, if they [Muslims] are subordinate.These guys are subordinate to non-Muslims against Syria. Is this the revolution where people are being paid to fight for foreign interest [against Syria]?

SOUNDBITE [Arabic], Terrorists in Syria speaking.

SOUNDBITE [English], Nagham Salman: Syria as I said has a very important geo-political situation in the Middle East because of the geographical location, because of the political culture of the government or the regime, because of its strong alliance with Iran and Russia.

Narrator: Human rights, democracy, and the right to determine your destiny, from the viewpoint of European officials, are important somewhere, like Syria, and are unimportant somewhere, like Bahrain. They are repetitive terms. I asked experts about the real motives of the West and why Syria has become so important for them.

SOUNDBITE [English], Nagham Salman: Besides that this government supports a lot the resistance in Lebanon and in Palestine, it is the only Arabic government that fights for the Palestinian case until now. So this does not suit United States of America, not even Israel, and some other countries.

SOUNDBITE [English], Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya: Reform in Syria does and democracy in Syria does not mean reform and democracy for the Americans, it means bow down to us [the United States] and listen to us for your foreign policies and cut the Iranians out.

SOUNDBITE [English], Nagham Salman: The role of [the] United States and Israel is to get rid of the only enemy in the Arab governments, the only presidents that says “no” to the United States in the region.

…well, Syria has different situation from the other [Arab] countries. I think that years ago something was getting prepared for Syria years ago…

SOUNDBITE [English], Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya: …of course regime change! The story of regime change starts in 1991, it starts with the Iraq War [Persian Gulf War]. Mr. [Paul] Wolfowitz, when he was undersecretary of defense, said now that the Soviets have collapsed look at what we are doing in Afghanistan, it’s time to war out against the rest of the Middle East. This was a neo-con project which was endorsed by the Likudniks in Israel. The Israelis are very much tide to this. [They] had a long term plan of regime change throughout the entire Greater Middle East, from North Africa to Central Asia, and it just took some time to kick the war machine, to put it into play.

…in 2001, I know you know a hundred percent that General Clark mentioned a list [of countries that would be attacked] … the war in Lebanon in 2006 was really against Syria, it was a demonstration. It was obviously at the end against Iran, but it was against Syria. Even [US Vice-President] Dick Cheney’s Middle East advisor, his wife, who helped write the document A Clean Break [about destroying Syria for Israel], admits that Syria was the main target of the [2006] war. The French general who was in charge of UNIFIL [for the UN in Lebanon] in his book that he printed after he retired  said that the Americans were going to send the Marines into Lebanon, they were planning on fighting Hezbollah and then going into Syria. They just wanted to make sure that Iran would not get involved. They don’t want to fight [the entire Axis of Resistance] at the same time, they want to fight one [member at a time] and then go after the other ones.

SOUNDBITE [English], Nagham Salman: …And I think they had the idea that if they can get rid of this government [in Syria], then they can attack Iran so Iran will not have this big alliance with Syria and in this case Hezbollah will stand alone in Lebanon and it will be easy for Israel to attack Hezbollah.

SOUNDBITE [English], Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya: You know these groups, who are they? You know some of them come from Iraq, they were part of the Awakening Councils. Who were the Awakening Councils? They were groups the Americans started paying basically to be under American control. That is even [acknowledged] in the American media about the Awakening Councils. They were paying them basically to fight for them [the US] in Iraq, and now these guys have become the seeds of what we are seeing in Syria.

…and of course Saudi Arabia had a big hand to play in this and Prince Bandar Bush, who has been pivotal with creating the Taliban, and who was pivotal in creating creating Fatal Al-Islam in Lebanon. Remember after the Israelis lost the war in Lebanon [in 2006], that all of a sudden these groups the are the seeds of what we are seeing in Syria starting coming to Lebanon. They [the US] wanted to use them against Hezbollah and eventually these are the same groups we have seen them using in Syria.

SOUNDBITE [English], Nagham Salman: It is also economic because Syria has petrol, has gas, and this is something very attractive for investment and I think Qatar has future from projects in Syria and that is why they pushed a lot the rebels to destroy more and more in Syria so they can be able to into the market and invest…

Narration: At the heart of South America, at the foothills of Ecuador’s volcanic mountains, and in the middle of rain forests, talking about the Middle East had a strange feeling. It was like looking at a chess board from far away, whose pawns were alive, and whose rooks were real. They talked about Damascus, which is the oldest capital in the world. It has been known as “the Eastern Gate” for two thousand years.

SOUNDBITE [English], Norman Finkelstein: The United States has only one interest and that is Iran. They want to weaken Iran and that is their interest in Syria. Remember the United States got got along quite well with Syria. Syria join the coalition in 1991 to force Iraq to leave Kuwait, they quite along well. Someone was just reminding me in the car today that when Hafez Al-Assad passed away, the United States sent a very large delegation. It was headed by [US Secretary of State] Madeline Albright. It has nothing to do with Syria, it’s Iran. They want to weaken Iran.

SOUNDBITE [English], Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya: … to cut the Iranians out. The road to Damascus is through Beirut, but Damascus is the road to Tehran.

SOUNDBITE [English], Norman Finkelstein: In a civil war each side has a finite amount of resources. So at a certain point, when each side realizes that it can’t win, they decide on some political compromise. The problem now is that it is no longer a civil war [in Syria], it’s  a proxy war [in Syria] and each of the great powers has unlimited resources. They can go on and on and on and on because they have so much power, so much wealth. Will the Saudis stop? No, they will not stop. Will the Americans stop? No. It’s the Syrian people who are paying a terrible, terrible, terrible price.

SOUNDBITE [English], Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya: …they lost. The Americans lost in Syria. They lost the war. They know it. Everyone should know it by now.

There are some stubborn people in Saudi Arabia who are afraid that regime change will happen in Riyadh. They saw that the New York Times in September [2013] published that article saying Saudi Arabia is going to be broken up into several little states. They see the writing on the wall. Saudi Arabia is just a book note, it is a little footnote in a book. It is not an important player. The real players are countries like Iran, China, Russia. These are the ones that matter. Saudi Arabia, it’s time is done. The House of Saud is a fossil. They [the House of Saud] think that if we leave things in Syria that eventually it [our end] will come our way and, of course, the Americans don’t mind them continuing to make Syria bleed and the Israelis don’t mind either. They want a weak Syria. It benefits them to have weak countries in the region.

Narration: Our short days at Ecuador finished, but the war in Syria still continues. The war which has become part of Syrian people’s everyday life… the war, with which Syrian children sleep at dusk, and wake up in the morning… the war in which all world powers are involved and all good and evil are confronting one another… and the war which may alter the world’s destiny and change its order.

Un vec­chio vizio della sini­stra e dei movi­menti è tenere sepa­rate la lotta per il lavoro e quella con­tro la guerra, men­tre invece sono due facce della stessa meda­glia. Emble­ma­tico il fatto che, quando Fin­mec­ca­nica ha annun­ciato la ven­dita alla giap­po­nese Hita­chi di Ansaldo Sts e Ansaldo Breda, l’attenzione poli­tica e sin­da­cale si è con­cen­trata sulla difesa dell’occupazione, lasciando in ombra la por­tata stra­te­gica della deci­sione: ridurre la pro­du­zione civile per accre­scere quella militare.

Nella clas­si­fica delle 100 mag­giori indu­strie pro­dut­trici di armi redatta dal Sipri, Fin­mec­ca­nica si col­loca al nono posto mon­diale, pre­ce­duta da sei sta­tu­ni­tensi (Lockheed-Martin. Boeing, Ray­theon, Nor­th­rop Grum­man, Gene­ral Dyna­mics, Uni­ted Tech­no­lo­gies), una bri­tan­nica (Bae Systems) e una franco-tedesca-spagnola (Air­bus Group, già Eads). Con la ven­dità di armi, Fin­mec­ca­nica rea­lizza il 50% del suo fat­tu­rato: ciò signi­fica che, accre­scendo tale pro­du­zione, salirà di rango tra le mag­giori indu­strie bel­li­che mondiali.

Tale ope­ra­zione viene effet­tuata ven­dendo a Hita­chi l’Ansaldo Sts, azienda lea­der nei sistemi di segna­la­mento per tra­sporto fer­ro­via­rio e urbano, e Ansaldo Breda, lea­der nella pro­du­zione di mate­riale rota­bile per sistemi fer­ro­viari (com­presi treni ad alta velo­cità) e per tra­sporto urbano (già oltre 1000 con­vo­gli per le metro­po­li­tane di Washing­ton, Los Ange­les, San Fran­ci­sco, Miami e altre grandi città, Milano com­presa). Anche se Hita­chi pro­mette di man­te­nere i livelli occu­pa­zio­nali di que­ste indu­strie (le cui atti­vità pro­dut­tive, pro­ba­bil­mente, saranno in futuro delo­ca­liz­zate in paesi dove il costo del lavoro è infe­riore), resta il fatto che l’Italia dovrà acqui­stare dalla giap­po­nese Hita­chi sistemi di segna­la­mento e mate­riale rota­bile, spen­dendo (con denaro pub­blico) molto di più per i trasporti.

In com­penso Fin­mec­ca­nica accre­scerà fat­tu­rato e pro­fitti pun­tando su indu­strie come la Oto Melara, pro­dut­trice di sistemi d’arma ter­re­stri e navali (tra cui il vei­colo blin­dato Cen­tauro, con potenza di fuoco di un car­rar­mato, e can­noni con muni­zioni gui­date Vul­cano ven­duti a più di 55 marine nel mondo); la Wass, lea­der mon­diale nella pro­du­zione di siluri (tra cui il Black Shark a lunga git­tata); la Mbda, lea­der mon­diale nella pro­du­zione di mis­sili (tra cui quello anti-nave Marte e quello aria-aria Meteor); l’Alenia Aer­mac­chi che, oltre a pro­durre aerei da guerra (come il cac­cia da adde­stra­mento avan­zato M-346 for­nito a Israele), gesti­sce l’impianto Faco di Cameri scelto dal Pen­ta­gono quale polo di manu­ten­zione dei cac­cia F-35 schie­rati in Europa.

La ricon­ver­sione di Fin­mec­ca­nica dal civile al mili­tare, che riduce i posti di lavoro dato che le indu­strie bel­li­che high-tech richie­dono meno addetti, è stata inco­rag­giata dall’attuale e dai pre­ce­denti governi: lo scorso otto­bre, la mini­stra della difesa Pinotti ha pre­sen­ziato alla firma dell’accordo di col­la­bo­ra­zione tra Fin­mec­ca­nica e Fin­can­tieri per la costru­zione di navi da guerra con «l’obiettivo di aumen­tare la com­pe­ti­ti­vità sui mer­cati nazio­nali ed esteri».

Sul mer­cato ita­liano ci pensa il governo ad assi­cu­rare la «com­pe­ti­ti­vità»: la «Legge di sta­bi­lità» stan­zia 6 miliardi di euro per la costru­zione di altre navi da guerra e il Mini­stero dello svi­luppo eco­no­mico ha già finan­ziato 8 delle 10 fre­gate lan­cia­mis­sili Fremm. Altro denaro pub­blico che si aggiunge alla spesa mili­tare: 52 milioni di euro al giorno secondo la Nato, 67 secondo il Sipri. Sem­pre il governo pro­muove l’export mili­tare, die­tro il para­vento del «Trat­tato sul com­mer­cio di arma­menti» che l’Italia ha solen­ne­mente firmato.

Manlio Dinucci

Addressing Congress in the style of a State of the Union speech, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu won 41 rounds of applause as U.S. lawmakers eagerly enlisted in the Israeli-Saudi conflict against Iran and its allies – an enthusiasm that may well entangle the U.S. military in more wars in the Middle East.

Speaking to a joint session of Congress for the third time – tying British Prime Minister Winston Churchill for the record – Netanyahu went far beyond excoriating President Barack Obama’s negotiations with Iran to restrict but not eliminate its nuclear program. He portrayed Iran as a dangerous enemy whose regional influence must be stopped and reversed, a position shared by Israel’s new ally, Saudi Arabia.

Netanyahu declared:

“In the Middle East, Iran now dominates four Arab capitals, Baghdad, Damascus, Beirut and Sanaa. And if Iran’s aggression is left unchecked, more will surely follow. So, at a time when many hope that Iran will join the community of nations, Iran is busy gobbling up the nations. We must all stand together to stop Iran’s march of conquest, subjugation and terror.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaking to a joint session of the U.S. Congress on March 3, 2015. (Screen shot from CNN broadcast)

Netanyahu’s reference to “Iran’s aggression” was curious since Iran has not invaded another country for centuries. In 1980, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq – at the urging of Saudi Arabia – invaded Iran. During that bloody eight-year war, Israel – far from being an enemy of Iran – became Iran’s principal arms supplier. Israel drew in the Reagan administration, which approved some of the Israeli-brokered arms deals, leading to the Iran-Contra scandal in 1986.

In other words, Israel was aiding Iran after the Islamic revolution overthrew the Shah in 1979 and during the time when Netanyahu blamed Iran for the attack on the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983 and various acts of terrorism allegedly committed by Hezbollah, a Shiite militia in Lebanon. Israel only shifted toward hostility against Shiite-ruled Iran in the 1990s as Israel gradually developed a de facto alliance with Sunni-ruled and oil-rich Saudi Arabia, which views Iran as its chief regional rival.

Netanyahu’s choice of Arab cities supposedly conquered by Iran was strange, too. Baghdad is the capital of Iraq where the U.S. military invaded in 2003 to overthrow Saddam Hussein and his Sunni-dominated government — on Netanyahu’s recommendation. After the invasion, President George W. Bush installed a Shiite-dominated government. So, whatever influence Iran has in Baghdad is the result of a U.S. invasion that Netanyahu personally encouraged.

More recently, Iran has supported the embattled Iraqi government in its struggle against the murderous Islamic State militants who seized large swaths of Iraqi territory last summer. Indeed, Iraqi officials have credited Iran with playing a crucial role in blunting the Islamic State, the terrorists whom President Obama has identified as one of the top security threats facing the United States.

Netanyahu cited Damascus, too, where Iran has helped the Syrian government in its struggle against the Islamic State and Al-Qaeda’s Nusra Front. In other words, Iran is assisting the internationally recognized government of Syria hold off two major terrorist organizations. But Netanyahu portrays that as Iran “gobbling up” a nation.

The Israeli prime minister also mentioned Beirut, Lebanon, and Sanaa, Yemen, but those were rather bizarre references, too, since Lebanon is governed by a multi-ethnic arrangement that includes a number of religious and political factions. Hezbollah is one and it has close ties to Iran, but it is stretching the truth to say that Iran “dominates” Beirut or Lebanon.

Similarly, in Sanaa, the Houthis, a Shiite-related sect, have taken control of Yemen’s capital and have reportedly received some help from Iran, but the Houthis deny those reports and are clearly far from under Iranian control. The Houthis also have vowed to work with the Americans to carry on the fight against Yemen’s Al-Qaeda affiliate.

Leading the Battle

Indeed, Iran and these various Shiite-linked movements have been among the most effective in battling Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State, while Israel’s Saudi friends have been repeatedly linked to funding and supporting these Sunni terrorist organizations. In effect, what Netanyahu asked the Congress to do – and apparently successfully – was to join Saudi Arabia and Israel in identifying Iran, not Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State, as America’s chief enemy in the Middle East.

That would put the U.S.-Iranian cooperation in combating Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State in jeopardy. It could lead to victories by these Sunni terrorists in Syria and possibly even Iraq, a situation that almost surely would force the U.S. military to return in force to the region. No U.S. president could politically accept Damascus or Baghdad in the hands of openly terrorist organizations vowing to carry the fight to Europe and the United States.

Yet, that was the logic — or lack thereof — in Netanyahu’s appeal to Congress. As he put it, “when it comes to Iran and ISIS, the enemy of your enemy is your enemy.” He also argued that Iran was a greater threat than the Islamic State, a position that Israel’s Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren has expressed, too.

“The greatest danger to Israel is by the strategic arc that extends from Tehran, to Damascus to Beirut. And we saw the Assad regime [in Syria] as the keystone in that arc,” Oren told the Jerusalem Post in a 2013 interview. “We always wanted Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren’t backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran” – even if the “bad guys” were affiliated with al-Qaeda.

In June 2014, then speaking as a former ambassador at an Aspen Institute conference, Oren expanded on his position, saying Israel would even prefer a victory by the brutal Islamic State over continuation of the Iranian-backed Assad in Syria. “From Israel’s perspective, if there’s got to be an evil that’s got to prevail, let the Sunni evil prevail,” Oren said.

Netanyahu made a similar point: “The difference is that ISIS is armed with butcher knives, captured weapons and YouTube, whereas Iran could soon be armed with intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear bombs.”

Of course, Iran has disavowed any interest in developing a nuclear bomb — and both the U.S. and Israeli intelligence communities agree that Iran has not been working on a bomb. Further, the negotiated agreement between Iran and leading world powers would impose strict oversight on Iran’s civilian nuclear program, leaving little opportunity to cheat.

Instead, Netanyahu wants the United States to lead an aggressive campaign to further strangle Iran’s economy with the goal of forcing some future “regime change.” The principal beneficiary of that strategy would likely be Saudi Arabia, which has served as the proselytizing center for the reactionary Wahabbi version of Sunni Islam, which inspired Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda.

Elements of the Saudi royal family also have long been known to support Islamist militants, including forces associated with bin Laden. Earlier this year, the New York Times reported that convicted al-Qaeda operative Zacarias Moussaoui identified leading members of the Saudi government as financiers of the terrorist network.

According to the story, Moussaoui said in a prison deposition that he was directed in 1998 or 1999 by Qaeda leaders in Afghanistan to create a digital database of the group’s donors and that the list included Prince Turki al-Faisal, then Saudi intelligence chief; Prince Bandar bin Sultan, longtime Saudi ambassador to the United States; Prince al-Waleed bin Talal, a prominent billionaire investor; and many leading clerics.

Moussaoui also said he discussed a plan to shoot down President George W. Bush’s Air Force One with a Stinger missile with a staff member at the Saudi Embassy in Washington, at a time when Bandar was the ambassador to the United States and considered so close to the Bush family that his nickname was “Bandar Bush.”

Moussaoui claimed, too, that he passed letters between Osama bin Laden and then Crown Prince Salman, who recently became king upon the death of his brother King Abdullah.

While the Saudi government denied Moussaoui’s accusations, Saudi and other Persian Gulf oil sheikdoms have been identified in recent years as financial backers of Sunni militants fighting in Syria to overthrow Assad’s largely secular regime, with al-Qaeda’s Nusra Front the major rebel force benefiting from this support.

Shared Israeli Interests

The Israelis also have found themselves on the side of these Sunni militants in Syria because the Israelis share the Saudi view that Iran and the so-called “Shiite crescent” – reaching from Tehran to Beirut – is the greatest threat to their interests.

That attitude of favoring Sunni militants over Assad has taken a tactical form with Israeli forces launching attacks inside Syria that benefit Nusra Front. For instance, on Jan. 18, 2015, Israel attacked Lebanese-Iranian advisers assisting Assad’s government in Syria, killing several members of Hezbollah and an Iranian general. These military advisers were engaged in operations against Nusra Front.

Meanwhile, Israel has refrained from attacking Nusra militants who have seized Syrian territory near the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights. One source familiar with U.S. intelligence information on Syria told me that Israel has a “non-aggression pact” with Nusra forces, who have even received medical treatment at Israeli hospitals.

Israel and Saudi Arabia have found themselves on the same side in other regional struggles, including support for the military’s ouster of the elected Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt, but most importantly they have joined forces in their hostility toward Shiite-ruled Iran.

I first reported on the growing relationship between Israel and Saudi Arabia in August 2013 in an article entitled “The Saudi-Israeli Superpower,” noting that the complementary strengths of the two countries made their alliance a potentially powerful influence in the world. Israel wields enormous political and media clout — and possesses nuclear weapons — while the Saudis use their oil, money and investments. [For more details, see Consortiumnews.com’s “Saudis Said to Aid Israeli Plan to Bomb Iran.”]

What the world saw in Netanyahu’s bravura performance on Tuesday before the wildly applauding members of the U.S. Congress was him proving his value to his Saudi cohorts, demonstrating how he can make some of America’s most powerful politicians behave like trained seals, bouncing up and down to cheer him even when he openly seeks to undermine the sitting U.S. President.

Some of the loudest applause came when Netanyahu told the Congress, “My friends, for over a year, we’ve been told that no deal is better than a bad deal. Well, this is a bad deal. It’s a very bad deal. We’re better off without it.”

Netanyahu’s enthusiastic reception signaled to President Obama that he has little political support for a negotiated agreement with Iran and signaled to Iran that all their concessions are unlikely to lead to any meaningful easing of sanctions from the U.S. Congress.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon andbarnesandnoble.com). You also can order Robert Parry’s trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America’s Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer, click here.

Former top general and CIA chief David Petraeus passed classified secret information to his lover, including details of ongoing covert operations and names of undercover agents, and subsequently lied about these actions to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Justice announced Tuesday.

Petraeus transferred the notebooks to Paula Broadwell in August 2011 while he was head of the CIA. The books contained a range of state secrets including US war plans, intelligence capabilities, and minutes from National Security Council meetings and private one-on-one discussions between the general and President Barack Obama, according to the Washington Post.

Broadwell requested the information as part of her research for a biography of Petraeus, published as All In: The Education of General David Petraeus. The evidence makes clear that Petraeus knew he was passing extremely sensitive information to his mistress.

“Umm, well, they’re really, I mean they are highly classified,” Petraeus can be heard telling Broadwell on an audio recording from 2011.

Less than a month before his affair with Broadwell became public, Petraeus lied to US government investigators, saying that he never transferred any secret information to her. An FBI team seized the notebooks from Petraeus’ residence in Virginia in April 2013, nearly half a year after the retired general signed an FBI statement declaring that he no longer possessed documents containing classified information.

The FBI had ordered Petraeus questioned after discovering emails between Broadwell and Jill Kelley, a wealthy socialite known for hosting lavish parties for top Pentagon officials at her residence in the Tampa, Florida area.

Senator John McCain, a leading congressional representative of the military-intelligence apparatus, voiced his unshaken solidarity with Petraeus, saying that he had already “expressed deep regret” and that “it is time to consider this matter closed.”

“Petraeus will continue to provide his outstanding service and leadership to our nation, as he has throughout his distinguished career,” McCain said.

While Edward Snowden and numerous other whistleblowers have been threatened with death and subject to extensive vilification in the media for revealing grave crimes by the government, Petraeus will pay a fine of $40,000 and will not face any jail time, according to federal attorneys.

The former general’s treatment is in sharp contrast to the savage penalties imposed on Private Chelsea (Bradley) Manning, who exposed some of the crimes of American imperialism in Afghanistan and Iraq by downloading classified material and sending it to WikiLeaks for publication.

Manning is serving a 35-year prison term, while Julian Assange of WikiLeaks has been locked up in the Ecuadoran embassy in London where he sought asylum three years ago.

Far from being prosecuted for war crimes, for which Manning, Assange and others have provided ample evidence, Petraeus has enjoyed a well-publicized career in the upper echelons of the American military-intelligence apparatus.

Prior to his downfall, Petraeus rose steadily through the military, culminating in the command of multinational forces in Iraq during 2007-08, then command of CENTCOM and of occupation forces in Afghanistan. Petraeus assumed leadership of the CIA in September 2011, and ran the top US intelligence agency for more than a year before the Broadwell relationship became public.

Since leaving the CIA in November 2012, Petraeus has been welcomed with open arms by the financial and academic establishment, working as a globe-trotting consultant for New York investment house Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. LP (KKR) and been appointed to professorships at the City University of New York (CUNY), the University of Southern California, and the University of Exeter.

Petraeus apparently fell afoul of political currents in Washington, under circumstances that remain murky even today. He was kicked upstairs from Afghanistan to the CIA in the summer of 2011, at a time when Republican Party circles were seriously discussing him as a possible presidential or vice presidential candidate against the Obama-Biden reelection ticket.

His ouster from the CIA was also politically timely. Petraeus handed in his resignation within days of Obama’s reelection, paving the way for John Brennan, Obama’s top national security aide and the overseer of the drone missile assassination program, to return to the CIA and become its director.

His resignation came only two months after the events in Benghazi, Libya, when a US diplomatic post and a CIA annex were attacked by Islamists who had been working with the agency as part of its efforts, first to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, then to attack the government of Bashar al-Assad in Syria.

Since then, the Republican hue and cry over Benghazi, itself motivated by an effort to discredit then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the likely Democratic presidential candidate in 2016, has served to divert attention from the primary role of the CIA in the events in Libya, which remain uninvestigated to this day.

The federal trial of accused Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev got under way Wednesday amid extraordinary security surrounding the Boston courtroom, which was packed with reporters and victims of the April 15, 2013 bombings.

Boston police closed off streets that, even during major trials, are normally kept open. Barricades kept the public at a distance, while K-9 units guarded the building, a helicopter hovered overhead, and police boats stood by in Boston Harbor.

Even before the jurors were seated, Judge George A. O’Toole Jr. issued a ruling limiting the ability of lawyers for the 21-year-old defendant to discuss the role of his older brother, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, in the planning and execution of the terrorist attack that killed three people and wounded another 264. The judge granted a prosecution motion to largely exclude evidence concerning the relationship between Tamerlan and Dzhokhar until the sentencing phase of the trial.

The ruling indicates the government’s intention to tightly control the information emerging from the proceedings so as to marginalize or exclude questions relating to extensive contacts over a period of years between the FBI and Tamerlan, who is believed to have organized the attack. The older Tsarnaev brother was killed in a shootout with police on April 19, 2013, four days after two pressure cooker bombs packed with nails and shrapnel were detonated near the downtown Boston finish line of the marathon.

In their opening statements to the jury, neither the prosecution nor defense lawyer referred to the still unexplained failure of federal agencies such as the FBI, CIA and Homeland Security Department to prevent the bombings, even though the FBI and CIA had been warned multiple times by the Russian security service of Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s Islamist terrorist sympathies, the FBI had questioned the older brother and his parents, and Tamerlan had been placed on US terror watch lists.

Last year, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s defense team filed papers with the court alleging that the FBI had attempted to recruit Tamerlan Tsarnaev as an informant. The defense has requested all information relating to the FBI’s investigation of the older brother, but the government has objected to the release of such documents.

The defendant is charged with more than 30 counts relating to the bombings, many of which carry the death penalty. The charges include the killing of a Massachusetts Institute of Technology policeman on the evening of April 18, three days after the bombings.

In 2013, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev pleaded not guilty to all charges.

In her opening statement, however, lead defense counsel Judy Clarke acknowledged that her client was involved in the terror attack. “It was him,” she told the jury. She called the bombings a “series of senseless, horribly misguided acts carried out by the two brothers,” and said Dzhokhar should be held accountable for his crime.

But she argued that her client had been lured and bullied into participating in the attack by his older brother, who was the author and chief protagonist of the crime. Clarke, who has represented defendants in a number of high-profile capital cases, is clearly seeking to convince the jury to spare her client’s life and instead sentence him to life imprisonment, the only alternative sentence if he is found guilty.

Prosecutor William Weinreb focused on the horror of the bombings and the terrible physical and emotional toll they took on innocent bystanders, including an eight-year-old child who was one of the three fatalities. He insisted that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was an independent actor, motivated by an Islamist extremist ideology and outrage over the US government’s treatment of Muslims around the world. His statement made clear that the government intends to seek the death penalty.

The Boston bombings became the occasion for the police-military lockdown of Boston and its environs, an area with over one million residents, on April 19, 2013, following the killing of Tamerlan Tsarnaev and escape of Dzhokhar. Boston and its surrounding communities were flooded with thousands of heavily armed police and National Guard troops. They occupied the streets, supported by machine-gun-mounted armored vehicles, Humvees and Black Hawk helicopters.

Residents were ordered to “shelter in place” while police, with automatic weapons drawn, carried out warrantless house-to-house searches. The mass transit system was shut down, passenger train service was halted, and businesses, schools, universities and other public facilities were closed.

It was an unprecedented police-state operation. As the World Socialist Web Site noted at the time, the scene resembled the American occupation of Baghdad. This massive mobilization of police power was deployed, supposedly, to track down one 19-year-old suspect.

Just as there was virtually no expression of opposition to this dry run for dictatorship by any section of the media or political establishment at the time, the lockdown of Boston has been omitted from current commentary on the opening of the trial. This makes all the more important the posing of some of the unanswered questions regarding the events of April 2013, which are likely to be excluded from the court proceedings as well as the media coverage of the trial.

These include:

· Why did the FBI and CIA fail to respond to warnings from Russia’s security agency FSB in 2011 and 2012 concerning Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s support for Islamist separatist and terrorist organizations in Russia’s North Caucasian regions of Chechnya and Dagestan? Why did they ignore Russia’s request that Tsarnaev be prevented from traveling to these regions?

· Why did the FBI clear Tamerlan Tsarnaev of harboring terrorist sympathies in 2011 after supposedly carrying out an intensive investigation? Why did the agency claim there was no “derogatory” information against him, even though it suspected him of having participated in the Waltham, Massachusetts murder of three Jewish men, including a “best friend,” on the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks?

· Why was he allowed to travel to Dagestan in January of 2012, without even being questioned at the airport? He remained there for six months and reportedly made contact with Islamist groups that have carried out terror attacks against Russian targets. Why was he allowed to return to the US without even being stopped at the airport and questioned on his return?

· Why did the FBI, CIA and Homeland Security Department fail to inform their state and local counterparts on the Boston joint terrorism task force of their contacts with Tamerlan Tsarnaev prior to the Boston Marathon?

These unanswered questions strongly suggest that US intelligence was seeking to use Tamerlan Tsarnaev to further its covert anti-Russian operations among Chechen and Dagestan separatists. These regions also supplied many of the foreign fighters recruited by the CIA for its proxy war for regime change against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

This connection is underscored by another critical fact ignored by the US media—the role of Ruslan Tsarni, the uncle of the Tsarnaev brothers. In the 1990s, Tsarni ran a US group called the Congress of Chechen International Organizations, which helped supply anti-Russian insurgents in Chechnya with military equipment. The organization was registered at the home of his father-in-law, Graham Fuller.

Fuller had been vice chairman of the National Intelligence Council at the CIA under President Reagan, and had worked for the agency in a number of countries, including serving as CIA station chief in Kabul.

A phone video of a homeless man who goes by the name Africa being shot and killed by the LAPD went viral Sunday night. The video was raw, the outrage on display from those watching the killing unfold in real time, palpable.

On cue, the LAPD and its compliant local media went into damage-control mode. Without irony, the police would insist time and time again the public not pass judgment–while they would do just that. From an initial report in LA Weekly (3/1/15):

The Los Angeles Police Protective League, which represents rank-and-file city officers, tonight urged “everyone to reserve their judgment” until investigations are completed.

In a statement the union said that audio “clearly suggests that the officers felt that they were in life-threatening danger.”

This block quote was not edited for effect, those two statements actually follow on another. Let’s take a closer look:

…urged “everyone to reserve their judgment” until investigations are completed.

…”clearly suggests that the officers felt that they were in life-threatening danger.”

From Nicholas Dahmann on Vimeo.

The LAPD police union urges people not to judge while proceeding to literallydo just that–casually asserting Africa (originally misidentified as Charley Saturmin Robinet) was at fault. In a sane universe, the obvious, glaring hypocrisy of these two statements would be challenged, or at least noted. But to a friendly local media whose default position is to simply repeat “official” accounts, no matter how illogical they may be, this type of spin goes entirely unquestioned.

This cognitive dissonance would be on display again in the LA Times initial report (3/2/15), quoting Police Commission President Steve Soboroff:

Soboroff said a key issue would be whether the man did try to grab the officer’s gun. Otherwise, he said, it’s unclear what might have prompted the use of deadly force.

“To me, that would be the only explanation that something would happen that quickly,” Soboroff said. “It escalated right in front of our eyes.”

Soboroff said the LAPD, the independent inspector general and the district attorney’s office would each investigate the shooting “very, very carefully.”

“Of course, I would encourage people not to rush to judgment. It’s not fair to anybody. It’s not fair to the family of the victim or the victim or the officers,” he said. “We’ll find out what happened.

Once again, let’s isolate these comments:

Soboroff said a key issue would be whether the man did try to grab the officer’s gun….

“To me, that would be the only explanation”

These statements are, in no uncertain terms, a judgment of the events in question.

“Of course, I would encourage people not to rush to judgment.”

But that’s what Soboroff just did. He literally just rushed to judgment. Saying that Africa reaching for an officer’s gun is “the only explanation” is, in every sense of the word, a judgment. And given Soboroff’s total lack of new or exculpatory information, entirely rushed. But again, this PR sleight-of-hand is allowed to be floated without any examination.

LAPD Chief Charlie Beck with photos of a gun that may or may not have been grabbed.

As a reward for its stenography, the LA Times  was allowed a private screening of “enhanced” footage the police insist shows Africa reaching for an officer’s gun:

An enhanced version of a video recording of LA police officers fatally shooting a homeless man on skid row Sunday appears to show the man’s hand reaching in the direction of an officer’s waistband.

A Times review of the video shows the officer quickly pulling away at that moment. Then, three of his colleagues open fire on the man.

It was difficult to determine whether the man’s hand actually touched the officer’s weapon.

Firstly, the Times allows the goal post to move without question. The chief of police is insisting the video shows Africa reaching for the officer’s gun, but now the criteria is “reaching in the direction of an officer’s waistband”? The lead, therefore, should be “Chief Beck’s claim that Africa was reaching for the officer’s gun not supported by new video evidence.” Instead, the goal post is subtly moved to a heretofore unknown criteria of “reaching in the direction of a waistband,” as if this is somehow meaningful. Buried a few paragraphs down, the Times concedes as much:

It was difficult to determine whether the man’s hand actually touched the officer’s weapon.

Secondly, the whole premise is bizarre. The whole practice of treating the press like a clergy class who must interpret video evidence like some inscrutable ancient text, rather than just publishing it online for all to see, is inherently prejudicial. Why is the Times allowed to see this “enhanced footage” while no one else is? If the LAPD is so confident it shows he reached for a gun, then why not just release it to the public?

The boilerplate excuse about an “on-going investigation”–despite not really making any sense–would suffice to the media. And why wouldn’t it? After all, this information asymmetry works entirely to their advantage, and the LAPD knows this. Information, to them, is currency. And since the city–from the LAPD to the mayor’s office to the DA–hold all the information, it knows it can selectively leak it to paint a picture to their liking–working to the advantage of government and media alike, while leaving a grieving public totally in the dark.

This arrangement would become even sleazier yesterday when city authorities–and thus the LA Times–went into full on character assassination mode, withback-to-back smear pieces about Africa’s totally irrelevant criminal past. This screencap of the LA Times‘ Kate Mather’s bio page sums it up nicely:

 

Her jolly face contrasted with the scary, entirely non sequitur mugshot of Africa raises the question: Why? What does whether he robbed a bank 15 years ago have to do with anything? How is it relevant? How can it do anything but serve to posthumously try and convict him on unrelated charges of being poor and mentally ill?

But we’ve seen this before: Michael Brown was “no angel.” Eric Garner was a“career criminal.” We’ve seen before the “leaked” information about a criminal past, the one-sided framing of a person’s entire life, reducing them to someone worthy–if not deserving–of the incidental death they suffered at the hands of police.

Indeed, we know the routine by heart. Police shoot an unarmed black man and the question is not, What drove the cops to do that? What motivated the police to respond with such disproportionate force? Not, What is the criminal past of the police involved or the police department as a whole? The burden, and thus the media’s focus, is on the one person who can’t defend himself.

h/t @Olaasm, who’s been keeping the LAPD honest for years.

Adam Johnson is a freelance journalist; formerly he was a founder of the hardware startup Brightbox. You can follow him on Twitter at@adamjohnsonnyc. A version of this post appeared on his blog Citations Needed (3/4/15).

Oriel Jean and his wife Bettina.

In what many suspect is a political assassination, Oriel Jean, 50, the former security chief of President Jean-Bertrand Aristide from 2001 to 2003, was shot to death by gunmen on motorcycles shortly after 3:30 p.m. on Mon., Mar. 2 near Delmas 30, not far from the offices of Claudy Construction in Parc Mirdoré on Delmas 33 where he worked.

According to his assistant Kenny Faustin, Oriel had just finished taking out US$10,800 for payroll from the Sogebank at Delmas 30 and was driving a grey Toyota pick-up with a Dominican co-worker named Maldonado with the money in a bag on the back seat when the car was struck from behind by a motorcycle. When Oriel got out of the vehicle to see what had happened, assailants shot him twice in the stomach and heart, took the money as well as a bag which contained his gun, and fled in the direction of the Simon Pélé neighborhood. Oriel died at the scene, face down on the pavement.

The assailants were six men on two motorcycles, according to witnesses. Mr. Maldonado, who fled the vehicle when the attack began, was not harmed but was apprehended by the police. According to some press reports, the police have stated that no money was stolen from the vehicle.

Oriel, who was known to his friends as “Roro,” had returned to Haiti in September 2013 after spending about seven years working as a parking lot attendant at the Ft. Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport following his release from prison in September 2006. He spent two and a half years jailed, with a year on probation, after accepting a plea bargain for “Conspiracy to Commit Money-Laundering,” the same charge and sentence given to other high-ranking Lavalas government officials swept up in a politically-motivated legal campaign by Washington against Aristide following the U.S.-backed Feb. 29, 2004 coup d’état.

“In my first meeting with U.S. prosecutors after I was extradited from Canada [in March 2004], they said I wouldn’t have to spend a day in jail, they’d give me money, a new identity, witness protection and so forth if I would only testify against Aristide,” he told Haïti Liberté in a series of interviews in 2007. “I refused the offer, telling them that Aristide was not involved.” Oriel did however testify against drug trafficker Serge Edouard, alias Sergot Persévérance, who was convicted in U.S. Federal Court in Miami to a life sentence in September 2005.

Although Oriel never testified against Aristide, the Miami Herald ran several articles implying just the opposite, like one on May 25, 2004, that called Oriel “a U.S. government informant” who was providing “information about Aristide’s inner circle.” Oriel only testified to convict kingpin Serge Edouard.

Misinformation and disinformation about Oriel continued in news reports this week about his death. The Miami Herald, for instance, reported on Mar. 2 that “[a]fter running into President Michel Martelly while he was campaigning, Jean decided to move back to Haiti where he had hoped to get a job in the administration,” citing an anonymous “friend.”

“That assertion is a complete lie,” said Alix Sainphor, one of Oriel’s closest friends since childhood, who spoke to him weekly. “Oriel didn’t want anything to do with Martelly. He was a partisan of Aristide. But he wanted to keep a low profile and stay out of politics.”

Another close friend, Harry Guignard, who helped Oriel get his job manning a parking booth at the airport, agreed. “He had progressive views, but he was not at all interested to get back into politics. He wanted to take care of his family and go back to school to finish getting his law degree.”

Oriel was born Jan. 1, 1965 in Port-au-Prince to an Adventist pastor, Odiyel Jean, who now lives in Cazale, and his mother, who was from Port-de-Paix. After the fall of the Duvalier regime in 1986, Oriel became politically involved, militating for three years with the National Popular Assembly (APN) popular organization before moving to Canada for three years from 1989 to 1991. He returned to become a part of President Aristide’s security detail in 1991 and lived through the Sep. 30, 1991 coup d’état, which he described in graphic detail to huge audiences which greeted the Brooklyn premiere of the PBS documentary film “Killing the Dream” at Medgar Evers College in 1992. After getting additional training from Swiss policemen while in exile, Oriel continued to work with Aristide’s security corps in Washington, DC until October 1994, when he returned with Aristide to Haiti.

After President René Préval came to power in 1996, Oriel and his friend Nesly Lucien became respectively the assistant director and director of National Palace security. When Aristide returned to the presidency in 2001, Oriel became chief of Palace security while Nesly became the chief of police.

When the George W. Bush administration launched its destabilization campaign against Aristide in 2001, it began focused its propaganda assault on the various officials around Aristide, including Oriel and Nesly.

“That’s how the political struggle is,” he told Haïti Liberté in a 2007 interview. “You try to corner the enemy as much as you can until you can destroy him. So to weaken Aristide, they began to attack all the people around him. And myself, as security chief, you try to make me look like a scoundrel, a drug-dealer, a criminal, a mob leader, then you take all those things and you throw that on Aristide too, you smear Aristide too.”

With Haiti under intense surveillance, the U.S. began accusing the Aristide government of coddling drug traffickers as a means of political destabilization. “I remember Oriel exclaiming to me how the U.S., with all its satellites, boats, aircraft, and technology, can’t stop the flow of illegal drugs into its borders, but somehow it wants Haiti to act as its border patrol and stop the traffickers,” said Oriel’s friend Harry Guignard. “They were under real pressure. Oriel got a call when he became security chief from someone who told him: ‘your son is getting really big. He looks good going to school.’ The Haitian authorities like Oriel, who were being politically demonized and economically strangled by the U.S., were too weak to confront the traffickers and stop them. It would mean getting killed. So they were forced to accommodate. And then the U.S. pounced on them.”

To be continued

The evidence for the abominable toxicity of Round Up chemicals like glyphosate is already overwhelming, yet there seems to be a never-ending stream of research and evidence pointing toward their dangers. A new study has just been published showing that farmers in Sri Lanka exposed to glyphosate through drinking water are 5 times more likely to develop chronic kidney failure than those who don’t drink herbicide-polluted water.

Farmers in this part of the world often wear scant protection when spraying glyphosate on their rice fields, but it seems that this protection is not enough. The fact that Round Up has contaminated their drinking water is an example of how multi-tiered the problem of herbicidal toxicity truly is.

Big Ag chemicals, more specifically, biotech’s chemicals (since their GM rice, soy, corn, and other genetically altered seeds are meant to withstand copious amounts of spaying) are detrimental to humans and the environment from the moment they are sprayed to years later. In this case, the toxicity is felt when residents of small rural villages drink from wells that have contaminated ground water due to spraying.

The research abstract concludes:

“The current study strongly favors the hypothesis that CKDu epidemic among farmers in dry zone of Sri Lanka is associated with, history of drinking water from a well that was abandoned. In addition, it is associated with spraying glyphosate and other pesticides in paddy fields.”

To summarize the study, Dr. Channa Jayasumana states:

“Drinking well water and occupational exposure to Herbicides is associated with chronic kidney disease, in Padavi-Sripura, Sri Lanka.”

Simply put – but apparently not so simply solved.

Concentrations of glyphosate and metals are much higher in these abandoned wells, increasing the risk of deadly chronic kidney disease (CKDu) by up to 5-fold.

The Center for Public Integrity says fatal chronic kidney disease of unknown origin, or CKDu, has killed more people in El Salvador and Nicaragua than AIDS, diabetes, and leukemia combined over the past five years. This wave of CKDu affecting numerous poor farming countries around the world simply didn’t exist prior to 1990.

Another study published in the Journal of Organic Systems also found a link between glyphosate and the enormous increase in chronic diseases across the United States.

It has already been established, through groundbreaking research that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s broad-spectrum herbicide Round Up, might be “a crucially important factor in the development of multiple chronic diseases and conditions.”

This is just more confirmation that the world should ban GMOs and their chemicals as fast as possible.

Follow us: @naturalsociety on Twitter | NaturalSociety on Facebook

Police Killings Grossly Underreported

We previously reported that Americans are 9 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than a terrorist.

But it turns out that our numbers were incorrect …

This isn’t surprising, given that:

“Reliable estimates of the number of justifiable homicides committed by police officers in the United States do not exist.” A study of killings by police from 1999 to 2002 in the Central Florida region found that the national databases included (in Florida) only one-fourth of the number of persons killed by police as reported in the local news media.

The Guardian reports today:

An average of 545 people killed by local and state law enforcement officers in the US went uncounted in the country’s most authoritative crime statistics every year for almost a decade, according to a report released on Tuesday.

The first-ever attempt by US record-keepers to estimate the number of uncounted “law enforcement homicides” exposed previous official tallies as capturing less than half of the real picture. The new estimate – an average of 928 people killed by police annually over eight recent years, compared to 383 in published FBI data – amounted to a more glaring admission than ever before of the government’s failure to track how many people police kill.

The revelation called into particular question the FBI practice of publishing annual totals of “justifiable homicides by law enforcement” – tallies that are widely cited in the media and elsewhere as the most accurate official count of police homicides.

As shown below, that means that you’re 55 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than a terrorist.

You’re Much More Likely to Be Killed By Brain-Eating Parasites, Texting While Driving, Toddlers, Lightning, Falling Out of Bed, Alcoholism, Food Poisoning, Choking On Food, a Financial Crash, Obesity, Medical Errors or “Autoerotic Asphyxiation” than by Terrorists

Daniel Benjamin – the Coordinator for Counterterrorism at the United States Department of State from 2009 to 2012 – noted last month (at 10:22):

The total number of deaths from terrorism in recent years has been extremely small in the West. And the threat itself has been considerably reduced. Given all the headlines people don’t have that perception; but if you look at the statistics that is the case.

Time Magazine noted in 2013 that the chance of dying in a terrorist attack in the United States from 2007 to 2011, according to Richard Barrett – coordinator of the United Nations al Qaeda/Taliban Monitoring Team – was 1 in 20 million.

Let’s look at specific numbers …

The U.S. Department of State reports that only 17 U.S. citizens were killed worldwide as a result of terrorism in 2011.* That figure includes deaths in Afghanistan, Iraq and all other theaters of war.

In contrast, the American agency which tracks health-related issues – the U.S. Centers for Disease Control – rounds up the most prevalent causes of death in the United States:

Click to enlarge

Comparing the CDC numbers to terrorism deaths means:

– You are 35,079 times more likely to die from heart disease than from a terrorist attack

– You are 33,842 times more likely to die from cancer than from a terrorist attack

(Keep in mind when reading this entire piece that we are consistently and substantially understating the risk of other causes of death as compared to terrorism, because we are comparing deaths from various causes within the United States against deaths from terrorism worldwide.)

Wikipedia notes that obesity is a a contributing factor in 100,000–400,000 deaths in the United States per year. That makes obesity 5,882 to 23,528 times more likely to kill you than a terrorist.

The annual number of deaths in the U.S. due to avoidable medical errors is as high as 100,000. Indeed, one of the world’s leading medical journals – Lancet – reported in 2011:

A November, 2010, document from the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services reported that, when in hospital, one in seven beneficiaries of Medicare (the government-sponsored health-care programme for those aged 65 years and older) have complications from medical errors, which contribute to about 180 000 deaths of patients per year.

That’s just Medicare beneficiaries, not the entire American public. Scientific American noted in 2009:

Preventable medical mistakes and infections are responsible for about 200,000 deaths in the U.S. each year, according to an investigation by the Hearst media corporation.

And a new study in the current issue of the Journal of Patient Safety says the numbers may be up to 440,000 each year.

But let’s use the lower – 100,000 – figure. That still means that you are 5,882 times more likely to die from medical error than terrorism.

The CDC says that some 80,000 deaths each year are attributable to excessive alcohol use. So you’re 4,706 times more likely to drink yourself to death than die from terrorism.

Wikipedia notes that there were 32,367 automobile accidents in 2011, which means that you are 1,904 times more likely to die from a car accident than from a terrorist attack. As CNN reporter Fareed Zakaria wrote last year:

“Since 9/11, foreign-inspired terrorism has claimed about two dozen lives in the United States. (Meanwhile, more than 100,000 have been killed in gun homicides and more than 400,000 in motor-vehicle accidents.) “

President Obama agreed.

According to a 2011 CDC report, poisoning from prescription drugs is even more likely to kill you than a car crash. Indeed, the CDC stated in 2011 that – in the majority of states – your prescription meds are more likely to kill you than any other source of injury. So your meds are thousands of times more likely to kill you than Al Qaeda.

The financial crisis has also caused quite a few early deaths. The Guardian reported in 2008:

High-income countries such as the UK and US could see a 6.4% surge in deaths from heart disease, while low-income countries could experience a 26% rise in mortality rates.

Since there were 596,339 deaths from heart disease in the U.S. in 2011 (see CDC table above), that means that there are approximately 38, 165 additional deaths a year from the financial crisis … and Americans are 2,245 times more likely to die from a financial crisis that a terrorist attack.

Financial crises cause deaths in other ways, as well. For example, the poverty rate has skyrocketed in the U.S. since the 2008 crash. For example, the poverty rate in 2010 was the highest in 17 years, and more Americans numerically were in poverty as of 2011 than for more than 50 years. Poverty causes increased deaths from hunger, inability to pay for heat and shelter, and other causes. (And – as mentioned below – suicides have skyrocketed recently; many connect the increase in suicides to the downturn in the economy.)

The number of deaths by suicide has also surpassed car crashes. Around 35,000 Americans kill themselves each year (and more American soldiers die by suicide than combat; the number of veterans committing suicide is astronomical and under-reported). So you’re 2,059 times more likely to kill yourself than die at the hand of a terrorist.

The CDC notes that there were 7,638 deaths from HIV and 45 from syphilis, so you’re 452 times more likely to die from risky sexual behavior than terrorism. (That doesn’t include death by autoerotic asphyxiation … discussed below.)

The National Safety Council reports that more than 6,000 Americans die a year from falls … most of them involve people falling off their roof or ladder trying to clean their gutters, put up Christmas lights and the like. That means that you’re 353 times more likely to fall to your death doing something idiotic than die in a terrorist attack.

The same number – 6,000 – die annually from texting or talking on the cellphone while driving. So you’re 353 times more likely to meet your maker while lol’ing than by terrorism.

The agency in charge of workplace safety – the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration – reports that 4,609 workers were killed on the job in 2011 within the U.S. homeland. In other words, you are 271 times more likely to die from a workplace accident than terrorism.

The CDC notes that 3,177 people died of “nutritional deficiencies” in 2011, which means you are 187 times more likely to starve to death in American than be killed by terrorism.

Approximately 1,000 Americans die each year from autoerotic asphyxiation. So you’re 59 times more likely to kill yourself doing weird, kinky things than at the hands of a terrorist.

As noted above, there were an average of 928 Americans killed by police officers in the United States each year in “justifiable homicides”. That means that you were more than 55 times more likely to be killed by a law enforcement officer than by a terrorist. That number does not include unjustifiable homicides.

Nearly 400 Americans die each year due to drug allergies from penicillin. More than 200 deaths occur each year due to food allergies. Nearly 100 Americans die due to insect allergies. And 10 deaths each year are due to severe reactions to latex. See this. There are many other types of allergies, but that totals 710 deaths each year from just those four types of allergies alone … making it 42 times more likely that you’ll die from an allergic reaction than from a terror attack.

Some 450 Americans die each year when they fall out of bed, 26 times more than are killed by terrorists.

Scientific American notes:

You might have toxoplasmosis, an infection caused by the microscopic parasite Toxoplasma gondii, which the CDC estimates has infected about 22.5 percent of Americans older than 12 years old

Toxoplasmosis is a brain-parasite. The CDC reports that more than 375 Americans die annually due to toxoplasmosis. In addition, 3 Americans died in 2011 after being exposed to a brain-eating amoeba. So you’re about 22 times more likely to die from a brain-eating zombie parasite than a terrorist.

Around 34 Americans a year are killed by dog bites … around twice as many as by terrorists.

The 2011 Report on Terrorism from the National Counter Terrorism Center notes that Americans are just as likely to be “crushed to death by their televisions or furniture each year” as they are to be killed by terrorists.

Statistics from the Centers for Disease Control show that Americans are 110 times more likely to die from contaminated food than terrorism. And see this.

The Jewish Daily Forward noted in May that – even including the people killed in the Boston bombing – you are more likely to be killed by a toddler than a terrorist. And see these statistics from CNN.

Reason notes:

[The risk of being killed by terrorism] compares annual risk of dying in a car accident of 1 in 19,000; drowning in a bathtub at 1 in 800,000; dying in a building fire at 1 in 99,000; or being struck by lightning at 1 in 5,500,000. In other words, in the last five years you were four times more likely to be struck by lightning than killed by a terrorist.

The National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) has just published, Background Report: 9/11, Ten Years Later [PDF]. The report notes, excluding the 9/11 atrocities, that fewer than 500 people died in the U.S. from terrorist attacks between 1970 and 2010.

Scientific American reported in 2011:

John Mueller, a political scientist at Ohio State University, and Mark Stewart, a civil engineer and authority on risk assessment at University of Newcastle in Australia … contended, “a great deal of money appears to have been misspent and would have been far more productive—saved far more lives—if it had been expended in other ways.”

Mueller and Stewart noted that, in general, government regulators around the world view fatality risks—say, from nuclear power, industrial toxins or commercial aviation—above one person per million per year as “acceptable.” Between 1970 and 2007 Mueller and Stewart asserted in a separate paper published last year in Foreign Affairs that a total of 3,292 Americans (not counting those in war zones) were killed by terrorists resulting in an annual risk of one in 3.5 million. Americans were more likely to die in an accident involving a bathtub (one in 950,000), a home appliance (one in 1.5 million), a deer (one in two million) or on a commercial airliner (one in 2.9 million). [Let’s throw a couple more fun facts into the mix … The risk of choking to death on food is 1 in 4,404, and the risk of dying by falling out of furniture (including couches, chairs and beds) is 1 in 4,238. So you’re almost a thousand times more likely to die from one of these rare causes of death than terrorism.]

The global mortality rate of death by terrorism is even lower. Worldwide, terrorism killed 13,971 people between 1975 and 2003, an annual rate of one in 12.5 million. Since 9/11 acts of terrorism carried out by Muslim militants outside of war zones have killed about 300 people per year worldwide. This tally includes attacks not only by al Qaeda but also by “imitators, enthusiasts, look-alikes and wannabes,” according to Mueller and Stewart.

Defenders of U.S. counterterrorism efforts might argue that they have kept casualties low by thwarting attacks. But investigations by the FBI and other law enforcement agencies suggest that 9/11 may have been an outlier—an aberration—rather than a harbinger of future attacks. Muslim terrorists are for the most part “short on know-how, prone to make mistakes, poor at planning” and small in number, Mueller and Stewart stated. Although still potentially dangerous, terrorists hardly represent an “existential” threat on a par with those posed by Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union.

In fact, Mueller and Stewart suggested in Homeland Security Affairs, U.S. counterterrorism procedures may indirectly imperil more lives than they preserve: “Increased delays and added costs at U.S. airports due to new security procedures provide incentive for many short-haul passengers to drive to their destination rather than flying, and, since driving is far riskier than air travel, the extra automobile traffic generated has been estimated to result in 500 or more extra road fatalities per year.”

The funds that the U.S. spends on counterterrorism should perhaps be diverted to other more significant perils, such as industrial accidents (one in 53,000), violent crime (one in 22,000), automobile accidents (one in 8,000) and cancer (one in 540). “Overall,” Mueller and Stewart wrote, “vastly more lives could have been saved if counterterrorism funds had instead been spent on combating hazards that present unacceptable risks.” In an e-mail to me, Mueller elaborated:

“The key question, never asked of course, is what would the likelihood be if the added security measures had not been put in place? And, if the chances without the security measures might have been, say, one in 2.5 million per year, were the trillions of dollars in investment (including overseas policing which may have played a major role) worth that gain in security—to move from being unbelievably safe to being unbelievably unbelievably safe? Given that al Qaeda and al Qaeda types have managed to kill some 200 to 400 people throughout the entire world each year outside of war zones since 9/11—including in areas that are far less secure than the U.S.—there is no reason to anticipate that the measures have deterred, foiled or protected against massive casualties in the United States. If the domestic (we leave out overseas) enhanced security measures put into place after 9/11 have saved 100 lives per year in the United States, they would have done so at a cost of $1 billion per saved life. That same money, if invested in a measure that saves lives at a cost of $1 million each—like passive restraints for buses and trucks—would have saved 1,000 times more lives.”

Mueller and Stewart’s analysis is conservative, because it excludes the most lethal and expensive U.S. responses to 9/11. Al Qaeda’s attacks also provoked the U.S. into invading and occupying two countries, at an estimated cost of several trillion dollars. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have resulted in the deaths of more than 6,000 Americans so far—more than twice as many as were killed on September 11, 2001—as well as tens of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans.

***

In 2007 New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said that people are more likely to be killed by lightning than terrorism. “You can’t sit there and worry about everything,” Bloomberg exclaimed. “Get a life.”

Indeed, the Senior Research Scientist for the Space Science Institute (Alan W. Harris) estimates that the odds of being killed by a terrorist attack is about the same as being hit by an asteroid (and see this).

Terrorism pushes our emotional buttons. And politicians and the media tend to blow the risk of terrorism out of proportion. But as the figures above show, terrorism is a very unlikely cause of death.

Indeed, our spending on anti-terrorism measures is way out of whack … especially because most of the money has been wasted. And see this article, and this 3-minute video by professor Mueller:

* Note: Subsequent official reports – published in 2012 and 2013 – show that even fewer Americans were killed by terrorists than in the previous year.

Abdelhakim Belhadj has reportedly joined forces with the Islamic State, according to the journalist Sara Carter. Belhadj is a former al-Qaeda operative who was a key player in the overthrow of Moammar Gaddafi. He worked directly with the U.S. and NATO.

Kyle Shideler writes for The Washington Times:

If Belhadj has gone over to Islamic State, it will represent a major boost to Islamic State’s efforts to co-opt and bring in Libya’s existing jihadist forces under their banner, which now reportedly includes as many as 3,000 fighters. Belhadj’s forces play a significant role in the Islamist “Libyan Dawn” coalition (which includes the Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda’s Ansar al-Sharia), which currently holds Tripoli, and which claims to be the rightful government in opposition to the U.N. recognized government of Prime Minister Abdullah al-Thinni.

@SaraCarterDC Would that be the same Abdelhakim Belhadj that @SenJohnMcCain is so chummy with? Asking for a friend. pic.twitter.com/BoCWocC4Di

— Patrick Poole (@pspoole) March 2, 2015

The Islamic State in Libya is based in Derna, a city in the northeast part of the country. In 2001, it represented “one of the greatest concentrations of jihadi terrorists to be found anywhere in the world, and by some measures can be regarded as the leading source of suicide bombers anywhere on the planet,” according to Webster Tarpley. It was also “the epicenter of the NATO-backed rebellion,” writes Tony Cartalucci. In 2011 Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, a leading figure of the Derna jihadists, told the Italian newspaper Il Sole 24 Or he had recruited “around 25″ men from the Derna area in eastern Libya to fight against coalition troops in Iraq. The Telegraph reported on March 25, 2011:

Mr al-Hasidi admitted he had earlier fought against “the foreign invasion” in Afghanistan, before being “captured in 2002 in Peshwar, in Pakistan”. He was later handed over to the US, and then held in Libya before being released in 2008.

Abdelhakim Belhadj’s links to key neocons (as the tweet above reveals) and Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi’s connection to the CIA-run and Saudi financed war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan provides further evidence al-Qaeda and its spawn, the Islamic State, formerly ISIS, are intelligence fabrications designed to perpetuate the war on terror and further the geostrategic agenda of the global elite. Belhadj’s CIA rendition (with the help of British intelligence) and al-Hasidi’s capture by the U.S. reveal both to be intelligence assets. The presence of the Islamic State in Iraq, Syria and now Libya is a key element in the next phase in the war on terror. In late February the Islamic State released a video calling for jihadists from Saudi Arabia, Tunisia and Egypt to immigrate to Libya. Mohammed al-Dairi, the Libyan foreign minister, is calling for direct military intervention against the Islamic State. “I ask world powers to stand by Libya and launch military strikes against these groups,” he said in February. “This threat will move to European countries, especially Italy.”

The conventional medical system is literally grasping at straws trying to maintain the illusion that vaccines work, with new reports now admitting that flu vaccines are an utter failure while still pushing people to get them. The latest nonsensical narrative, at least from the Canadian government, attributes all the inconsistencies between what authorities have long claimed about the alleged efficacy of the flu shot and its actual dismal success rate to a mysterious “paradox” where previous vaccinations somehow interfere with current ones.

Since health authorities no longer have a leg to stand on — it is now widespread knowledge that the flu shot is minimally effective at best — they are resorting to more confusing pseudoscience that, oddly enough, actually affirms what flu shot skeptics have surmised for many years. Vaccines in general, they now reluctantly admit, affect every person differently. And depending on what previous vaccinations a person has had, flu shots may or may not provide any protection at all–and in some cases, they will make a person more prone to illness.

“People who receive flu vaccines year after year can sometimes show reduced protection, an effect that Canadian infectious disease specialists say muddies public health messages for annual flu vaccine campaigns,” explains Canada’s CBC News about this disturbing phenomenon.

“During the 2009 H1N1 pandemic, researchers at the B.C. Centre for Disease Control originally thought seasonal flu shots from 2008 might offer extra protection against the new pandemic strain. They were puzzled to find instead, seasonal flu vaccination almost doubled the risk of infection with pandemic flu.”

Did you read that? An untested vaccine that health authorities all around the world urged everyone to get for their own protection against a novel, pandemic flu strain — and a vaccine that they promised would also protect against seasonal flu — actually made people who got it more prone to contracting the flu. This is now being openly admitted, affirming what independent news outlets like Natural News have been warning the public about for years.

And yet, despite this admission, these same health authorities are still trying to scare the public into rushing out and getting a flu shot. Huh? The vaccine doesn’t work, they now say. And people who get it year after year are more prone to contracting the flu, they also say. But everyone should still rush out and get it, especially if they’re in a high-risk category?

Peer-reviewed study reveals that unvaccinated people are most protected against influenza

At least six separate studies conducted by the same people that are still pushing the flu shot have confirmed that seasonal flu shots make people more prone to contracting the flu. The evidence is now overwhelming that, rather than impart immunity as long claimed, flu shots actually destroy the immune system and increase the risk of infection.

One would think that, now that the cat is out of the bag, these peddlers of quackery would quit while they’re ahead, admit that they lied about flu shot safety and efficacy, and go out and find a real profession. Instead, they’re continuing to push the seasonal flu shot, which as they now put it causes “interference” with people’s immune systems, as they hype the soon unveiling of a “universal” flu shot that will be better than ever (fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, well, you know the rest).

The real kicker here is that, in the same CBC News report, a study published in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases is referenced, revealing that the people who are most protected from the flu are, wait for it — the unvaccinated. So tell me again, why should anyone get a flu shot?

Sources:

http://www.thedailysheeple.com

http://www.cbc.ca

http://www.naturalnews.com

http://truthwiki.org/Vaccine_Fanaticism

http://truthwiki.org/Medical_Fascism

http://truthwiki.org/Medical_Kidnapping

In an interview with the Palestinian Embassy in South Africa, and the Palestinian delegation participating in the Israeli Apartheid Week, Archbishop Desmond Tutu said that the “west committed the holocaust against the Jews in Europe, while the Palestinians are still paying a historic price for it.

Tutu, a senior religious, intellectual and social figure who received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1984, said that the Palestinians should not be paying the price of what the west did to the Jews in Europe.

In a meeting with the Palestine Embassy in South Africa and the Palestinian media delegation participating in the Israeli Apartheid Week, Tutu said, “We support Israel’s rights to exist, but at the same time we denounce the ongoing Israeli violations, its rejection to recognize the legitimate Palestinian rights, and its repeated wars on the Palestinians, where innocent civilians end up paying a heavy price.”

Archbishop Tutu also denounced Israel’s persistence to force the Palestinians to recognize it as a Jewish State, slammed the attempts to hold Islam and all Muslims responsible for terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda and ISIS, and said such parallels are not different from trying to hold all Christians responsible for the crimes the Ku Klux Klan committed.

“Those who founded, and maintained, the apartheid regime in South Africa weren’t Muslims,” he added, “The current stage requires us to have more faith, to be wiser – we must be in full solidarity with the Palestinian people, supporting their legitimate struggle for freedom and independence.”

Media officer of the Palestine Embassy, Tamer al-Masry, handed the Archbishop a gift in the name of the Palestinian people, thanking him for his support, wishing him well, and wishing him to be able to visit Bethlehem soon.

The Israeli Apartheid Week started on March 2nd, and will continue through March 8, in more than 250 cities around the world, and in more than 20 South African Campuses and 45 South African cities and towns.

Israeli Apartheid Week (IAW) is an annual international series of events (including rallies, protests, lectures, cultural performances, concerts, films and workshops) held in over 250 cities, communities and campuses across the globe. It is endorsed in South Africa by more than 75 organizations, trade unions, political parties and other groups.

The aim of IAW is to raise awareness of Israel’s apartheid policies towards the indigenous Palestinians and serves to garner support for the non-violent Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel’s campaign, which seeks to bring an end to Israel’s apartheid policies and violations of international law. http://www.iawsouthafrica.com/