The Moscow Basmanny Court, on Sunday, sanctioned the detention of three additional suspects in the case of the murder of Russian politician Boris Nemtsov. Meanwhile, Daur Dadayev , a former Chechen officer pleaded guilty for his involvement. The developments prompt the President of the Russian Federation’s Republic of Chechnya, Ramzan Kadyrov, to launch a probe into the republics security services and a probe to identify what may have motivated Dadayev, whom he knew as a loyal officer, to get involved in the crime.

The three additional suspects whose arrest was sanctioned by Moscow’s Basmanny Court are Khamzad Bakhayev, Tamerlan Eskerkhanov and Shagid Gubashev, reported the Russian Tass news agency.

Zaur Dadayev arraingned to the Court. Photo, courtesy of Mikhail Pochvev, Tass.

Zaur Dadayev arraingned to the Court. Photo, courtesy of Mikhail Pochvev, Tass.

The Court stated that it reached the conclusion to support the investigators’ request after having reviewed the materials presented to the court. Gubachev was arrested on March 7 while Eskerkhanov and Bakhayev were arrested on March 8.

The three were charged under Articles 105 and 222 of the Russian Federation’s Criminal Code, involving the murder committed by a group of persons, in collusion, and for reasons of money, as well as with robbery, extortion and banditry and the illegal possession or transfer of weapons.

The Court justifies their detention on the grounds that the suspects could flee and possibly attempt to destroy evidence.

Bakhayev and Gubachev are nationals of the Russian Federation’s Republic of Ingushetia while Eskerkhanov is a native of the Republic of Chechnya. All three had a registered address in Moscow. The Court also sanctioned the detention of the Chechen nationals Zaur Dadayev and Anzor Cubachev who had been arraigned to the Court.

President of the Russian Federation's Republic of Chechnya, Ramzan Kadyrov, challenged al-Baghdadi to admit that he is a CIA asset.

Dadayev’s Confession prompts Response by Chechen President Ramzan Kadyrov (left).

Judge Natalya Mushnikova was quoted by Tass as saying that “Zaur Dadayev’s involvement has been confirmed by his confession”. The Court would not provide details about Dadayev’s alleged or confessed role in the murder of RPR-Psarnas party Co-Chair Boris Nemtsov during the night from February 27 to 28.

Dadayev’s arrest and confession prompted the President of the Russian Federation’s Republic of Chechnya, Ramzan Kadyrov, to order an investigation into the Dadayev’s past. President Kadyrov stressed that he remembered Dadayev as a true Russian patriot. The Tass news agency quoted the Chechen Republic’s President as stating:

“I have known Zaur as a true patriot of Russia. … Zaur was one of the bravest men in the regiment. … He displayed particular courage in an operation against a large group of terrorists near Benoi. He was awarded the Order of Courage, and medals For Bravery and For Services to the Chechen Republic. I am certain that he was sincerely dedicated to Russia and prepared to give his life for the Motherland. The real reasons and motives behind Dadayev’s dismissal from the Russian Interior Ministry troops are unclear to me. … I have instructed Chechnya’s Security Council Secretary Vakhit Usmayev to conduct a thorough investigation of Zaur Dadayev’s resignation and to scrutinize his behavior and morale on the eve of leaving the service. … In any case, if Dadayev’s guilt is established in court, it will have to be admitted that by taking a human life he committed a grave crime. But I must say once again that he would have never taken a single step against Russia, for the sake of which he had risked his own life for many years. Beslan Shavanov, the man killed during an attempt to detain him, was a brave soldier, too. We hope that a thorough investigation will follow to show if Dadayev is really guilty, and if yes, what was the real reason behind his actions.”

Questions about Federal and Chechen Security Forces. The alleged and confessed involvement of a former Chechen officer is bound to raise concerns about federal security. The reasons for Dadayev’s dismissal are, as Ramzan Kadyrov noted, still unknown to him. Dadayev and his four co-defendants must be presumed innocent until they, eventually, have been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

A probe into the reasons for the dismissal of Dadayev from the Interior Ministry forces and a probe into Chechen security forces could eventually shed light on severe threats to the national security of the Republic of Chechnya and the Russian Federation as a whole.

BandarWestern and Arab Support of Terrorists could justify a Mole-Hunt in the Russian Federation’s Security Services. Chechen and Ingushetian Islamist terrorist organizations are known for their close ties to foreign intelligence services. In 2013 the then Chief of Saudi Arabia’s Intelligence, Prince Bandar admitted that Saudi Arabia uses and controls Chechen and other Caucasian terrorists promising President Putin “a safe Winter Olympic Games in Sochi” in exchange for Russian willingness to have a Saudi-friendly regime installed in Syria.

The released minutes of the meeting between Putin and Bandar quote Bandar as saying:

“I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics in the city of Sochi on the Black Sea next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us, and they will not move in the direction of the Syrian territory without coordinating with us. These groups don´t scare us. We use them in the face of the Syrian regime but they will have no role or influence in Syria´s political future”.

McCain_ISIS_FSA_voltairenet.org_Tarpley_USA_Syria_Iraq

Image: U.S. Senator John McCain meeting illegally in a rebel safe house with the heads of the “Free Syrian Army” in Idlib, Syria in April, 2013. In the left foreground, top al Qaeda terrorist leader Ibrahim al-Badri (aka Al-Baghdadi of ISIS, aka Caliph Ibrahim of the recently founded Islamic Empire) with whom the Senator is talking. Behind Badri is visible Brigadier General Salim Idris (with glasses), the former military chief of the FSA, who has since fled to the Gulf states after the collapse of any semblance of the FSA. (Courtesy VoltaireNet.org)

Chechen President Ramzan Kadyrov, for his part, has previously accused U.S. intelligence officials, including David Petraeus, for involvement in “flipping” detainees at Camp Bucca and at black CIA sites, including Caliph Ibrahim of the self-proclaimed Islamic State (ISIS / ISIL) Al-Baghdadi, a.k.a. Al-Badri or Caliph Ibrahim.

In Helsinki, the capital of Finland the Kavkaz Center is maintaining a “pro-Caucasus Emirate” website. The Center provided PR support to the now deceased terrorist leaderDoku Umarov and his terrorist network.

Umarov would threaten to disrupt the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympic Games before he was killed in an explosion.

U.S. Civil Society organizations as well as CIA and JSOCfronts like USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) are known for their support of “Caucasian Rebels or Freedom Fighters”.

A shortlist of the civil society organizations which have been implicated in supporting Russian terrorist organizations includes the Jamestown Foundation, the United States-Chechen Republic Alliance Inc., the American Committee for Peace in the Caucasus (ACPC), Freedom House, the Open Society Foundation, among many others.Zbigniew_Brzezinski_gru2010

The former U.S. National Security Adviser Zbigniev Brzezinski is generally known as one of the main enablers and sponsors of the “Chechen Representation in the United States” led by Alisher Usmanov. Brzezinsky, for his part, is strongly supported by Rockefeller Foundation money.

Brzezinski is according to several analysts pathologically obsessed with dividing Russia into at least six separate States” to reign in Moscow under the umbrella of a U.S. hegemony.

It is noteworthy that Boris Nemtsov and the RPR-Psarnas party had close ties to the National Endowment of Democracy (NED).

In 2012, Russian President Vladimir Putin would state that“he knows as a meter of fact” that especially foreign-backed organizations, over the last ten years, have used the strategy to sacrifice one of their own to create a martyr”. (see video)

The alleged involvement of Chechen and Ingushetian nationals in the murder of Boris Nemtsov and the confession of the former Interior Ministry officer Dadayev is not unlikely to prompt in-depth “mole-hunt” operations in the federal and national Russian, Chechen, Ingushetian and other security forces as well as mole-hunts in foreign-backed NGO’s.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Boris Nemtsov Assassination: Confession of Former Russian Officer could Prompt “Mole-Hunt”

Translator’s Introduction

Richard Sams

March 10 is the 70th anniversary of the Great Tokyo Air Raid. Although Tokyo was bombed more than 100 times from November 1944 to the end of the war, the firebombing centered on the Shitamachi district in the early hours of March 10, 1945, was by far the most devastating air raid on the capital. In less than three hours from just after midnight, 279 B-29 bombers dropped a total of 1,665 tons of incendiaries.1 By dawn, more than 100,000 people were dead, one million were homeless, and 16 square miles of Tokyo had been burned to the ground.

More people were killed in the indiscriminate firebombing of March 10 than in the immediate aftermath of the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. After the war, while Hiroshima and Nagasaki became symbols of Japan’s suffering and the peace movement, the Great Tokyo Air Raid was virtually excluded from public discourse. Hardly anyone wrote about the air raids that reduced the capital and most of Japan’s other cities to ashes, and the few articles that did appear in newspapers attracted little interest. For a quarter of a century after the war, while memorial services were held every year on August 6 and 9 for the victims of the atomic bombings and covered widely in newspapers and on television, the devastating firebombing campaign over Tokyo and much of urban Japan was quietly forgotten. While school textbooks, novels, poetry and films memorialized the atomic bombing and its victims, silence reigned with respect to the firebombing raids.

In the 1950s and 1960s, Japan’s high-speed growth transformed the Tokyo cityscape until all the remaining signs of devastation lay buried underground, out of sight and mind. Tokyo’s hosting of the Olympic Games in 1964 served as a symbol of Japan’s post-war reconstruction. In the same year, the government awarded General Curtis LeMay – the architect of the firebombing campaign – one of its highest honors, the First Class Order of the Rising Sun, for his work in establishing Japan’s postwar Air Self-Defense Force.

On occasion, however, Tokyo’s rapid urban development brought back memories of the devastation of the Shitamachi district from below ground. On June 13, 1967, the shocking discovery of human skeletons in a buried air-raid shelter unearthed during construction at a subway station in the Fukagawa district was reported in the Mainichi Shimbun newspaper. Among those who read the article was Saotome Katsumoto, a writer who had experienced the March 10 air raid as a boy of twelve. Saotome’s experiences during the war had imbued him with a deep pacifism that informed his life and career. He had already published six novels, the first of which had been nominated for the prestigious Naoki Prize. While he had drawn from his experience of the air raid in these novels and described it in various articles, he had never fully come to terms with it. As Saotome recounts below, the newspaper article had a galvanizing effect on him.

Saotome Katsumoto Photograph by Cary Karaca

A few days after he saw this article, Saotome received a visit from the journalist and critic Matsuura Sozo, who had begun to research the question of public amnesia regarding the Tokyo air raids. Matsuura was interviewing various people for an article about the raids for the monthly magazine Bungei Shunju.2 Although the two discussed the possibility of collaborating on a large project, it was not until 1970 that they pursued it in earnest. Saotome would later recall that 1970 was a critical turning point in public awareness of the firebombing of Tokyo. It was not only the twenty-fifth anniversary of the end of the war but also the year when the Anpo protests once again challenged the renewal of the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty. In addition, many survivors of the firebombing of Japan were feeling kinship with the victims of the napalm carpet-bombing of North Vietnam. Saotome saw it as the “last chance to denounce the Tokyo air raids.”3 On March 10, the Asahi Shimbun newspaper featured a letter by Saotome in its “Voices” (readers’ letters) section. After describing his harrowing experience of escaping from the inferno as the incendiary bombs rained down around him, he closed with an appeal: “Should not those of us who experienced the raids, at least on this day, just for one day, speak of what war is really like? And shouldn’t we also think about the bombs indiscriminately falling on Vietnam?”4

In response to Saotome’s plea, personal accounts of the air raids poured into the newspaper’s offices. To accommodate these responses, the Tokyo edition of the newspaper featured a special daily column Tokyo Hibaku Ki (Chronicle of Tokyo’s Bombings) featuring the recollections of victims of the bombings, particularly the March 10 raid. These victims’ testimonies were featured in the newspaper every day for forty days.

Seizing on the momentum generated by this public discussion, Saotome and Matsuura brought together sixteen intellectuals and air raid survivors to form the Society for Recording the Tokyo Air Raids, officially established on August 5, 1970.5 The Society’s central project was to publish the Tokyo Air Raid Damage Records (planned as five 1,000-page volumes) from the viewpoint of the main protagonists: the citizens of Tokyo. Funding was granted for this massive publishing project by the Governor of Tokyo, Minobe Ryokichi, a self-proclaimed “utopian socialist” who had himself experienced the firebombing of Hachioji in western Tokyo just two weeks before the end of the war. It was the first time that the Tokyo Metropolitan Government had made a commitment to support an extensive recording of the history of the air raids.

Representatives of the Society for Recording the Tokyo Air Raids meeting with Governor Minobe, August 5, 1970Second Left to right: Saotome Katsumoto, Matsuura Sozo, Minobe Ryokichi, Ienaga Saburo, Source: Tokyo Air Raid Resource Center

In the meantime, Saotome started visiting victims of the March 10 Shitamachi air raid to gather material for his own book. When he visited Fukagawa Library in July, both the chief librarian and one of the library staff, Hashimoto Yoshiko, recounted how they had survived the inferno that swept through Fukagawa and Honjo wards. Saotome featured Hashimoto’s incredible story of survival in his book. She later became a member of the editorial committee of the Society for Recording the Tokyo Air Raids and was active in raising public awareness.

The Great Tokyo Air Raid was published by Iwanami Shoten in January 1971. On March 10 nearly all of the media broadcast programs or published articles on the Tokyo air raids, focusing on the firebombing of the Shitamachi district. By the end of March, 221 victims of that air raid had submitted accounts of their experiences for inclusion in the first volume of the Tokyo Air Raid Damage Records. Amid this surge in public interest, Saotome’s book became a bestseller. In the first year following publication, about 200,000 copies were sold – an extraordinary number for a non-fiction book about the war. From 1971 until its publication was discontinued in 2007 it went through 49 editions. The fact that a total of about 500,000 copies were sold over 36 years testifies to the extraordinary interest generated by the media during the year of its publication.6 In the early 1970s, successive books and articles about the Tokyo air raids were published, including the five volumes of the Tokyo Air Raid Damage Records (1973-74). By the mid-1970s, however, the fickle interest of the media and general public had faded once again. This was hardly surprising, since it had risen through a particular combination of circumstances – the 25th anniversary of the end of the war, the controversies surrounding the renewal of the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty, the Vietnam War, and the influence of the first socialist Governor of Tokyo. Even so, without the determined activities of a small group of intellectuals and air raid survivors led by Saotome Katsumoto and Matsuura Sozo, it might never have happened at all.

The Great Tokyo Air Raid is an ambitious book. Although Saotome’s main focus was on the experiences of the victims, he also attempted to weave these accounts into a linear narrative of the air raid as a whole, while explaining the low-altitude firebombing strategy adopted by the US Army Air Force. However, as the author himself observed, the fact that only a few US documents had been translated into Japanese made the task very difficult. In 1979 Saotome himself wrote another book on the March 10 air raid, Tokyo ga Moeta Hi (The Day Tokyo Burned), in which he incorporated information from the US Army Air Force Tactical Mission Report that had become available after his first book was published. Nevertheless, the victims’ testimonies that form the core of The Great Tokyo Raid remain as powerful and heartrending today as they were when they were first told to the author forty-five years ago.

Seventy years after the Great Tokyo Air Raid, this is the first time for these survivors’ voices to be heard in the English language.

Richard Sams is a professional translator living in Tokyo. Since translating The Great Tokyo Air Raid a year ago, he has been researching the Tokyo air raids. His article on US bombing strategy for appeared in the Japanese journal Kushu Tsushin (Air Raid Report). He is currently editing a book (“Voices from the Ashes”) with Cary Karacas on the firebombing of Tokyo from the viewpoint of the victims. He has an M.A. in history from Cambridge University.

Author’s Introduction by Saotome Katsumoto (1971)

At about two in the morning on June 11, 1967, on a construction site on the Tozai subway line at Monzen-nakacho in the Fukagawa district of Koto Ward in Tokyo, workmen digging up the ground to repair damage to the track discovered something very strange. Below the pavement, at a depth of 15 meters, they found what appeared to be the remains of an air raid shelter. Inside it were six human skeletons huddled close together. Two of them were children and the other four adults. Their gender could not be determined. The positions of the bones suggested they had been cowering in terror, and one of the adult skeletons was cradling two Buddhist memorial tablets in its arms. There were signs that the shelter had been engulfed in flames. Burn marks were visible on one set of bones, and a rusted steel helmet and decayed water bucket lay close by. For the local residents who came to witness it, this discovery brought back memories of the massive air raid over the Shitamachi, the low-lying eastern district of Tokyo, in the early hours of March 10, 1945.

What were these remains discovered 22 years after the war? Who were the six victims and where were they from? The incident was reported in theMainichi Shimbun newspaper on June 13. A clue to the identity of the six bodies was provided by the inscriptions on the memorial tablets. The next day, the newspaper reported that Tsuzuki Shizuo7, a company president living in Kamiogi, Suginami Ward, had claimed that the remains were those of his relatives and expressed his wish to collect them.

A friend of Shizuo’s had seen the article on June 13 and told him about it. According to Shizuo, at the time of the air raid just after midnight on March 10, 1945, he was at his wife’s parents’ home together with his wife and their four year-old daughter. When the raid started, seven family members – Shizuo, his wife and daughter, and his wife’s mother with her two other daughters and grandchild – had set out to evacuate to a nearby elementary school. On the way, his mother-in-law noticed that she had forgotten something important and Shizuo went back to get it. When he returned, the others were nowhere to be found. He never saw them again.

Thus Tsuzuki Shizuo came to confront the remains of his wife and child twenty-two years later.

When I read that newspaper article, I immediately wanted to hear Tsuzuki Shizuo’s account of that terrible night and pray for the souls of the victims, but I could not muster the courage to meet him. After all, I was a mere writer and had my own vivid memories of the Great Tokyo Air Raid in which Shizuo lost his wife, child, and other relatives. I was one of those who ran this way and that in frantic efforts to escape the inferno and barely survived. Since then I have considered it my duty to faithfully record the horrific events of that night and convey the reality of war. If I possibly could, I wanted to leave an accurate historical record for future generations.

Considering that at least 80,0008 people died and over a million lost their homes and suffered immeasurable hardships, there are incredibly few written records of the Great Tokyo Air Raid. This was particularly true of the eight years prior to the publication of the Tokyo Metropolitan War Damage Recordscompiled by the Tokyo Metropolis in 1953 and Photographs of the Great Tokyo Air Raid published in the same year. Since then no records of similar scale have been compiled and only two or three books by individual authors have been published. The only comprehensive document, the Tokyo Metropolitan War Damage Records, is not readily accessible, nor are its statistical sections easy for general readers to understand. Furthermore, its descriptions deliberately omit accounts of the emotional suffering of the victims. Such documents as these cannot convey the terrible reality or an overall picture of the tragedy of the Great Tokyo Air Raid.

It is easy enough to state that more than 80,000 people lost their lives, but sometimes I imagine how it would look if all these victims, in their final death throes, were gathered together in the same place. However much I try to banish this vision from my mind, I am left staring helplessly at it. My decision in the summer of 1970, a quarter of a century after the end of the war, to visit victims of the Great Tokyo Air Raid and record their hitherto silent voices was not simply due to my sense of duty as a fellow survivor. To grasp my own pacifist ideology, I needed to ascertain the truth of the war twenty-five years earlier and to think in my own way about the fates of the 80,000 victims on that terrible night.

However, my approach to Tsuzuki Shizuo met with an unexpectedly firm refusal. I telephoned him to ask if we could meet to talk about his experience but he told me he could not bear to relive it. It is hard for us to reopen past wounds, and the feelings of a man who had to confront the skeletal remains of his wife and child after they had been buried underground for twenty-two years are impossible to imagine. What would be the point of talking about such things to an unknown writer? The emotional scars left on the people of Tokyo, particularly ordinary working people, are not something they can easily talk about. I understand that only too well, for I was a boy of twelve who experienced the trauma of staring death in the face.

In the summer of 1970, twenty-five years after the end of the war, I walked around Tokyo every day with a notebook and pen, visiting families of the victims to interview them about their experiences of the air raids, particularly the Great Tokyo Air Raid of March 10, 1945. I recorded the testimonies of over twenty people either directly or at second hand. I was turned away at the door many times, and not one of those who agreed to be interviewed was calm or composed. As if on cue, they all broke down during their accounts and, sitting there with my pen in hand, I was unable to look up at them. The scars are still deep. These wounds will never heal as long as they live. For them the “postwar” period will never end.

Understanding this state of mind made me all the more determined to get the victims to open up, revisit deeply buried memories, and describe their experiences. I had to reveal clearly the reality of the Great Tokyo Air Raid, a reality that was much worse than tragic. However painful it might be, confronting people’s actual experience of war will surely help to build a firm foothold for peace.

In this book, in addition to the author and Metropolitan Police Department photographer Koyo Ishikawa, eight citizens of the Shitamachi district of Tokyo describe their experiences in the Great Tokyo Air Raid9. Through the living testimonies of these ordinary people I have strived to present a clear picture of that night of indiscriminate firebombing. The recounting of these experiences was painful for both the speakers and the listener, but for the sake of those who bore this pain and for all those who lost their lives, I have attempted to faithfully record the events of March 10, 1945.

Saotome Katsumoto is the author of The Great Tokyo Air Raid (Iwanami Shoten, 1971) and a key figure in memorializing the Tokyo firebombing raids. He is currently Director of the Center of the Tokyo Raids and War Damages. At the age of 83, he is still active as a writer and speaker.

The following links are to victims’ testimonies from The Great Tokyo Air Raid (the ages given are at the time of the air raid):10

Saotome Katsumoto, mobilized student, 12

Kikujima Koji, technical school student, 13

Ishikawa Koyo, police photographer, 40

Hashimoto Yoshiko, housewife, 24

Kokubo Takako, member of volunteer corps, 19

I would like to thank Cary Karacas for sharing his expert knowledge and allowing me to reproduce images from his website, Japan Air Raids.org.

Notes

1 Figures from Tactical Mission Report, Mission No. 40

2 This article, titled Kakarezaru Tokyo Daikushu (“The Great Tokyo Air Raid Nobody Writes About”), was eventually published in the March 1968 edition of Bungei Shunju.

3 Saotome Katsumoto, Heiwa o Ikiru (Living in Peace), Sodo Bunka, 1982, p. 55 (my translation).

4 Asahi Shimbun, 10 March 1970.

5 The founding members included the historian Ienaga Saburo, photographer Ishikawa Koyo, writer Arima Yorichiku, and voice actor Tokugawa Musei.

6 These approximate sales figures were conveyed to me directly by the author.

7 In Saotome’s introduction, the name is rendered simply as T-san. I have taken the name from the above-mentioned article by Matsuura Sozo in the March 1968 edition of Bungei Shunju.

8 This figure was based on the materials available to the author at the time. In his 1979 book, Tokyo ga Moeta Hi (The Day Tokyo Burned), Saotome estimated the number of death at about 100,000 based on the latest research. In the special 50th edition of The Great Tokyo Air Raid published in January 2015 to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the end of the war, Saotome states that “at least100,000 is an accurate estimate.”

9 Three of these citizens’ testimonies are featured below.

10 These testimonies are not presented as they appear in the book, but as complete accounts from the beginning of the air raid to the end.


The Ticking Clocks

Testimony of Saotome Katsumoto

“Katsumoto! Get up!”

At the sound of my father’s voice, I jumped out of bed. The same instant, a ray of light that made my eyes swim streaked across the south window, followed by an eerie roar that seemed to pierce the earth. I remember the shock of that moment as if it happened last night. Grabbing the first-aid and emergency bags by my pillow, my air-raid hood, and my only treasure, a cloth pouch containing old coins, I rushed down the stairs shouting “I’m coming, I’m coming!”

There was a reason for my quick response. It was March 10, Army Day. It had been rumored that the enemy was planning a huge air raid to coincide with this special day. As if to confirm those fears, a fierce northwesterly wind had been blowing since the previous evening. The flames reflected in the glass of the window and the deafening roars and explosions were enough for even a child to realize it was serious.

I went outside to look. In every direction – east, west, south and north – the dark sky was scorched with crimson flames. The steady roar of the B-29s’ engines overhead was punctuated by piercing screeches followed by cascading sounds like sudden showers. With each explosion, a flash of light darted behind my eyelids. The ground shook. Flames appeared one after another. As our neighbors looked outside their air raid shelters defiantly holding their bamboo fire brooms, they cursed when they saw how fiercely the fires were burning. They were helpless against the raging flames. Fire trucks, sirens wailing, were already speeding toward the fires, but what could they do in this gusting wind and intensive bombardment? Even in the eyes of a child, the situation seemed hopeless.

“Katsumoto, don’t dawdle!” cried my mother. She was standing in front of the air raid shelter, looking around in confusion. I’ll never forget the expression on her face. “Whichever way you look, there isn’t a single dark place, not one. We should’ve eaten those extra rations this evening. It would’ve been better to die on a full stomach.” “Don’t be silly,” said my father, his eyes darting about beneath his steel helmet.

“This time it’s different from usual. Katsumoto, get your things together quickly.”

“Alright.”

“Where’s Shizuko?”

“She’s still sleeping.”

Even now, my easygoing sister was lazing in bed.

“I’ll go wake her,” I said.

I went back into the house and rushed up the stairs beside the kitchen. I clearly recall being able to read the characters on the wall calendar even though all the lights were out.

In the crimson sky, black smoke was gathering in a dense fog and sparks were swirling about. It was a blizzard of sparks. Circling serenely above the pillar of flames, the B-29 bombers continued to pour down their incendiaries. First a bright blue flash shone in the sky, then countless trails of light fell and were absorbed in the black rooftops, from which new flames rose up. “My, how beautiful!” exclaimed my sister. Strangely I still remember that incongruous remark. At that moment, as if to suppress my sister’s admiration, a metallic explosion rang out. Suddenly I saw the huge form of a B-29 flying very low above the rooftops. Its belly opened wide and several black objects fell screeching to the ground. I instinctively covered my face. When I looked up again flames were rising all over the neighborhood. Then I heard my father’s voice from below: “Katsumoto, what are you doing?” Bring down the futons from upstairs and put them on the cart!”

This was how I first encountered the Great Tokyo Air Raid of March 10. At that time, a 12 year-old boy such as myself should not have been in Tokyo. Most schoolchildren in the capital city had been evacuated to the countryside. But because I was born in the first three months of the year, I had been moved up to the senior class after graduating from national elementary school and became what is now called a junior high school student. As a result I avoided evacuation and was placed in the youngest class of mobilized students. Together with most of my friends, I was busy working every day making hand grenades to be thrown by Japanese soldiers in their suicide attacks. But what use could a runny-nosed schoolboy be at a military ironworks? War is so cruel.

For a poor working family like mine, residing in Mukojima ward in the Shitamachi district, there was nowhere to escape to and no time to get away when the air raid struck. All we could do was cower in a corner of this low-lying region of the imperial capital. It was my fate to directly experience the horrors of the Great Tokyo Air Raid.

As is well known, the first US air raid on Tokyo in the Pacific War was the surprise attack by a squadron of 16 B-25 bombers led by Colonel James Doolittle on April 18, 1942. However, US air raids did not begin in earnest until the completion in October 1944 of a base for launching B-29 “Superfortress” heavy bomber raids from Saipan in the Mariana Islands. The first mission by a B-29 from the Saipan base was on November 1, 1944.

I vividly remember that day. At the time we still had classes at school, but the raid took place while we were doing military training. Covered in sweat, we were practicing marathon running on a country road. Suddenly we heard the intermittent wailing of an air raid siren and saw a civil defense corpsman, his face ashen white, screaming, “Enemy rocket! Enemy rocket!” We looked up and saw a metal object glittering like a diamond with streams of white smoke streaking behind it as it moved in stately fashion across the deep blue sky. Successive barrages of fire went up from anti-aircraft guns, but they were completely off target and obviously firing too low. At that time, Japan’s fighter planes and anti-aircraft guns were helpless against aircraft flying at a height of more than 10,000 meters. The anti-aircraft artillery for the defense of Tokyo consisted of seven- and eight-inch guns with a range of 5,000 to 6,000 meters, while most of Japan’s fighter planes could only fly to an altitude of about 8,500 meters.

It was not an enemy rocket. I found out much later that those streams of white smoke were vapor trails and that this B-29 was on a reconnaissance mission. They undoubtedly took some very detailed aerial photographs of Tokyo that day.

Most of us already knew the war was going badly. Japanese troops had been decimated in suicide attacks on Attu Island, the southern island of Guadalcanal had fallen, and the Mariana Islands of Saipan, Guam, and Tinian had all become US frontline bases by the end of 1944. The US armed forces were relentlessly closing in on the Japanese mainland. On the day of the US army landing on the southern coast of Iwo Jima on February 19, 1945, the Japanese defenders were bombarded with as many as 8,000 shells in one day and driven to the north of the island. If Iwo Jima fell and the Americans reached Okinawa, an invasion of the Japanese mainland would be imminent. To camouflage the retreats, the Imperial Headquarters used the expression “change in course”, while the slogan “fight to the death” was replaced by “let them cut your flesh so that you can sever their bones.” For the B-29s, it was now a 1,500-mile flight to Tokyo from the air base in Saipan. They arrived in waves, their bellies filled with explosive and incendiary bombs.

Up to March 10, the B-29s bombing Tokyo had flown at a height of at least 10,000 meters and, although they had dropped large quantities of explosive and incendiary bombs, these had been aimed primarily at military targets in the city. The Great Tokyo Air Raid in the low-lying Shitamachi district was the first time the US air force moved from targeting the main industrial districts that were the basis of Japan’s military capability to low-altitude indiscriminate incendiary bombing that targeted civilians.

Tragically, there was also a very strong wind that day. From around noon on March 9, a northwesterly wind blew under overcast skies, becoming even fiercer from the evening into the night. Snow that had fallen two or three days earlier still remained on the ground in places, and the sudden gusts of wind in the streets cut through you like a knife.

I rose reluctantly from my warm bed and went outside. There was a duty I had to perform as a “young imperial citizen.” The north wind was so fierce that I could hardly stand up. The telegraph wires swayed and lids of garbage boxes flew up into the air. As a precaution against an air raid, I took a fire axe and broke the ice on the surface of the water in the tanks with all my strength. Then I took the shattered pieces of ice one by one and threw them out into the road. It was unpleasant work, but if I hadn’t done it, the water would have immediately frozen again. They said it was the coldest early March in fifty years.

When I had finished this chore, I went back inside the house, blowing on my numb fingers to warm them. The only light in the darkened room came from the radio, which provided us with the latest information. The Daily Record of Air-raid Warnings later published by the Roppongi Civil Defense Corps provides a detailed account of the information announced on the radio that night in the zone under the jurisdiction of the Eastern Army. At 10.30 p.m. on March 9, an air-raid standby alert was issued:

(1) Several presumed enemy targets approaching mainland from off the southern coast.

(2) Unidentified enemy targets flying north towards Boso Peninsula.

(3) First enemy targets entering home island airspace from Boso Peninsula.

(4) First enemy targets keeping close to coast of Boso Peninsula.

(5) First enemy targets changing course from south coast of Boso Peninsula and moving southward out to sea.

According to this information from the Eastern Army-controlled zone, B-29s circling the Boso Peninsula had entered the air space of Tokyo from the south of the peninsula and, without incurring any damage, had changed direction and were now flying far out over the ocean. As the radio announcer repeated the message, I breathed a sigh of relief.

A moment later, my father, dressed in his black uniform, suddenly came in and muttered, “It’s over.”

“Isn’t it Army Day tomorrow, dad?” I asked.

“Yes, but I don’t think they’ll be doing anything special,” replied my father. As he said this, I vaguely remember him putting down his bamboo water gun and heavy-looking steel helmet next to his pillow. It might seem strange for a grown man to have a water gun, but this type was one meter long with a diameter of ten centimeters and was issued only to the heads of firefighter groups. It had the imperial chrysanthemum crest branded on it at the end of the barrel. My father took his water gun with him on firefighting drills. When all the participants had gathered, they would hang a red cloth from the roof of a two-story house to represent the fire. Then they aimed the water gun, shouted out in unison, and shot a jet of water at the cloth. It was all right when they hit the target but when they missed, the cloth just hung there limply and they had to try again until they got it right. Until the night of March 10, everyone had been led to believe that they could defy incendiary bomb attacks with water guns, bucket relays, and fighting spirit.

Feeling relieved that it was a false alarm, my parents, two older sisters and I had gone to bed. During that brief respite, the massive indiscriminate firebombing raid scheduled for Army Day began.

We loaded our most important belongings onto a handcart and made our way down the Mito-kaido road, then turned left and headed south. We were running downwind, pushed along by the northwest wind behind us. To the south of Mukojima, the conflagration was already spreading throughout Honjo and Fukugawa wards. It is hard to explain why we headed towards the fires, but it seems that people lose the capacity to make cool judgments in such situations. The area to the north of our home was already engulfed in flames and sparks were raining down over our heads, so we felt we had to run in the opposite direction. The road was overflowing with people escaping with their various belongings, all of them heading south. We would have needed great conviction to go toward the wind in the opposite direction from that advancing wave of people. There were raging fires in the Asakusa district to the north and we could see fires burning in every direction. The only place that still seemed relatively dark was the Azuma-cho area in the southeast. My father held the handles at the front of the cart, my mother and I pushed it from behind, and my two sisters ran at the sides as we made for that dark place.


With an air-raid hood completely covering my head, I was wearing my khaki civilian wartime uniform with the red eagle insignia of the Great Japan Youth Organization on the breast pocket and an identification tag indicating my name, address, school and blood group sewn into it. Over that I wore my elder brother’s embroidered judo robe, which crinkled when I touched it. It looked just like the jackets worn by the firemen, except that it was white (though it was completely black by the following morning).

The Mukojima Area in Flames Painting by Katsumi Hidesaburo, who was sixteen at the time of the air raid Source: Sumida Local Culture Resource Center

Hanging from my belt underneath the loose-fitting judo robe, I had my first-aid and emergency bags, gaiters to protect my legs, my pouch of old coins, and a rubber trumpet. I didn’t plan to blow the trumpet to call for help; I’d borrowed it from a friend and felt obliged to return it. The coins made a jingling sound as I walked. Looking back on it now, I wasn’t so much afraid as in a daze. I realized that our home might burn down but it didn’t yet occur to me that my life was in danger. If the house was consumed by the flames, I vaguely wondered what would become of Tomi, the tortoise-shell pet cat we had left behind. But where on earth could we escape to? While we were heading for the only dark place, the enemy circling in the sky above would surely drop incendiaries there before we could reach it. The only safe haven was inside those B-29s flying above us. The bastards! To hell with those devils MacArthur and Nimitz!

“This heat is terrible. It’s as if the air is on fire,” said my mother to me, grimacing as she ran. The tone of her voice was despairing. Countless sparks were flying high and low in the wind like swallows. My father advanced while brushing them off his clothes and could only raise his head occasionally in the blizzard. “The fires are everywhere. What on earth are we going to do?” said my mother. In the beginning my mother made numerous remarks like this. Thinking back on it, I guess she couldn’t bear that blind scramble for safety in silence. I still remember the flickering red flames reflected in the lenses of her glasses.

At last we crossed the Hikifunegawa canal. The name, meaning “pull-boat river,” comes from the Edo period when horses pulled boats up and down the canal. After we had crossed the canal and the railway crossing of the Keisei line on the other side, my mother startled us by suddenly announcing she had to go back because she’d forgotten the photograph of my elder brother who had gone off to war. “Don’t be a fool! This is no time to be thinking of someone who isn’t here,” shouted my father, turning round but not stopping. She didn’t utter another word after that. It must have been unbearable to think of her son’s photograph enveloped in flames in our empty house. I understood that, but I also knew that going back would be a journey to hell.

On the way we ran into Mrs. Torii from our neighborhood and her only son Iwao. Mr. Torii, our local watchmaker, had been conscripted in spring of the year before and Iwao was in the same grade as me at school. “What on earth happened to you?” asked my mother in surprise. It was a natural question, because Mrs. Torii looked very strange indeed. It seems that folks completely lose their heads in such situations. While escaping we had seen people carrying tatami mats on their backs, with stone weights used for radish pickling loaded on their bicycles, or with blankets draped over their shoulders like the comic book superhero Golden Bat. But Mrs. Torii and her son were even more unforgettable. She had a futon wrapped around her, fastened with thick straw rope, and several pairs of wooden clogs tied to her waist with silk. Her son was wearing an adult’s steel helmet with two floor cushions tied around his waist at the front and back and wooden clogs hanging from the silk thread. I looked at him in open-mouthed amazement, but he said without laughing, “Let’s all go together.” “Did you bring the clocks with you too?” I joked. “No, we don’t need them. What you need is clogs for walking back over the debris from the fires.” Now I understood. I remembered that they’d warned on the radio that rubber-soled shoes would be dangerous in incendiary air raids, so we should wear shoes with leather or wooden soles. But even if you had wooden clogs, what good was it if you’d lost your home? I’ve completely forgotten what we said after that, but we escaped together with Mrs. Torii and Iwao for another four or five minutes.

We rushed on, forcing our handcart through the crowds and the swirling sparks until we reached the second railway crossing on the Tobu Kameido line from Hikifune to Kameido. But in the middle of the crossing, the handcart bounced on the rail and the lid of a cooking pot on top of our luggage came off and fell clanging to the ground. It rolled along and disappeared round a corner into a back alley. Tutting in annoyance, I went off alone into the alley to fetch it. At a time when we were running for our lives a pot lid was of no importance, but it seemed a shame to throw it away. At that moment, I saw a single B-29 emerge from the reddish purple flames and come straight towards us, flying so low I thought it might collide with the telegraph poles. Reflected in the flames, its wings gleamed bright red like dripping blood. “They’re coming down!” screamed a man just in front of me, looking up at the sky. An ear-splitting explosion shook the ground. I closed my eyes in terror and a golden streak of light flashed behind them. An incendiary pierced the neck of the man who had just cried out, bursting into flames. Then it grazed the shoulder of a woman who had run up beside him and embedded itself in a telegraph pole. In an instant the whole area around me was a picture of hell. An arm and a head had been torn off and bodies were sprawled about. A little girl of four or five stood bolt upright among them, splattered with blood but miraculously spared. I just stood there in shock, holding the lid of the pot with both hands.

“Katsumoto, are you alright?” Emerging from the wall of fire, my father’s face looked like just eyes and a mouth.

After that we lost sight of Mrs. Torii and Iwao as we ran this way and that in the alleys around Azuma-cho. There was no longer any refuge from the fierce wind. The wind fanned the fires and the fires fed the wind. Countless sparks and embers bore down on us, humming like a swarm of bees.

According to the Tokyo Fire Department, the fires in Mukojima broke out a little later than those in Honjo and Asakusa wards. Starting in western Azuma and spreading to parts of Terajima, they merged as they were fanned by the north-west wind and joined forces with the conflagration sweeping through Joto and Honjo wards, surrounding the whole of Mukojima. Like insects drawn to the flame, we found ourselves being dragged into the conflagration. Because we had first seen stronger fires burning in the direction of Asakusa, we panicked and ran south, only to have our escape route blocked by the B-29s arriving ahead of us. We carried on running as the bombs fell from all directions, dodging sputtering incendiaries lodged in the ground and jumping over dead bodies on the road as if we were running an obstacle race.

One incendiary bomb skimmed past the shoulder of a woman near me, lodged itself in a telegraph pole, scattered sparks, and turned into a pillar of fire. Roofs of houses spewed flames, wooden fences and telegraph poles burned, and even the brick-and-mortar warehouses of factories were engulfed in the inferno. Located between the Nakagawa and Kitajukken canals, Azuma-cho contained many factories. It seemed that these were being targeted because all around us pillars of flame were shooting up into the dark sky. Desperately trying to escape the smoke and flames, we ran through the maze of back alleys, only to emerge in the same place we had started. “Damn it!” cried my father. “We’re surrounded by fires.” At that moment the roof of a house collapsed in front of us with a tremendous rumbling sound and a hot wind roared over us as if blown by bellows. Carried by the north wind, black smoke and flames swept over the road devouring everything in their path.

I knew then that we were in the direst straits. There was nothing to do but pray to the gods. Perhaps I thought a kamikaze (“divine wind”) might blow and change the direction of the wind. At that time we young Imperial citizens had been told umpteen times by our schoolteachers that Japan was the “land of the gods” ruled by an unbroken line of emperors and that a kamikaze would blow if worse came to worst. But instead of that divine wind, it was my sister who saved us by discovering the only dark place in the sea of fire. This was the Tobu railway line between Hikifune and Kameido.

“Right, we’ll break through there!,” shouted my father. He scooped water from a water tank into his steel helmet and emptied it over my head. I don’t remember how that felt, but I’ll never forget the sight of the flames like red carp reflected on the surface of the water. We poured water over each other in preparation for our final dash down the railway tracks. Before we started running down that only remaining path to survival, my mother suddenly said she needed to urinate. Saying “It’s not easy running with a full bladder,” she pulled down her trousers and squatted over a garbage box. Before we escaped, my mother had said we should have eaten our extra rations of rice if we were going to die anyway. Now, as we were about to run for our lives, she had to take a piss because she didn’t want to feel uncomfortable! Her comical behavior helped us regain a little composure.

We all took a deep breath, bent down low, and ran for all we were worth down the railway track against the fierce north wind. That wind must have been blowing at 30 meters a second. It blew clumps of fire into the air and they came swirling towards us. With a rushing sound, the flames skimmed past my cheeks and the smoke seemed to penetrate my lungs. Incendiary bombs were still falling all around us, and one of them burst on the track with a loud boom.

“Is everyone all right?” yelled my father as we ran. “We’re okay!” I shouted back, sweeping away the smoke in front of me with my cotton work gloves. My judo robe, which I had soaked with water just a few moments earlier, was already bone dry. I was fighting for breath, could only see about five meters ahead, and no longer knew who was running where. Then, just in front of me, I saw flames flickering. Someone’s back was on fire. “Mum, your backpack!” I screamed. Without replying, my mother threw her burning backpack down on the ground. It turned into a ball of fire and was sucked downwind.

After we had run under several signals along the railway track and over an iron bridge across a drainage channel, we saw that the fires around us were dying down. Many people were sitting or lying exhausted on the tracks. The flames had not yet reached that area and I could see the shining black roofs of the nearby houses. Finally realizing that we had somehow escaped death, my strength suddenly ebbed away and I felt like I was being sucked into the ground. My father said we were still in danger, so we went down Meiji Street past the Terajima Crossroads, making straight for the Sumida River. Like everyone else, we instinctively headed for water. Countless people perished in rivers and canals that night.

Making our way through burning buildings that looked like they might collapse at any moment, we eventually reached a small park near Shirahige Bridge. By now we had no strength left, but then we noticed that the night sky was turning white and dawn was breaking. Our faces were black with soot. The fingers of my gloves were burned off and only the cloth on the backs of my hands remained. The handcart my father had been pulling and our luggage had vanished. Gone too was the pouch of old coins I had tied to my belt. Shocked that I had lost my only treasure, I wanted to retrace my steps to look for it but my father stopped me. As he took a long piss against a tree, I noticed his bamboo water gun was still on his back. Exhausted and bewildered, my mother and sisters just gazed at the sun as it rose in the eastern sky.

The fires started to die down at about five o’clock in the morning. Dawn broke at six. The fierce wind had finally abated a few hours earlier. Like a clot of blood the sun rose unsteadily in the east, yet the sky remained strangely dark.

My parents, sisters and I had managed to escape to a corner of a park near Shirahige Bridge. After my mother treated the burns on my hands with the ointment from my emergency bag, I went on my own to the foot of the bridge just a couple of minutes away. The Kubota Ironworks, where I had been working just the day before, was near the bridge facing the Sumida River. What had become of the factory and my classmates and teachers who worked there?

In just one night the ironworks had been reduced to skin and bones. The skin was tin plate and the bones were iron frames. The cranes were bent like sticks and foul-smelling black smoke was billowing up from the hollowed-out blast furnace. It was deathly quiet, except for the sound of a sheet of paper attached to the gate fluttering in the breeze. I read the handwritten message.

To All Factory Staff

Don’t be discouraged by a little thing like this!

Let’s rebuild our factory right away.

Keep fighting! The enemy is desperate too!

Child though I was, I felt a kind of emptiness as I gazed at those words. Was the enemy really as desperate as we were? I continued walking to the bridge. From the river I heard men’s voices shouting “One, two, three, heave!” When I got to the quay of the Sumida River, I could only stare in horror. On the stone wall of the smoldering quay were several civil defense corpsmen in khaki uniforms with cloths wrapped over their heads and tied under their chins. From a gap where the wall had collapsed they made their way backward and forward over the logs on the water’s surface. Shouting instructions to each other, they were pulling dead bodies out of the water. Looking down, I saw that the river was full of burned and drowned corpses. The men were reeling in the bodies with hooked poles. They bound the stiff corpses with ropes, hauled them up onto the quay, and laid them down in rows like tuna at a fish market. Then I noticed that my father was standing behind me. ‘Take a good look, Katsumoto,’ he said. “Look and never forget. This is what war is.” I clearly remember the way he spoke, muttering the words under his breath. Exhausted by his struggles and privations, he died shortly after the war ended. The frightful scene we witnessed in the Sumida River and my father’s despairing voice have always stayed with me.

My father and I walked back together through the smoldering ruins. An indescribable stench filled the air. Sheets of burned tin plate were scattered over the road and tangled telephone lines drooped limply from scorched telegraph poles, swaying over our heads in the wind and blocking our way like barbed wire. From the iron-barred windows of warehouses, melted glass hung down like icicles. On the road were countless six-sided holes where incendiary bombs had fallen and pierced the ground, and amid the smoldering debris water spurted up from a broken pipe. For some reason, the bright white of the toilet bowl lying near it was particularly striking.

Bodies being pulled out of the canal near Kikukawa Bridge Photograph by Ishikawa Koyo Source: U.S. National Archives

The whole area was pervaded by such a sickening stench that we had to open our mouths and breathe in gasps. The ruins were crowded with victims like us. With scorched faces and bloodshot eyes, many of them could hardly see. There was an endless stream of refugees from the fires – people using their leggings as bandages, people with burned cheeks, split lips and mouths hanging open, people with handcarts and bicycle carts carrying burned futons and clothes soaked in water. We too were part of this procession of ghosts. “Make way, make way!” shouted a group of men in steel helmets coming from in front of us, roughly pushing people aside. They were carrying a stretcher made of iron pipes and tin sheet. On it was a half-naked corpse covered with glistening grease. One arm was stretched out diagonally, grasping at nothing. I shuddered and covered my mouth. My mother turned her head away. Everything we saw that morning was grotesque.

We turned into a side street and walked through Mukojima-Hyakkaen Gardens. This was a scenic spot well known in Tokyo for its flowers blooming all year round, but now the branches of the trees were all burned black and covered with futons and clothes. When we reached the Terajima crossroads, we saw something quite unexpected. Only the buildings at the corner where we lived were still standing. What a stroke of luck! The schools, factories, cinema, and fire station were all gone. All around us were burned out ruins and reddish brown scorched earth. Just one row of buildings including our house had been left untouched. “Look, there’s our house!” cried my mother, and we all ran towards it. When we opened the front door, we heard the feeble meowing of Tomi, our tortoise-shell cat, who ran up to us and snuggled against our legs.

But our neighbors Mrs. Torii and her son would never return. We had encountered them during our escape with futons wrapped around them and wooden clogs hanging from their waists, looking rather like the comic book character Tank Tankuro. What had become of them? The watchmaker’s store where they lived had also been undamaged by the fires. From outside we could hear the ticking of the wall clock and cuckoo clock, keeping the time like living beings. Thinking they might have returned, I peered into the store. At the sight of the pendulums swinging back and forth, I suddenly felt afraid and returned to our house. Although they had the foresight to take all those clogs with them so that they could walk back over the scorched ground, Mrs. Torii and her son Iwao had perished in the inferno.

Photographing the Dead

Testimony of Ishikawa Koyo

The only person to photograph the damage in the immediate aftermath of the Great Tokyo Air Raid was the Metropolitan Police Department photographer, Ishikawa Koyo.1 In order to make a photographic record, Ishikawa was instructed by Chief of Police Saka Nobuyoshi to go to all the districts under the Department’s jurisdiction and take photographs just after the air raid started.

From the roof of the Metropolitan Police Department headquarters, Ishikawa saw the night sky in the east turn bright red as the whole Shitamachi was engulfed in a sea of fire. He ran down the stairs to the air defense headquarters in the basement and gazed at the large map of the Metropolitan district on the wall. On its surface countless red and blue miniature lamps were lit, enabling him to see at a glance that vast numbers of incendiary bombs had been dropped in Honjo, Fukagawa and Asakusa wards. Gulping involuntarily as he realized that tonight’s work would put him in danger of his life, he steeled himself and reported to Chief Superintendent Hara that he was going directly to the stricken area. Ishikawa loaded his beloved Leica camera with Kodak film and started the engine of his Chevrolet, which had threaded its way through the burning city several times before. It is ironic that the photographer of the Tokyo Metropolitan Police Department drove a Chevrolet and used a Leica camera with Kodak film. Ishikawa laughs as he recalls that he didn’t have any Japanese-made equipment. In the private diary he scrupulously kept throughout the war, he recorded what he saw that night.

“As I was driving at full speed along Showa Road, fire trucks and police security patrol vehicles overtook me, their sirens wailing. When I got to the Asakusabashi crossroads, I was confronted with a gruesome spectacle – a conflagration of raging flames swirling in the wind. \At Ryogoku Bridge, I saw an endless stream of escaping people coming towards me over the bridge from the other side. The congestion and confusion defy description. A policeman was shouting in a shrill voice as he tried to guide the crowds, women were screaming, and civil defense corpsmen were barking instructions. A pedestrian could hardly make any headway, let alone a car. I eventually managed to get the car to the side of the police box at the bottom of the bridge and asked a policeman to take care of it. Hanging my camera on my shoulder, I crossed Ryogoku Bridge, slowly forcing my way through the surging mass of people coming from the opposite direction. I was relieved when I finally made it to the bottom of the stairway at the entrance of Ryogoku Police Station, but the area was surrounded by a wall of raging fires. The hot wind was blowing so relentlessly that I couldn’t open my eyes. Looking up at the sky, I saw the crimson flames reflected on the huge silver fuselages of the enemy B-29s above as they cruised at low altitude. As if that wasn’t enough, they were still dropping countless bundles of incendiary bombs.

“In the police chief’s office, a messenger was reporting the current situation. The lights in the police station had gone out but it was still bright in the light of the swirling flames outside. The messenger reporting to the chief had clearly had a rough time getting there. His uniform was in tatters, his face was scorched black, and his eyes were bloodshot. Their faces reflected in the flames, the policemen looked like red demons as they ran about in utter confusion. The police chief looked at me and said, ‘There’s nothing more you can do here. Get away as fast as you can.’ I told him to take care and left the building, but the raging fires and fierce wind bore down on me. I was too preoccupied with getting out of there alive to think about taking photographs.

“Whichever way I looked it was a sea of fire. I found a place a little less exposed to the wind, crouched down and crawled along the road. As the conflagration burned ever more fiercely it whipped up strong winds which stoked the flames, burning people alive as they frantically tried to escape. I saw several people fall and die helplessly in front of me, but there was nothing I could do for them. Their bodies rolled along the road like sacks of potatoes in the stream of fire, passing by with a strange howling sound. Countless futons and other belongings turned into balls of flame as they were swept along in the torrent of fire. I saw the raging flames gutting a building, leaving just the roof intact. As the blizzard of sparks and embers blew down over me, I wondered how long I could last. I was already prepared for death.

“But to die there like that without a struggle was just intolerable. I could have just closed my eyes and accepted my fate, but I told myself I must not die. In that deadly whirlwind of flames, my police colleagues were still making desperate efforts to save as many people as they could under this fierce attack by the barbaric enemy. If they were determined to beat the odds, I too must fight to survive rather than just sitting here waiting for death. Boiling with rage, I got up and found shelter behind a collapsed stone wall from the smoke and blasts of hot air that were scorching my face and burning my eyes.

“In the sky above, as if they were mocking us, the B-29s were still flying serenely through the black smoke at such low altitude that it seemed you could hold out your hand and touch them. As they descended to drop their bombs again and again, the fires on the ground were reflected on their bodies. With the bright-red flames flickering on their huge fuselages and four engines, they looked like winged demons from hell. In my fury at being unable to grab them and throw them to the ground, I yelled ‘You bastards!’ but no sound came from my mouth.

“I don’t remember where or how far I crawled after that. The fires were still burning furiously and the sky was crimson when I noticed that the enemy planes had gone. Through the smoke, I saw that the sky was suffused with a pale light. At that moment I knew at last that I was in the land of the living. There were several other survivors around me. I couldn’t help weeping at the sight of them. I was not sad but overjoyed that they had managed to live through the inferno. Their faces were scorched black, their hair and eyebrows burned, their eyes inflamed by the smoke and ashes, and their wrists swollen dark red by burns. Their clothes were in shreds and covered with holes made by the sparks. I was in the same state. My throat was parched and I did not even have the energy to speak, but I pulled myself together and made my way to the scorching hot road where fires were still burning furiously.

“All along the tramway, the overhead wires were hanging down like spiders’ webs, and the iron frames of burned-out trams looked like huge birdcages. The road was covered with abandoned household goods, bicycles, and carts, all burned and scattered about. The charred bodies of the dead – it was impossible to tell whether they were men or women – lay scattered everywhere. In a corner that people apparently thought offered shelter from the flames, the victims had fallen on top of one another to form a mountain of corpses.

“A hand pump used by the neighborhood association lay burned on the ground, its nozzle still pointing towards the fires – a poignant testimony to citizens’ gallant but hopeless firefighting efforts. Dragging my heavy legs, I staggered through Kikukawa, Morishita-cho and Komagata, forcing my blinded eyes open to witness the devastation around me. I took photographs of the charred bodies on the roads, bodies of women and children, and bodies piled up in heaps. As I pointed my mud-covered Leica at the corpses of all those people who had died in deep resentment, I imagined I heard an invisible voice rebuking me from above. My hands trembled and I could only press the shutter button weakly. But as long as I was alive, I had to keep taking those photographs to fulfill my mission, and to do that I had to be hard-hearted. When I had finished my work, I put my hands together in prayer for the victims and went on my way.”


 Bodies in Ishihara-cho, Honjo ward Photograph by Ishikawa Koyo Source: U.S. National Archives 

 After his narrow escape from the conflagration near Ryogoku Police Station, Ishikawa Koyo returned on foot to the Metropolitan Police Department Headquarters at around noon. His beloved Chevrolet had been gutted in the inferno. That same afternoon he took his camera and accompanied the security squad chief on an inspection of the Honjo district. They arrived at Suzaki Police Station at about 3.00pm. According to Ishikawa, the body of Police Chief Tanisue, a close acquaintance who often looked in at the police headquarters photograph room, was found “in a mummified state,” sitting in his chair in his office holding his child in his arms. Only the iron frames of the chair remained. The official history of the Metropolitan Police Department provides a record of his heroic last moments: “The police chief first ordered his staff to release all persons in custody and to remove important documents, then continued to give various instructions. At just past two in the morning, they attempted to extinguish the fires, but the entire building became engulfed in flames and they were all trapped inside. After the conflagration died down, the bodies of the staff including Police Chief Tanisue were found in the ruins of the police station.”

1 At the time of writing, only Ishikawa’s photographs were known to the author. Photographs taken by three other photographers – Kikuchi Shunkichi, Hayashi Shigeo, and Fukao Kozo – were later discovered. All of these photographs are included in a 520-page collection Tokyo Kushu Shashinshu(Photographs of the Tokyo Air Raids) published in January 2015.

Ring of Fire

Testimony of Hashimoto Yoshiko

Among those who were in the Shitamachi district of Tokyo on the night of March 9 was Hashimoto Yoshiko, a young twenty-four year-old mother. Yoshiko was at home in Kamezawa, Honjo ward, relaxing with her feet under the kotatsu, a low wooden table covered with a futon and heated from underneath. She gazed fondly at the face of her baby son Hiroshi as he slept peacefully beside her. He had been born on January 3, 1944, and was now 13 months old. Although it was a time when milk and food were in short supply, Hiroshi had graduated from crawling and could now stand and walk. Had it not been for the war, this would have been the proudest and happiest time for a mother.

When Yoshiko married, her husband Bunsaku was “adopted” by the family and took the family name, a common practice back then in families without male heirs. Bunsaku had run the family knitwear store, but the business had been combined into a trust during the war and now he worked at a factory. But he could never be at home when he was really needed. Apart from his work, he was often summoned to conduct civil defense duties such as demolishing the houses of citizens who had been forced to evacuate to make space for firebreaks. When the air raid alert siren sounded, Bunsaku had to leave the house to guard the air-raid defense post at Yanagishima Elementary School.

On March 9, Bunsaku went out immediately when the siren rang, leaving behind Yoshiko with her parents and three younger sisters. Carrying the burden of being the eldest daughter and heir, Yoshiko often felt suffocated by the love of her mother Yasuko, but it was probably just her youth that made it hard for her to get along with her mother. Now she regrets this deeply.

On that night of March 9 when the family spent their last moments together, Yoshiko recalls that for some unknown reason the lights in the house suddenly went out. Under the blackout regulations during the war, the lights were all naked bulbs covered by black cloth so that they could not be seen outside. Yoshiko has no way of knowing now whether the power failure was just in her house or the whole neighborhood. But she remembers she felt a strange foreboding and got up from the kotatsu.

“What happened?” said her sister Chieko, who had managed to find a candle and light it with a match.

“I don’t know. Maybe a bomb dropped somewhere,” replied Yoshiko.

“But they said the enemy planes had gone away.”

“Yes, it’s strange.”

In the light of the candle, they all had gloomy expressions on their faces that were quite different from how they had looked under the electric lights. Even now Yoshiko cannot forget the lonely and anxious look on her mother’s face. Shortly afterwards, the incendiary bombs started raining down on Tokyo.

The Hashimoto family Top, left to right: Chieko, mother, Yoshiko Bottom, left to right: Father, Hisae, Etsuko Courtesy of Hashimoto Yoshiko

 “When the air raid started, we all went down into the family air raid shelter. We had already experienced many air raids and had always waited them out in the shelter, huddled together and holding our breath. We never thought about escaping. There were seven of us in the shelter – my parents, my baby and I, and my three younger sisters.

“The roar of the B-29s’ engines was deafening and now and again we heard the dull thuds of bombs falling all around us. This time it was much worse than usual. I cowered in a corner of the shelter, holding my baby son Hiroshi tight and praying that it would soon be over. ‘We have to get out of here!’ shouted my father, who had gone to look outside. I didn’t have time to look at my watch, but I think it was still before one in the morning. ‘We can’t stay here any longer. If we don’t escape, we’ve had it!’ When I heard my father say that, I knew the moment we’d all dreaded had come at last. And the timing couldn’t have been worse with that fierce north wind blowing so strong it might even blow away a small child. Outside the shelter, it was just as my father said. The B-29s were flying freely overhead and to the north of our house was so bright it looked like broad daylight. It wasn’t just to the north. The conflagration had spread over a wide area all around us, scorching the sky bright red. The swirling sparks made it hard for us to keep our eyes open. Raining down across the sky, the sparks and embers fell sputtering onto roofs and wooden balconies.

“I hurriedly strapped Hiroshi to my back and covered him with two short coats. If one was burned off, I hoped that the other would protect him. Then the seven of us headed south. My father pulled the handcart loaded with our most precious possessions, while my sister Etsuko carried a cooking pot containing rice and my mother a kettle filled with water. My father knew from his experience of the Great Kanto Earthquake of 1923 that the things we would miss most were water and food, so we made a point of taking them with us.

“Chased by the fires, we ran first to the road under the tracks of the Sobu Line. The area on both sides of the overhead railway had been cleared after compulsory evacuation to create a firebreak. There were several large water tanks set up by the neighborhood volunteer labor corps and they were all filled to the brim with water. We all felt relieved to get there, but that didn’t last long. The flames were bearing down on us, rolling along the road and leaping up into the air. Seeing this, the crowd that had gathered near the water tanks started to scatter in panic. At that moment, we disagreed about what to do next. ‘It’s no good staying here. The B-29s are certain to target the railway. We’ve got to escape to the canal,’ said my father. Chieko thought we should stay where we were: ‘There’s water here, and we can always get into a water tank if it gets really bad.’ But my father was insistent: ‘While we’re arguing about that the incendiary bombs will come raining down on us. If we’re going to escape, we’ve got to do it now.’ Deferring to my father’s opinion, we abandoned the cart and our belongings and headed for the Tatekawa canal. We thought that being near to water would be safer than the railway, and that was the nearest waterway. However much Chieko insisted on staying there, we assumed she would follow us.

“Although it was only about five hundred meters from there to the Tatekawa canal, by that time fires were raging all around us and the houses facing the road were engulfed in flames. With all the smoke and hot air as the fires spread, it felt as if my body was floating. Tile roofs flew up and shafts of flames shot up from under them. When we got to Mitsume Street, we noticed that we’d not just become separated from Chieko but from Etsuko as well. In the middle of the escaping crowds and pursued by flying sparks, my parents and I were doing our utmost to avoid losing sight of each other. If we’d fallen, we would have been trampled to death by the people running behind us. As we were running beside the canal, the strap on one of my wooden clogs broke. My father was also in great pain from the gangrene in his legs, so we immediately turned right and got onto Sanno Bridge.

“On the other side of the canal, Tatekawa-cho was also in flames, so we had no choice but to crouch down on top of the bridge. This place, where the matchmaking deity Gentoku was said to reside, was full of childhood memories. There were rows of night stalls along both sides of the canal and we children would excitedly explore them in the light of the carbide lamps. At first the only purpose of the canal was to drain the land, but later it was used as a waterway connecting the Sumida and Naka rivers. Sanno (“third”) Bridge was one of several bridges over the Tatekawa canal starting with Ichino (“first”) Bridge. On festival days, as well as the various stalls, boats lit by red lanterns would float along the canal. It was once a place filled with the traditional Shitamachi atmosphere, but now fires were raging on both banks and people’s belongings floating on the water were lit by flames.

“Whipped up by the fierce wind, sparks and embers from the raging fires over the canal and in the houses on the banks blew over the bridge and attached themselves to people’s shoulders and backs, setting their clothes on fire. At first we watched out for each other and smothered the sparks, but soon we too were catching fire, putting them out, and catching fire again. People were turning into balls of flame and rolling around on the ground. The ones whose hair caught fire screamed and thrashed about wildly. I heard my baby Hiroshi let out a strange cry, so I hurriedly unstrapped him from my back and held him up to see what was the matter. His mouth was glowing red, but it wasn’t blood. While he was crying sparks had flown into his mouth and were burning in his throat. In a panic, I pried them out with my finger. Then my mother covered my little sister Hisae and me with two coats and lay on top of us, but the coats quickly caught fire and she threw them into the canal below. My eyelashes melted off and my hair burned with a sizzling noise. It didn’t feel hot but it was quite painful. My mother got on top of us and my father lay on top of her. We were all curled up like a snail, desperately trying to protect each other. At that moment I thought, ‘So this is how I’m going to die – here on this bridge with my baby who’s only just started to walk.’ I closed my eyes and saw the flickering red flames behind my eyelids. ‘Yoshiko, jump into the canal!’ screamed my father as if he’d suddenly gone crazy. Holding my shoulders and pulling me to my feet, my mother shouted, ‘Yoshiko, take this!’ She took off her air-raid hood and put it on my head. As the eldest daughter I had always sulked and defied my mother, and now she was giving me her own hood to wear. As long as I live, I’ll never forget the sight of my mother’s face with all those flames behind her.

“Feeling that I had become a burden to my parents, I climbed over the railing of the bridge and jumped into the canal holding my baby close to me. The freezing water pierced through me like a knife. At first I sank deep into the water, but I was a strong swimmer. Kicking the water, I quickly rose to the surface together with Hiroshi. The current was strong but luckily a raft floated up to me and I grabbed it, put my baby on top of it and held onto it as we were carried downstream. Perhaps because of the shock, Hiroshi’s eyes were wide open. As the raft floated along I looked up at Sanno Bridge. The flames were leaping like living creatures among the terrified crowds with a tremendous roaring sound. But I couldn’t see my mother or father up there. Later I wondered whether they had heart failure when they entered the freezing water, or perhaps people had jumped in the canal on top of them and they had been unable to rise to the surface. In the water underneath the bridge, people huddled together under a sheet of burned tinplate were frantically chanting sutras.

“On the other side of the canal the fires were raging and crackling as they devoured the buildings on the bank. Sparks from the fires fell over the raft and water sprayed up from the surface here and there. I had run out of strength and thought I’d had it, but when I saw the face of my baby on the raft I forced myself to keep going. After the raft had floated a little further downstream, a small boat with two men in it approached us. ‘Help! Help! Please at least save my baby!’ I shouted. One of the men picked up Hiroshi and put him in the boat and then pulled me out of the water.

“The next bridge was Kikuhana Bridge. Now it’s an iron bridge but back then it was made of wood. The arched bridge was engulfed in bright red flames from end to end and this was reflected as a ring of fire on the surface of the water. As I was looking at this in horror, a dark figure leapt from the bridge into the canal and spray rose up. When we passed through that ring of fire, I thought it really was the end. If the bridge had fallen on top of us, it would have been. Hugging Hiroshi tightly, I curled up at the bottom of the boat and prayed. Then I noticed that the ring of fire was behind us and the boats and rafts had stopped moving. The direction of the wind must have changed. All around us I could hear people in the water groaning in pain. I put my hand out to help them, but they didn’t even have the strength to cling to it. If they had got hold of my hand, they might have pulled me down into the water. The margin between life and death was that slim.

“Eventually a dim light appeared through the smoke and though I was still barely able to see or think, I noticed a little girl floating in the water. She must have been about four years old. I weakly held out my hand saying, ‘Hold on to this,’ but when I looked more closely I saw that she was dead with her face down. The red waistband around her monpe trousers was trailing behind her in the water. Instinctively I hugged Hiroshi tight and called out his name, but his lips only quivered slightly.

“It’s very hard for me to talk about this. I always seem to get incoherent at this point. I’m a very stubborn person and I don’t usually cry, but when I talk about the night of March 9 … Could I take a short break here?”

Yoshiko finally saw the sun rise on the bank at the crossing between the Tatekawa and Oyokogawa canals. She gave a start when she heard one of the men on the bank say “How’s the baby on your back? Take a good look!” Looking around her, she saw several mothers with babies on their backs and short coats covering them. They must have escaped on rafts or clung to timber in the canal, but in their desperate efforts to escape from the fires they had no time to look round at their babies. Many of the young mothers had finally reached dry land only to find that their babies were dead, and now they lay exhausted and weeping on the bank. Most had strapped their babies to their backs to free both their hands and had not noticed the sparks burning through the coats covering them. By the time they turned round to look, it was too late.

Yoshiko had miraculously survived while holding her baby to her chest. Somehow she had managed to keep hold of Hiroshi after she leapt into the canal. If she hadn’t needed to protect him, she might have given up the ghost herself. But having survived by the skin of her teeth, Yoshiko had exhausted all her strength and could not even get to her feet. The two men who had pulled them out of the river put Yoshiko and Hiroshi in a cart they found in the ruins. The burned-out cart had no tires. When Yoshiko heard its wheels rattling as they went along, she realized that she was still alive.

 

Bodies of mother and child Photograph by Ishikawa Koyo Source: U.S. National Archives

Yoshiko fell off the cart several times. “Every time I fell, I couldn’t get back up again, so I just lay there on the ground holding onto my baby,” she recalled. “I could no longer move my limbs. But those men were very kind. One of them ran a rice store nearby and the other worked at Honjo Post Office. Every time I fell off the cart, they said ‘Oh dear, missus, there you go again,’ picked me up and put me back in the cart. Only its iron frames were left, so it was quite a rough ride and my bottom hurt, but I held Hiroshi tight with one hand and clung on to the charred iron frame with the other. We were passing through the town where I’d grown up. There were dead bodies all around us, but my vision had become blurred and fortunately I could hardly see anything. Thick smoke hung over us and swirled in the wind. The town seemed strangely small – perhaps a place always looks like that when everything burns down. Above us in the sky, I saw the yellowish sun rising. The sun was rising just as it always did, but my parents and younger sister were gone forever.”

Yoshiko was taken to Doai Hospital where she received first-aid treatment. Her eyesight eventually recovered. Her baby was given a camphor injection and started to get better, but he had forgotten how to walk and excreted jet-black stools. They stayed one night at the hospital so that they could monitor Hiroshi’s condition. Yoshiko had an almost irresistible urge to steal the blanket they gave her at the hospital. She had lost her home and no longer had a futon or even clothes to wear. She really wanted that blanket for the baby, but she realized it would be needed by mothers and babies in even worse condition and left it at the hospital.

The next day Yoshiko’s husband Bunsaku, who had been on air-raid defense duty at Yanagishima Elementary School, came to the hospital. “You’re alive!” he exclaimed in amazement and joy. Her next visitor was her little sister Hisae, her face covered with burns. Chieko had miraculously survived unhurt by the water tanks under the tracks of the Sobu railway line, but both of her parents and sister Etsuko, who had been carrying a cooking pot full of rice, would never return.

In the air raid of March 10, 1945, Hashimoto Yoshiko lost her father Sojiro, mother Yasuko, and younger sister Etsuko.

Horses on Fire

Testimony of Kokubo Takako

On the night of March 9, nineteen year-old Kokubo Takako, who worked at the Fukagawa ration distribution volunteer corps headquarters, was at the home of her friend Koike Yasue. Takako’s home was in Hirai-cho, but that night she was visiting her friend in Toyosumi-cho on the other side of the canal. Because of her husband’s work, Yasue lived in an official residence of the Imperial Household Department’s Bureau of Forestry. Since her husband went to fight in the war, she had been living there alone with her four year-old son Noboru. Yasue complained of feeling lonely and Takako often went over to cheer her up. Yasue had an open-hearted nature and enjoyed certain privileges living in a residence of the Imperial Household Department, including her own bath and relatively generous rations. Living nearby, Takako went to visit her friend whenever she could. Their greatest pleasure was to sit opposite each other and chat under the warm kotatsu. Even when Takako stayed over at Yasue’s place, her mother didn’t seem to mind.

That night, Takako was able to relax for the first time in a while, enjoying a leisurely bath and feeling quite refreshed. As she got out of the bath and hung the towel on the wall, she felt as if it was suddenly peacetime again. She got back under the kotatsu and continued chatting with her friend, but the strong north wind rattling the shutters made her anxious.

“What a wind! Wouldn’t it be awful if they came tonight,” said Takako. Yasue frowned. She reached out and adjusted the coverlet on little Noboru’s futon. “It’s a horrible wind. Now you’ve made me feel chilly all of a sudden,” she said with a shudder.

Takako has no memory of hearing the air raid alert siren while she was in Yasue’s room that night. After the news on the radio that two enemy planes had turned back across the sea away from the Boso Peninsula, she vaguely remembers the announcer saying that the Imperial Army’s morale was rising on all fronts on the eve of Army Day. Less than an hour later, they heard a loud bang that sounded like an oil can exploding. Startled, Yasue and Takako went to look outside and saw that the entire area to the north was ablaze. At that moment, a B-29 roared overhead and flames rose up one after another. The situation suddenly seemed hopeless. Fleeing people pulling hastily loaded handcarts came running down the road in a mad rush to escape. Takako looked at Yasue and said, “We’ve got to get out of here or we’ve had it!” Her face pale, Yasue strapped Noboru to her back and put her first-aid bag on her shoulder. Quickly grabbing a few belongings, she said, “It’s everyone for themselves now.” With that she disappeared.

Astonished by her friend’s quick departure, Takako took the wet towel from the wall and tied it round the waist of her monpe trousers. This was all she would take with her, but it turned out to be a precious item. Then she headed for her home in Hirai-cho on the other side of the canal, battling against the fierce north wind. It was just a short walk away, but to get there she had to cross the Yokojukkengawa canal. It was no use trying to cross via the bridge because it would be crowded with people trying to escape. But Takako knew the neighborhood like the back of her hand and took a shortcut. The surface of the canal was covered with floating logs. A long thin sheet of board had been placed on top of them so that the longshoremen could walk over to the other side. This was the quickest way home. Trying to keep her balance by holding her hands up, Takado started to cross the canal, but a gust of wind nearly blew her into the water. Catching a glimpse of a B-29 flying low overhead and the flames bearing down like a tsunami, she got down on all fours and crawled across the boards. It occurred to her that she must look ridiculous, but there was no time for such thoughts now.

When she got home, Takako found her mother and younger sister gathering belongings in the light of the swirling sparks. “Hurry! Hurry!” she shouted. Following the order that everyone should act together in a crisis, her mother and younger sister Chieko were preparing to head for the neighborhood association’s emergency meeting place. “Mummy, wait!” cried Chieko as she stuffed school supplies into her bag. Takako vividly remembers the sight of them as they disappeared round the corner of the sidestreet.

“I think it was about one in the morning that I ran out of our house trying to catch up with my mother and sister. I couldn’t carry much with me. I took our ancestors’ memorial tablets and a couple of my mother’s cotton kimonos and a sash, that sort of thing. I was in a terrible hurry, so I just chose a few things quickly from the drawers and wrapped them in a kerchief. Then I found the family photograph album, put it in a bag, and dashed out of the house.”

“I heard the B-29s roaring overhead and the screeching of incendiary bombs falling with flashes of light and strange hissing sounds. At the end of the alley, I saw oil from an incendiary bomb spray down and silver flames rise up. With all the fires and smoke, I had no idea what it was like up ahead. Through the howling wind and the mad wailing of sirens, I could hear people shouting and screaming. I knew I had to get out of there quickly, so I gave up trying to find my mother and sister and headed north towards the canal.

“I wasn’t planning to go back to Yasue’s house, but it seemed safe in that direction. I was so frantic that I no longer knew whether I was running along the ground or flying through the air. When you’re running for your life and think a place is safe, you just go for it with all your might until you can’t run any longer. I imagine that’s how so many people ended up dying.

“The canal-side street I was running down was almost deserted. The shadows of the flames flickered red on the ground and surface of the water. Realizing that everyone else had already escaped, I felt even more desperate. I tripped over my own feet and tumbled to the ground, but I didn’t feel any pain. Picking myself up, I continued running through the swirling sparks. Then I heard a tremendous sound of hooves and snorting from up ahead and saw horses galloping in blind panic towards me! Suddenly emerging from the curtain of smoke, they looked like phantoms. The horses were running in twos and threes and the manes of some of them were on fire. Scared out of my wits, I couldn’t breathe and my legs went stiff. It was on a narrow street with the canal on the left and burning houses on the right. There was no place to hide. As I pressed myself close to the side of a garbage box, I thought ‘I’m not even married and I’m about to be trampled to death by wild horses.’ I just cowered there and begged them to spare me.

“Back then there were many shipping agents in Sunamachi that kept horses and oxen for pulling carts, though you don’t see them these days. The horses must have escaped from their stables. When I saw more of them charging towards me from behind as well, I really thought I’d had it. The road was blocked by the fires in front and behind me and the horses were stampeding up and down it. I ran for dear life through a burning two-story house that was about to collapse and managed to break through the wall of fire into Toyo Park.

“My mother and sister? Of course I was worried about them, but they were together with our neighbors so I assumed they’d be safe. At that moment all my thoughts were focused on getting out of there alive. I found my way to the tramway and headed for Sunamachi. The tramway was filled with people hurrying along holding futons over their heads or pulling handcarts. Then I ran into a friend, Saito Chii, who worked with me at the ration distribution headquarters. Chii was a big woman weighing about 80 kilograms and she loved flamboyant clothes. That night too she was wearing brightly-colored monpe trousers with a floral pattern, so I knew instantly it was Chii without even seeing her face.

‘Chii, where are you going?’

‘I’m following my sister. She escaped ahead of us to Hirai-cho.’ ‘That’s no good. There are fires everywhere and horses running wild all over the place. Let’s go together to Sunamachi.’

‘Sunamachi’s no good either. Come with me.’

“I wanted to go with Chii but I couldn’t stand the thought of encountering those phantom horses again, so we parted ways. I could never have imagined I would find Chii’s charred remains on the road the next morning.

“After that I got a ride on a fire truck and escaped in style for a little way, but soon we couldn’t make any headway through the crowds. As I got off the truck, the firebombs started raining down again. An incendiary stick fell on the road, bounced, and hit my left leg. It didn’t hurt much, but oil splattered over my trousers, caught fire, and I only just avoided turning into a ball of flames. The people around me smothered the flames while I beat at them with my cloth bag. Somehow we managed to put them out, but my left foot was in bad shape. Even now it feels painfully stiff in the winter.

“What happened after that? Well, I carried on running until I got to the canal we used to call Denkibori. They dug it using electric power in the late 1920s, but it’s gone now. In front of the bridge over the canal, there was a large crowd of people shouting and screaming. I pushed through them to the front to see what was going on. The girders of the wooden bridge were in flames. There was no hope of crossing and all these people were stranded at the end of the bridge. A tremendous wave of fire was bearing down from behind us and huge cinders were flying over our heads and dancing across the ground. It was now or never. I was young and reckless, so I said a prayer to the memorial tablets in my bag, jumped onto the flaming bridge and dashed across it. Behind me I heard someone shout ‘It’s all right, we can make it across!’ and everyone followed me. When I got to the other side and turned round to look, the bridge was no longer there. It had collapsed and fallen into the canal together with the people on it. The moaning, screaming, and desperate cries of children calling out for their mothers were unbearable. The burning bridge had crumbled and fallen into the water over them with a terrible crackling and hissing. It was like a scene from hell. Red flames were swelling above the water and twisting over it like huge snakes. Trying desperately to find something to cling onto above the surface, people were throwing up their hands and shaking their heads from side to side as they squirmed for dear life.

 

 Umaya Bridge in Flames Painting by Fukushima Yasusuke, age six at the time of the air raid Source: Sumida Local Culture Resource Center

“It might have been better for me to die quickly than to see such a terrible thing. If the people up there in the B-29s were really human beings like us, I’d have liked to drag them out of their planes and make them witness it too.

“But there was nothing I could do for those poor people. I just gave a bow in their direction and walked away. Then I got into a muddy pool behind a factory to escape the flames. Almost at once, the wind and fires blew the factory roof up into the sky and burning pieces of roof started flying towards me like those horses. To dodge them I took a step back in the muddy pool, then again and again until the water was almost up to my neck. At that moment a futon floated up to me from somewhere. ‘Put this over your head, miss.’ A man – I think he was Korean – placed the futon over my head, but it was no use. My energy was ebbing away and I started to fall asleep. The water didn’t feel cold any more. It felt like I was soaking in a hot spring bath and was gradually being sucked down into the earth. ‘You mustn’t go to sleep, miss. If you sleep, you’ll die.’ I opened my eyes but then started to drift off again, and I heard the man repeating his warning. When I came to, it was morning.

“I had survived, only to find out later that the rest of my family were dead. I was alone. But because I survived, I was able to pray for their souls. I suppose that was better than all of us dying. After all, the government never did anything for us.”

After dawn broke Takako returned to the foot of the bridge. The wooden bridge had gone, leaving just the iron beams that supported it. Civil defense corpsmen had placed sheets of wooden board over the beams so that people could cross to the other side. When Takako looked over at the canal, she saw that it was full of dead bodies on top of one another. A foul smell that made her shudder was wafting over the bank and even to the road beyond the bridge. Takako instinctively reached for the towel at her waist, but the fresh towel she had taken from her friend Yasue’s place was now like a used cloth. She walked round the side of Toyo Park heading for whatever might remain of her family’s home. At the side of the road she saw a naked infant lying face downwards. “I guess it must have been about two years old. It was lying next to a heap of dead bodies. At first I thought it was a doll, but then I saw it twitching so I knew it was alive. As I stood there wondering if anything could be done, it raised its backside and then dropped back down again. It did that several times but the movements gradually got weaker. I knew it must be dying, but I was on my last legs too and could barely walk. I couldn’t do anything to help the poor little thing.”

B

A little further down the road, Takako came upon a dead body in monpe trousers. Since its hair had been completely burned off she didn’t think it could be a woman at first, but when she noticed a familiar floral pattern left unburned at the waist, Takako knew it was her colleague Saito Chii who she had run into earlier. Now Chii was just one more charred corpse on the road. Takako reflected that she too might have been put out of her misery if she’d gone together with her colleague. When she finally reached the ruins of her home, she waited and waited, but nobody returned. There was nothing else for it but to go back to her friend Yasue’s place in Toyosumi-cho.

Bodies of firebombing victims in Hanakawado, Asakusa ward Photograph by Ishikawa Koyo. Source: U.S. National Archives

Yasue had spent the night up to her shoulders in a canal together with her four year-old son Noboru. Dripping wet and with bloodshot eyes, she was holding the lifeless toddler over a bonfire in the road, screaming crazily as she tried to revive her unconscious child. When she got closer Takako gave a start. Noboru’s head and legs were hanging down limply as his hair frizzled and the skin on his legs burned in the flames. But Yasue just held him there, unaware of what was happening. “Yasue, what the hell are you doing?” Takako screamed, pulling her friend back from the edge of the fire. The two of them frantically tried to treat Noboru’s wounds, but without medicine or doctors there was little they could do. Having spent a desperate night protecting her son from the fires, Yasue had momentarily lost her reason and inflicted terrible burns on him. Four-year-old Noboru survived the ordeal but his scars never healed completely. “Even so, I wanted my own mother and sisters to be alive too,” remarked Takako bitterly.

In the air raid of March 10, 1945, Kokubo Takako lost her mother Uta, older sister Tokiko, and younger sister Chieko.

Kototoi Bridge

Testimony of Kikujima Koji

13 year-old Kikujima Koji, who lived in Senzoku-cho in Asakusa ward, recalls that his family were all together and had boiled kidney beans for dinner on the night of March 9. Koji’s recollection of his family’s last meal together may seem like the typically innocent impression of a child, but during the war kidney beans were something of a luxury. The memory of the sweet taste of the beans even without sugar, which was strictly rationed, and the warm feeling of the whole family gathered together, naturally stayed with him. The kidney beans somehow symbolized the harmony of a happy family until that night. At the time, Koji was a first-year student at Taiko Technical School.

It was unusual for all six family members – Koji, his parents, and his older sister Yuriko, younger brother Jiro and younger sister Harue – to be at home for dinner. His father Noboru was a civil servant in the Tokyo Metropolitan Public Works Bureau. In addition to his work at the Bureau’s Asakusa office, he often had to serve as a civil defense corpsman at night because of the shortage of available men. As it happened, Noboru had no air defense duties that evening and had returned.

“If my father had been on duty that night, I wonder what would have happened to him. Perhaps only he would have survived, or maybe we all would have. As it turned out, we followed my father’s instructions. If we hadn’t had someone to lead us, we might have gone to Iriya on the other side of Kototoi Bridge. But it’s too late for regrets now. There’s no point in thinking about that any more, though I can’t help it. Frankly, I still can’t believe they’re dead,” murmured Koji, his deep feelings etched on his lean dark face. The remorse and disbelief at the deaths of four members of his family including both his parents will never leave him.

After eating the boiled kidney beans for dinner, the Kikujima family went to bed at about eight o’clock. It was the best policy to get some sleep if you had nothing in particular to do. People never knew when a nighttime air raid would force them out of bed, and sleep helped to stave off their constant hunger. It also saved on fuel bills and conserved strength for when it was needed most. The Kikujima family home in Senzoku-cho was a small two-story house with 4.5 and 6 tatami mat rooms on both the first and second floors. Koji, Yuriko and Jiro slept on the second floor and his parents and little sister Harue on the first. These days they always slept in their clothes.

When the air raid alert siren sounded at 10.30, Koji jumped out of bed and opened the shutters so that they could escape quickly if need be. But with the news on the radio that the two B-29s first sighted were now flying away over the sea from the Boso Peninsula, he closed the shutters again and went back to bed.

When the air raid started just after midnight, Koji tumbled out of his house in Senzoku-cho, Asakusa Ward, into the narrow sidestreet screaming “Air raid! Air raid!” The local neighborhood association had even fewer young men than usual at the time, so Koji was given the duty of going around the neighborhood calling out the air raid warning.

After that, while Koji and his family lay hidden in the air raid dug-out in front of their house, countless incendiary bombs were falling with meteor-like trails in nearby Shitaya ward and flames were soon scorching the night sky. The next screeching volley of incendiaries fell mainly in the district where Koji lived. In no time at all, a pillar of fire was shooting upwards like a flare from the Kikujima family’s two-floor house. “This is hopeless. We can’t stay down here,” growled Koji’s father Noboru.

“Seeing our two-story house in flames from the dug-out, we knew we were in danger of our lives. The neighborhood association was supposed to act as a team in a crisis, but where were they now? All those air-raid drills and bucket relays had been useless. Anyone could see there was no way we could put out the fires.

“The six of us prepared to escape. The taste of those kidney beans we ate for dinner had gone completely. We borrowed a bicycle cart from our neighbor Mr. Kondo, loaded it with our belongings, and put a couple of futons on top. We couldn’t take much because the house was already burning fiercely and the rack on the cart was small. Mr. Terauchi from next door helped us get our stuff together. We left our burning house in Senzoku-cho and headed towards the Sumida River, my father pulling the bicycle cart from the front and me carrying my emergency cloth bag. ‘Let’s go to Mr. Amamiya’s place first,’ said my father. Mr. Amamiya was an acquaintance who lived near Shoten-cho on the way. That was our first and biggest mistake.

“Most of the people who went west in the opposite direction to the Sumida River in the east – towards Iriya, Negishi, or Ueno – survived that night. East or west was a choice between life or death. As a civil servant in the Public Works Bureau, my father must have been very familiar with the Asakusa district, so why didn’t he head west that night? I guess he instinctively decided to go east because Mr. Amamiya’s house was there, but even now it fills me with regret. I was only thirteen at the time, so I had no choice but to leave that decision to my father.

“I remember that the main road to Shoten-cho was not so crowded, maybe because everyone had already escaped. The fires had not reached there yet, but the B-29s were relentlessly bombing at low altitude and the skies all around us were an ominous red color as if the whole world was on fire. An incendiary bomb roared down and fell quite near us. We lay flat on the ground holding our breath, then got up again and ran for our lives, blown forward by the north wind at our backs. All of us were speechless with terror.

“When we finally reached Mr. Amamiya’s house, we found it was deserted. Only now did we realize how pointless it had been to come to this place, but there was no going back, so we just ploughed ahead. At Shoten-cho there was a park to our left but nobody could enter it because it was being used as an anti-aircraft battery position. Pushed along by the growing swell of people behind us, we made our way down the street beside the park until we found ourselves at Kototoi Bridge. We had become caught up in the waves of people escaping to the bridge.

“I don’t know exactly how long or wide Kototoi Bridge is, but it’s a steel bridge spanning the Sumida River so you can imagine its size. There were somany people were on the bridge that it looked as if it might bend under the weight. It wouldn’t have been so bad if it had only been people, but they were carrying a lot of luggage too. They had all kinds of stuff loaded on hand carts, bicycle carts, and bicycles, and they were also carrying things on their shoulders, in their arms, or dragging them along the ground. Kototoi Bridge was full of luggage that would easily catch fire.

“Even now it sends a chill down my spine when I recall the roaring of the B-29s, the sirens of the fire trucks on the opposite bank, the superheated air that seemed to suck in the flames, and the screaming children. The people on both banks of the Sumida River all thought that if they stayed there they would burn to death. Believing that salvation lay on the other side, they rushed onto Kototoi Bridge from both directions. In the middle of this heaving mass of people, pushing and shoving from all sides, we reached the middle of the bridge, or perhaps it was just a little past the middle. By that time it was obvious that it wasn’t safe on the other side either, but there was no longer anything we could do. We were caught between the people pushing us forward from behind and the wave of people and their luggage bearing down on us from the front. Unable to move forward or backward, the six of us became nailed against the railings on the right of the bridge. Two fire trucks had also been brought to a standstill next to us and a fireman was yelling in a hoarse voice. The night sky was scorched red with fire. From the direction of Asakusa, a blizzard of sparks and embers was blowing over the bridge and our heads. In no time people’s belongings caught fire and there was no way of putting them out. The water needed by the fire trucks on the bridge was in the river below. As the fires spread from one piece of luggage to the next, the advancing wave of desperate cries and screams reached us in the middle of the bridge. I thought we’d had it. With the fire sparks and gusting wind, it would not be long before the whole bridge was a white-hot inferno. Even if that didn’t happen, it would certainly make a perfect target for the B-29s flying low overhead. Then we’d have no choice but to jump into the Sumida River. Of course I didn’t have time to think it through at the time. I just knew we had to act fast. ‘I’ll go first!’ I shouted. Taking the hand of my youngest sister, eight year-old Harue, I decided to try to get across the bridge to the opposite bank. Harue wouldn’t stop screaming and my parents seemed frozen on the spot, so I just took it upon myself to save Harue and that seemed to give me the strength to act. I was sure the others would also find a way out. They must have said something at that moment, but I can’t remember what.

Kototoi Bridge in Flames Painting by Kano Teruo. Fourteen at the time of the air raid, Kano lost both his parents and two sisters. Courtesy of the artist

“I took Harue’s hand and charged forward, pushing my way through the mass of people and belongings. It was a gut-wrenching escape. Trampling over people and climbing over luggage, I headed single-mindedly for Mukojima on the opposite bank. On the way, Harue’s shoes and air-raid hood flew off. Without thinking I picked up shoes and a hood someone else had dropped. Somehow we managed to get through to the end of the bridge, where we ran into Mr. Terauchi and his son. He had also become separated from his wife, but assumed she and the other children would follow along later. We made our way with him to Oshiage Station on the Keisei Line, but it was burning fiercely. Gusts of wind blew the flames over the road and in instant they spread to the other side. If I hadn’t seen it with my own eyes, I wouldn’t have believed it possible. In the intense heat, my clothes quickly became bone dry and my eyes were burning. Drenching ourselves again and again with water from the roadside and crouching low, we crawled forward until we reached Kinshi Park.

“We made our way to a water storage tank in the park. I soaked my gloves in the water and used them to beat off the sparks on our clothes. Brushing off the sparks, warding off smoke, and covering our hands and mouth with the wet gloves, we somehow made it through to the morning. Many of the trees around us were burned, but Harue and I had survived. We looked at each other and breathed a sigh of relief. My school coat was full of holes made by the sparks, my trousers were in shreds, and Harue’s feet were bare. We had narrowly escaped death, but I never saw my father, mother, older brother Jiro and older sister Yuriko again after we parted on Kototoi Bridge. On the night of March 9, we had all sat down together and enjoyed a meal of boiled kidney beans. Where had that happy family gone? Left only with the memory of their smiling faces that night, my sister Harue and I were all alone in the world.”

When morning came, Koji and Harue made their way back to the bridge, helped by their neighbors Mr. Terauchi and his son. As soon as they left the park, they saw dead bodies all over the road. To Koji they looked like “naked mannequins painted with black ink.” He couldn’t even tell if they were men or women. Their clothes, hair, skin and flesh had all turned to ashes. Only the insides of their mouths remained unburned. The row of dead bodies like charred sticks continued uninterrupted for some way along the road. Koji also saw the empty shell of a fire truck. In what remained of the cabin, the driver’s charred body was bent over the steering wheel. Another piece of charcoal in human form was leaning over the edge of a concrete water trough as if he or she was still drinking.

By this time Koji’s mind had gone blank. His capacity for shock and sadness seemed to have reached its limit. But when he reached Kototoi Bridge, where he had become separated from the other four members of his family just a few hours earlier, the scene before him made him shudder in horror:

“I don’t have the words to describe that gruesome sight. Everywhere you looked, the bridge was covered with charred corpses heaped on top of each other. There was even a body hanging by one arm from the overhead telephone line. Apparently someone had already gone down there ahead of us because a narrow path had been cleared through the bodies, winding along to the other end of the bridge. In the middle were a couple of fire trucks that were now just skeletons of iron frames. I remembered that it was around there that I got separated from my parents, brother and sister, but that’s all I thought at the time. I was sure they would still be alive somewhere. Carrying my little sister on his back, Mr. Teruchi went first and I followed him, making my way along the path between the charred corpses. I was almost numb with shock. My shoes were broken and my toes were sticking out at the front, and I’ll never forget the blood and fat stains like a map on top of the bridge.”

Dating from 1928, Kototoi Bridge is 237 meters long and 22 meters wide. Originating from a poem in the Tales of Ise, its name had historical and romantic associations in stark contrast to the dreadful scenes witnessed that morning by 13-year-old Kikujima Koji. After making his way through the dead bodies on the bridge, Koji returned to the family home in Senzoku-cho. The house was no longer there and, without roads or familiar landmarks to guide him, its ruins were hard to find. Eventually he managed to locate the flagstone in front of the house. From there he went to the nearby Kinryu Elementary School and waited for the rest of the family to return.

Kototoi Bridge in the Morning Painting by Kano Teruo Courtesy of the artist

While watching other people from the neighborhood association hugging and slapping each other on the back in joyous reunions after surviving the horrors of the previous night, Koji waited to hear the footsteps of his parents, brother and sister at the entrance of the classroom. But night fell and still none of them returned. His little sister started crying, saying her eyes were hurting. Koji tried to comfort her as they waited and waited. “I’ve had dreams about that night so many times,” he told me and was unable to speak any more. I could no longer look him in the face.

In the air raid of March 10, 1945, Kikujima Koji lost his father Noboru, mother Toyo, older sister Yuriko, and younger brother Jiro.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US War Crimes. The March 1945 Firebombing of Tokyo: America’s “Great Tokyo Air Raid”

The Harper government’s Bill C-51, or Anti-Terrorism Act, has been in the public domain for over a month. Long enough for us to know that it subverts basic principles of constitutional law, assaults rights of free speech and free assembly, and is viciously anti-democratic.

An unprecedented torrent of criticism has been directed against this bill as the government rushes it through Parliament. This has included stern or at least sceptical editorials in all the major newspapers; an open letter, signed by four former Prime Ministers and five former Supreme Court judges, denouncing the bill for exposing Canadians to major violations of their rights; and another letter, signed by a hundred Canadian law professors, explaining the dangers it poses to justice and legality.

As its critics have shown, the bill isn’t really about terrorism: it’s about smearing other activities by association—and then suppressing them in ways that would formerly have been flagrantly illegal. The bill targets, among others, people who defend the treaty rights of First Nations, people who oppose tar sands, fracking, and bitumen-carrying pipelines as threats to health and the environment, and people who urge that international law be peacefully applied to ending Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian territories. (Members of this latter group include significant numbers of Canadian Jews.)

But the Anti-Terrorism Act is more mortally dangerous to Canadian democracy than even these indications would suggest. A central section of the act empowers CSIS agents to obtain judicial warrants—on mere suspicion, with no requirement for supporting evidence—that will allow them to supplement other disruptive actions against purported enemies of Harperland with acts that directly violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and other Canadian laws.

The only constraints placed on this legalized law-breaking are that CSIS agents shall not “(a) cause, intentionally or by criminal negligence, death or bodily harm to an individual; (b) wilfully attempt in any manner to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice; or (c) violate the sexual integrity of an individual.”

The second of these prohibitions—occurring in the midst of a bill that seeks systematically to obstruct citizens in the exercise of their rights, pervert justice, and defeat democracy—might tempt one to believe that there is a satirist at work within the Department of Justice. (Note, however, that CSIS agents can obstruct, pervert and defeat to their hearts’ content, so long as they do so haphazardly, rather than “wilfully.”)

But the first and third clauses amount to an authorization of torture.

On February 16, Matthew Behrens observed that these clauses recall “the bone-chilling justification of torture” in the infamous memos of George W. Bush’s Justice Department. He pertinently asked what the Canadian government knows, if it “actually feels the need to spell out such a prohibition, […] about illicit CSIS practices behind closed doors….”1 On February 17, two prominent legal experts, Clayton Ruby and Nader R. Hasan, remarked that the “limited exclusions” in these clauses “leave CSIS with incredibly expansive powers, including water boarding, inflicting pain (torture) or causing psychological harm to an individual.”2

Like the Bush torture memos, Harper’s Anti-Terrorism Act is attempting to legitimize forbidden practices. Bush’s lawyers argued that interrogation methods producing pain below the level of “organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death” were legal—as were methods producing purely mental suffering, unless they resulted in “significant psychological harm […] lasting for months or even years.”3 Harper’s legislation prohibits acts of the kind that created an international scandal when the torture practices of Abu Graib, Bagram and Guantánamo became public. But as Ruby and Hasan recognize, in so doing it is tacitly declaring acts of torture that fall below that horrifying threshold to be permissible.

Most of the torture methods applied in the black sites of the American gulag during the so-called War on Terror would be permitted to CSIS under Harper’s Anti-Terrorism Act. Among these methods are sleep deprivation and sensory deprivation (both of which induce psychosis, without of course leaving physical marks), stress-position torture and waterboarding (which again leave no marks of “bodily harm”), and techniques of beating and pressure-point torture that produce excruciating pain without leaving visible traces.4

As to what CSIS does behind closed doors, we know enough to be able to say that this agency is already seriously off its leash. CSIS agents were involved in interrogating Afghan prisoners from early 2002 until 2007 or later, a period during which the American and Afghan agencies with which they collaborated were systematically torturing detainees. We know from journalists Jim Bronskill and Murray Brewster that one of the Kandahar interrogation sites used by CSIS, “work[ing] alongside the American CIA and in close co-operation with Canada’s secretive, elite JTF-2 commandos,” was a “secluded base”—this seems a polite way of saying ‘secret torture facility’—“known as Graceland.”5

American torturers seem to have enjoyed giving names of this sort to their black sites: the secret facility outside the Guantánamo prison where three prisoners were tortured to death on the night of June 9, 2006 is called “Penny Lane.”6 (Think about the lyrics to Paul Simon’s “Graceland” and the Beatles’ “Penny Lane”: you’ll understand that these interrogators are sick puppies indeed.)7

But these are the people that Jack Hooper, Assistant and then Deputy Director of CSIS Operations from 2002 until 2007, wanted his agents to emulate. He told his men, “If you’re going to run with the big dogs, you’d better learn to piss in the high grass.”8

We know already that Stephen Harper doesn’t flinch from covering up high-level Canadian responsibility for torture in Afghanistan. In November 2009, the Toronto Star quoted a former senior NATO public affairs official as saying that flagrantly false denials about Canadian complicity in the torture of Afghan detainees had been scripted by Harper and his PMO, “which was running the public affairs aspect of Canadian engagement in Afghanistan with a 6,000-mile screwdriver.”9 And we’ve not forgotten that a month later Mr. Harper prorogued Parliament in order to shut down a parliamentary committee that was hearing evidence on the subject.

But on October 22 of last year, when a deranged gunman murdered Corporal Nathan Cirillo at the National War Memorial and then tried to run amok on Parliament Hill, Mr. Harper was less brave. While some members of his caucus prepared to defend themselves and their parliamentary colleagues with anything that came to hand, he hid in a closet.

It seems that Mr. Harper would now like us all to share the emotion he felt in that closet—if not by quivering at the mention of ISIS jihadis, then, soon enough, by shaking in our boots at the thought of CSIS toughs kicking down doors at midnight.

Canadians need to tell this government, and this prime minister, that we are not intimidated on either count.

We are ashamed by his lies over high-level Canadian complicity in torture in Afghanistan.

We will not tolerate his attempt to institutionalize torture in Canada.

Michael Keefer, who is Professor Emeritus at the University of Guelph, is a graduate of the Royal Military College of Canada, a former President of the Association of Canadian College and University Teachers of English, a member of the Seriously Free Speech Committee, and an associate member of Independent Jewish Voices Canada.

Notes:

1 Behrens, “Troubled times ahead with new anti-terror legislation,” Rabble.ca (16 February 2015),http://rabble.ca/columnists/2015/02/troubled-times-ahead-new-anti-terror-legislation.

2 Ruby and Hasan, “Bill C-51: A Legal Primer. Overly broad and unnecessary anti-terrorism reforms could criminalize free speech,” Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (17 February 2015), https://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/monitor/bill-c-51-legal-primer.

3 Jay S. Bybee, “Memorandum for Alberto R. Gonzales, Counsel to the President, Re: Standards of Conduct for Interrogation under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2340-2340A (August 1, 2002),” in David Cole, ed., The Torture Memos (New York: New Press, 2009), p. 41.

4 See Alfred W. McCoy, A Question of Torture: CIA Interrogation, from the Cold War to the War on Terror (New York: Owl Books, 2006).

5 Jim Bronskill and Murray Brewster, “CSIS reviewing role in Afghan detainee interrogations,” Canadian Press, available in The Toronto Star (2 August 2010), http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/843055–csis-reviewing-role-in-afghan-detainee-interrogations. See also Murray Brewster and Jim Bronskill, “CSIS played critical role in Afghan prisoner interrogations: documents, sources,” Canadian Press (8 March 2010), available at http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fhostednews%2Fcanadianpress%2Farticle%2FALeqM5jJLuGfEH6QP3vrNSLPiAGPZNqBcw&date=2010-03-09; and “Le SCRS était au courant de cas de torture,” La Presse Canadienne, available at Radio-Canada.ca (21 January 2011), http://www.radio-canada.ca/nouvelles/International/2011/01/21/007-scrs-detenus-afghans-torture.shtml.

6 David Swanson, “We’ve murdered some folks,” Review of Murder at Camp Delta, by Joseph Hickman, Cold Type 94 (March 2015), p. 26, http://coldtype.net/Assets.15/pdfs/ColdType.0315.pdf.

7 Some relevant lines from “Graceland”: “Everybody sees you’re blown apart / Everybody sees the wind blow / In Graceland, in Graceland / I’m going to Graceland / For reasons I cannot explain / There’s some part of me wants to see / Graceland….” And from “Penny Lane”: “In Penny Lane there is a barber selling photographs / Of every head he’s had the pleasure to know / … / Penny Lane is in my ears and in my eyes….”

8 Quoted by Michelle Shephard, Guantanamo’s Child: The Untold Story of Omar Khadr (Mississauga: John Wiley, 2008), p. 57.

9 Mitch Potter, “PMO issued instructions on denying abuse in ’07,” The Toronto Star (22 November 2009), http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/afghanmission/article/729157–pmo-issued-instructions-on-denying-abuse-in-07.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Impending Threat to Canadian Democracy: Harper Government’s “Anti-Terrorism Act” isn’t about Terrorism, it’s a Torture Act

What’s an intentional mutation? Nothing more than a fancy technological phrase which describes a new way that biotech is getting around regulatory approval for genetically modified crops.

Scientists have already created ‘designer monkeys’ by orchestrating precise genetic mutations. The same technology used to achieve this feat more than ten years ago is now being used by companies like Scott’s (of famed and failed GMO grass) to create genetically modified food without the oversight of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) or of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

It isn’t as though these alphabet agencies offer much protection to the average US consumer anyway. Considering that no long-term studies have been conducted on altered DNA and human health, and the fact that the USDA and FDA seem to give their rubber stamp to almost every biotech creation without a second glance, many people have long turned to other ‘experts’ to get their facts on genetically modified foods.

However, taking away the regulatory process makes it that much easier for biotech companies like Monsanto, Bayer, Dow, Scott’s, etc. to infiltrate non-GM crops with their altered plants.

Until now, at least the guise of a regulation would stall a biotech company long enough for the public to get wind of their plans, and to at least voice their concern, if not smoldering outrage, at a GM apple that doesn’t brown, or GE salmon that grows ten times the size of non-GM salmon.

Click for large version.

How do companies like Scott’s plan to unleash new GM grass, and other genetically modified crops? By utilizing “genome editing” which wasn’t even heard of when regulations for GMO crops were originally penned.

Plant researchers at the University of California, Davis, have remarked that the regulatory framework has become “obsolete and an obstacle to the development of new agricultural products.”

The system is indeed obsolete, but not for the reasons Big Ag thinks. If companies like Monsanto have their way, genome editing will be used instead of the previous methods for altering living organisms by genetically altering DNA material through artificial manipulation in a laboratory. In this way, they can bypass the FDA and other agencies throughout the world who are trying to ban GMOs.

The genetic manipulation (through gene transfer) process already differs from traditional hybridization where only species that are very similar can be combined to produce a new offspring. For example, in hybridization practiced by gardeners and horticulturalists you would never put a bacteria gene inside a plant gene to create a plant that is essentially a pesticide – and then end up with plants that, when consumed, are cytotoxic to the human organism.

Genome editing is the process of precisely targeting a gene for mutation. Harvard researchers describe the process thusly:

“. . . developing genome-scale editing tools as fast and easy as word processing have rewritten the genome of living cells using the genetic equivalent of search and replace — and combined those rewrites in novel cell strains, strikingly different from their forebears.”

“The payoff doesn’t really come from making a copy of something that already exists,” said George Church, a professor of genetics at Harvard Medical School, “You have to change it — functionally and radically.”

By altering crops in this way, biotech companies are, according to Michael Hansen, senior scientist for Consumers Union:

“…using a technical loophole so that what are clearly genetically engineered crops and organisms are escaping regulation. [Gm grass] can have all sorts of ecological impact and no one is required to look at it.”

Like other biotech techniques, genome editing isn’t fool-proof either. In the pharmaceutical industry this technique has been used to try to cultivate cultures that can be used for drugs. A notable example of this technology going very wrong can be seen with the biotech company Genzyme, where estimates of costs due to viral contamination from genome editingreachupwards of $1 billion. The company has attempted to develop various gene technologies for diseases of the central nervous system, diabetes, and more.

If gene editing isn’t completely predictable for pharmaceutical drugs, how can we be sure that gene editing will result in anything different than other biotech practices that have been used to genetically modify crops to date? Without regulatory oversight, these practices will also likely be carried out without the public’s awareness, and once again we will be eating food that is, in the least, very questionable.

There are multiple methods of gene editing, but this video from MIT explains one of them.

Pics Courtesy of: http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/science/gmfoods/

Christina Sarich is a humanitarian and freelance writer helping you to Wake up Your Sleepy Little Head, and See the Big Picture. Her blog is Yoga for the New World. Her latest book is Pharma Sutra: Healing the Body And Mind Through the Art of Yoga.

Follow us: @naturalsociety on Twitter | NaturalSociety on Facebook

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Monsanto Is About to Escape All Regulation From the US Department of Agriculture

Image: Navy Lieutenant Steve Simmons

U.S. Navy sailors exposed to radioactive fallout from the Fukushima nuclear disaster have been falling ill, even as the Defense Department insists that they were not exposed to dangerous levels of radiation. Many of the sailors have now joined in a class action lawsuit against Fukushima operators and builders Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco), Toshiba, Hitachi, Ebasco and General Electric.

Even if they wanted to — which many do not — the sailors would be unable to sue the Navy. According to a Supreme Court ruling from the 1950s known as the Feres Doctrine, soldiers cannot sue the government for injuries resulting directly from their military service.

Mocked and attacked

On March 11, 2011, a massive earthquake and tsunami triggered multiple meltdowns at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in Japan. It was the worst nuclear disaster in history, releasing twice as much radioactive material as the 1986 Chernobyl disaster.

That same day, the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan was redirected to the coast of Japan to participate in relief work for tsunami survivors. When sailors from the ship later began to fall ill, Congress asked the Defense Department for a report on the issue. The Pentagon report concluded that the sailors had not been exposed to enough radiation or contaminated water to cause health effects.

Yet in the four years since the disaster, at least 500 sailors have fallen ill, and 247 of them have joined the class-action suit. The 100-page legal complaint chronicles their symptoms: an airplane mechanic suffering from unexplained muscle wasting; a woman whose baby was born ill; a sailor told his health problems must be genetic, even though his identical twin is perfectly healthy; and case after case of cancer, internal bleeding, abscesses, thyroid dysfunction and birth defects.

The defendants initially claimed that they could not be sued in a U.S. court, so plaintiffs’ attorney Paul Garner asked the sailors to come to a court hearing in San Diego, to offer moral support.

Nearly all of them refused, for fear of public attack. Initial plaintiff Lindsey Cooper, for example, had already been mocked by atomic energy experts on CNN and by conservative radio hosts. Others were afraid of being perceived as anti-military, or un-American.

Powerful interests at stake

Only one plaintiff was willing to show up: Lieutenant Steve Simmons. Once a triathlon runner, Simmons fell ill a year after returning from Japan, suffering from hair loss, muscle wasting, migraines, bloody discharge and incontinence. His fingers turned yellow or even brown, and his feet have now turned dark red. He suffers from whole-body spasms and must now use a wheelchair.

He has never received a diagnosis for his problems, and sometimes he wonders if his Defense Department doctors are deliberately withholding one, so that the Department need not be held responsible. One doctor, he said, told him it would be better if he didn’t know the cause of his illness.

Disturbingly, Spiegel Online reported:

Early on, [Simmons] was in a military hospital in Washington DC together with three other men who had similar symptoms, he says. They had served on nuclear-powered submarines, but they disappeared from one day to the next, and when he asked what happened to them, everyone acted as though they had never been there in the first place.

Simmons believes that the Navy meant to do good with the mission to Japan, and does not blame USS Ronald Reagan‘s commander, Captain Thom Burke, for what happened to him. But he is troubled by Burke’s silence now, he says. He believes that Burke will not speak out about the case because he hopes to become an admiral.

“Personal, diplomatic and economic interests are all at stake,” Simmons said.

“They’re leaving us alone. They’re closing their eyes, keeping quiet and waiting for it to blow over. There are sick soldiers everywhere, many in the hospital in San Diego, or in the medical center in Hawaii. They are ordinary folks who are poorly insured, with family and kids. Loyal and scattered. Most of them don’t know how to react. Those who raise their voices are denounced in the Internet for being unpatriotic. You have to put up with a lot.”

Sources for this article include: 

http://enenews.com

http://www.spiegel.de

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Fukushima Coverup: Sick US Navy Sailors’ Class Action Law Suit, US Government, Doctors Bury Truth about Fukushima Radiation

Letters allegedly written by Osama bin Laden are patent fakes designed to defend the CIA’s killer drone program.

CNN reports al-Qaeda documents, including letters to and from Osama bin Laden, are “part of a trove of many thousands that the SEALs recovered at bin Laden’s compound” after he was supposedly assassinated on May 2, 2011, in Abbottabad, Pakistan.

“It’s long past time for the government to release more of these thousands of captured documents — with any necessary redactions for national security purposes — as they help us to understand better what precipitated the decline and fall of the terrorist group that once dominated the attention of the world, just as ISIS does today,” writes Peter Bergen, CNN’s national security analyst. Bergen is also an adjunct professor at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University where insiders such as Zbigniew Brzezinski and the neocon Eliot Cohen hold court.

According to Bergen, the CIA effort to spy on Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda and kill its leaders with its covert drone program was so successful it resulted in substantial operational changes by the group.

“A major theme of the documents is how much punishment the CIA drone program was inflicting on al Qaeda,” Bergen writes.

According to the neocon narrative, the fanatical Sunni Wahhabist Bin Laden and al-Qaeda shared a relationship with Shia Iran. Bergen sticks to the script on this, writing that al-Qaeda “mulled opening an office in Iran,” but decided against this “due to financial costs and other considerations.” Bergen omits mention of the deep animosity between the two religious sects and the fact al-Qaeda declared war on Iranian Shiites, who were called Rafidha, a pejorative term for Shia, by Iraq’s al-Qaida leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. This crucial fact is of little concern for an audience awash in years of anti-Muslim propaganda and untutored in historical reality.

The Fake Assassination of Osama Bin Laden

The assassination of Osama bin Laden, like many other theatrical presentations associated with the war on terror, is a demonstrable fake.

First and foremost, the government did not provide any convincing evidence that Navy SEALs had killed the former CIA collaborator as widely and bombastically claimed. As noted by Infowars.com and others in May, 2011, the government struggled to cobble together a convincing story. In addition to a shifting, on the fly narrative proffered by the Obama administration, the Pakistanis disagreed with crucial elements of the story.

The most crucial piece of evidence, the body of Bin Laden, was conveniently discarded according to the official narrative. “The alleged body of Bin Laden was hastily dumped in the sea to prevent any proper procedure of identification,” writes Paul Joseph Watson. “The White House claimed this was in accordance with normal Islamic burial rituals, however numerous Muslim scholars all over the globe disputed this claim, pointing out that Muslims can only be buried at sea if they die at sea. While the White House claimed that Bin Laden’s death on May 1st was proven by DNA and facial recognition evidence, such proof was never released for public scrutiny and the Obama administration refused to release photos of Bin Laden’s dead body, suggesting a cover-up.”

Numerous accounts and facts are at odds with the flimsy official narrative — from staged “situation room” photos to neighbors living near the supposed Bin Laden compound in Abbottabad stating they never saw the world-famous terrorist and doubted he lived there.

Staged photo op: the CIA admitted there was a blackout during the supposed assassination of Osama bin Laden.

Osama bin Laden Died in 2001

Osama bin Laden died in 2001. This was reported by Fox News and the corporate media three months after the 9/11 attacks.

“A prominent official in the Afghan Taleban movement announced yesterday the death of Osama bin Laden, the chief of al-Qa’da organization, stating that binLaden suffered serious complications in the lungs and died a natural and quiet death,” the Egyptian newspaper al-Ward reported on December 26, 2001.

In January, 2002, Pakistan’s president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, said he thought bin Laden had likely died of kidney failure. The same year, Afghan President Hamid Karzai concurred. In a November 2, 2007 interview, the late Prime Minister of Pakistan, Benazir Bhutto, told reporter David Frost Bin Laden died in 2001.

Additionally, Israeli intelligence stated Bin Laden had died in late 2001. “The Israeli sources said Israel and the United States assess that Bin Laden probably died in the U.S. military campaign in Afghanistan in December. They said the emergence of new messages by Bin Laden are probably fabrications,” the World Tribune reported in October, 2002.

“You can use this information to evaluate the Obama regime’s unsubstantiated claim that Navy SEALs killed bin Laden in Pakistan a decade later,” writes Paul Craig Roberts.

“Try to identify a single event that the US government has not lied about. Weapons of mass destruction? Iranian nukes? Assad’s chemical attack? Spying on Americans? 9/11? The assassination of President John F. Kennedy? The unemployment rate?”

The same can be said for this latest bit of Osama bin Laden propaganda dutifully reported by the insider Bergen and CNN which, back in the day, served as base for the Army’s Fourth Psychological Operations Group based at Fort Bragg, in North Carolina.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Osama Letters From Pakistan “Trove” Emerge to Defend CIA’s Killer Drone Program

“The war has been provoked to destroy the Russian World, to draw Europe into it, and to surround Russia with hostile countries. Unleashing this world war, America is trying to deal with its own internal problems.”

– Sergei Glazyev, Advisor to Russian President Vladimir Putin

The fabrications of NATO’s top commander in Europe, General Philip Breedlove, have driven a wedge between Germany and the United States that could lead to a collapse of the Atlantic Alliance. According to the German news magazine, Der Spiegel, Breedlove has repeatedly sabotaged Chancellor Angela Merkel’s attempts to find a diplomatic solution to the war in Ukraine by spreading “dangerous propaganda” that is misleading the public about Russian “troop advances on the border, (and) the amassing of munitions and alleged columns of Russian tanks.” But while the unusually critical article singles out Breedlove for his hyperbolic exaggerations of so-called Russian aggression, the real purpose of the Spiegel piece is to warn Washington that EU leaders will not support a policy of military confrontation with Moscow.

Before we explain what’s going on, we need to look at an excerpt from the article. According to Spiegel:

“…for months now, many in the Chancellery simply shake their heads each time NATO, under Breedlove’s leadership, goes public with striking announcements about Russian troop or tank movements … it is the tone of Breedlove’s announcements that makes Berlin uneasy. False claims and exaggerated accounts, warned a top German official during a recent meeting on Ukraine, have put NATO — and by extension, the entire West — in danger of losing its credibility.

There are plenty of examples….At the beginning of the crisis, General Breedlove announced that the Russians had assembled 40,000 troops on the Ukrainian border and warned that an invasion could take place at any moment. The situation, he said, was “incredibly concerning.” But intelligence officials from NATO member states had already excluded the possibility of a Russian invasion. They believed that neither the composition nor the equipment of the troops was consistent with an imminent invasion.

The experts contradicted Breedlove’s view in almost every respect. There weren’t 40,000 soldiers on the border, they believed, rather there were much less than 30,000 and perhaps even fewer than 20,000. Furthermore, most of the military equipment had not been brought to the border for a possible invasion, but had already been there prior to the beginning of the conflict. Furthermore, there was no evidence of logistical preparation for an invasion, such as a field headquarters.
Breedlove, though, repeatedly made inexact, contradictory or even flat-out inaccurate statements.”…

On Nov. 12, during a visit to Sofia, Bulgaria, Breedlove reported that “we have seen columns of Russian equipment — primarily Russian tanks, Russian artillery, Russian air defense systems and Russian combat troops — entering into Ukraine.” It was, he noted, “the same thing that OSCE is reporting.” But the OSCE had only observed military convoys within eastern Ukraine. OSCE observers had said nothing about troops marching in from Russia.

Breedlove sees no reason to revise his approach. “I stand by all the public statements I have made during the Ukraine crisis,” he wrote to SPIEGEL in response to a request for a statement accompanied by a list of his controversial claims.”
(Breedlove’s Bellicosity: Berlin Alarmed by Aggressive NATO Stance on Ukraine, Der Spiegel)

While it’s easy to get swept up in the Spiegel’s narrative of a rabid militarist dragging Europe closer to World War 3, the storyline is intentionally misleading. As anyone who’s been following the Ukraine fiasco for the last year knows, there’s nothing particularly unusual about Breedlove’s distortions. Secretary of State John Kerry has made similar claims numerous times as have many others in the major media. The lies about “Russian aggression” are the rule, not the exception. So why has the Spiegel decided to selectively target Breedlove who is no more deceitful than anyone else? What’s really going on here?

Clearly, the Spiegel is doing Merkel’s work, that is, undermining the credibility of Washington’s chief commander in Europe in order to discourage further escalation of the conflict in Ukraine. But while Merkel wants to humiliate Breedlove to show that Germany will not sit on its hands while Washington plunges the region into the abyss; she has also shown considerable restraint in limiting her attack to the General while sparing Kerry and Obama any embarrassment. This is quite an accomplishment given that –as we said earlier–virtually everyone in the political establishment and the media have been lying nonstop about every aspect of the conflict. Merkel doesn’t want to discredit these others just yet, although the Spiegel piece infers that she has the power to do so if the “bad behavior” persists.

The Spiegel article is part of a one-two punch designed to force Washington to change its confrontational approach. The second jab appeared late Sunday afternoon when EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker announced that Europe needed to field its own army. Here’s the story from Reuters:

“The European Union needs its own army to face up to Russia and other threats as well as restore the bloc’s foreign policy standing around the world, EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker told a German newspaper on Sunday…

“With its own army, Europe could react more credibly to the threat to peace in a member state or in a neighboring state.

“One wouldn’t have a European army to deploy it immediately. But a common European army would convey a clear message to Russia that we are serious about defending our European values.” (Juncker calls for EU army, says would deter Russia, Reuters)

Can you see what’s going on? On the one hand, the Spiegel delivers a hammer-blow to the credibility of NATO’s top officer and on the other, the President of the EU Commission blindsides US powerbrokers by announcing a plan to create an independent EU fighting force that will render NATO redundant. These are big developments that have undoubtedly left the Obama troupe reeling. This is a full-blown assault on NATO’s role as the primary guarantor of EU regional security. Maybe the European people are gullible enough to accept Junker’s absurd claim that an EU army will “send an important message to the world”, but you can be damn sure that no one at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue believes that nonsense. The move is clearly designed to send a message to Washington that Europe is fed up with NATO and wants a change. That means it’s “shape up or ship out time” for Breedlove and his ilk.

Ironically, these developments align Merkel with Putin’s view of things as stated in his famous Munich speech in 2007 when he said:

“I am convinced that we have reached that decisive moment when we must seriously think about the architecture of global security. And we must proceed by searching for a reasonable balance between the interests of all participants in the international dialogue … The United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way … And of course this is extremely dangerous. It results in the fact that no one feels safe. I want to emphasize this — no one feels safe.” (Russian President Vladimir Putin, 43rd Munich Security Conference, 2007)

How can the US possibly cast itself as “steward of the global security system”, when its interventions have left a trail of decimated failed states from the southernmost border of Somalia to the northern tip of Ukraine, a chaotic swathe of smoldering ruin and agonizing human suffering that rivals the depredations of the Third Reich.

Europe’s security requirements cannot be met by a belligerent, warmongering US-controlled entity that acts solely in Washington’s interests. At present, NATO gets 75% of its funding from the US, which is why the alliance is less interested in peacemaking and security than it is in internationalizing its imperial war of aggression across the planet. Prior to the crisis in Ukraine, European leaders didn’t see the danger of this idiotic arrangement (even though interventions in Serbia, Libya and Afghanistan should have brought them to their senses) But now that NATO’s recklessness could vaporize Europe in a nuclear firestorm, leaders like Merkel and Hollande are starting to change their tune. Keep in mind, the ideal scenario for the US would be a limited war that levels large parts of the European and Asian continents, thus restoring the US to its post WW2 heyday when the “rubblized” world was Washington’s oyster. That would be just fine for genocidal maniacs and armchair warriors who rule the globe from the safety of their well-stocked DC bunkers. But for Europe, this is definitely not a winning strategy. Europe doesn’t want a war, and it certainly doesn’t want to be used as cannon fodder for the greater glory of the dystopian NWO.

Putin advisor, Sergei Glazyev, figured out what Washington was up to long before Kiev launched its wretched “anti terrorism” campaign against federalist rebels in the East. Here’s how he summed it up:

“The main task the American puppet masters have set for the (Kiev) junta is to draw Russia into a full-scale war with Ukraine. It is for this purpose that all of these heinous crimes are committed – to force Russia to send troops to Ukraine to protect the civilian population…

The bankruptcy of the US financial system, which is unable to service its foreign debt, the lack of investments to finance a breakthrough to a new technological order and to maintain America’s competitiveness, and the potential defeat in the geopolitical competition with China. To resolve these problems, Americans need a new world war.” (Sergei Glazyev)

Bingo. The steadily-declining empire, whose share of global GDP continues to shrivel with every passing year, has wanted a war from the get go. That’s the only way that the US can reverse its precipitous economic slide and preserve its lofty spot as the world’s only superpower. Fortunately, EU leaders are beginning to pull their heads out of the sand long enough to grasp what’s going on and change their behavior accordingly.

It’s worth noting, that no one in the Merkel administration or anyone else for that matter, has publicly challenged the allegations in the Spiegel article. Why is that, do you think?

Doesn’t their silence suggest that they knew all along that all the anti-Putin propaganda hullabaloo was pure bunkum; that “evil” Putin didn’t send tanks and soldiers across the border into Ukraine, that Putin didn’t shoot down Malaysian Airline 17, that Putin didn’t have a political opponent gunned down gangland style just a few hundred yards from the Kremlin? Isn’t that what their silence really says?

Of course, it does. The reason no one in power has spoken out is because –as the Spiegel cynically admits–“A mixture of political argumentation and military propaganda is necessary.”

“Propaganda is necessary”?

Whoa. Now there’s an admission you’re not going to see in the media too often. But it’s the truth, isn’t it? The Euro-leaders have been going along with the lies to keep the public in line. In other words, it’s a healthy dose of perception management for the sheeple, but the unvarnished truth for our revered overlords. Sounds about right. Only now these ame elites have decided to share the facts with the lumpen masses. But, why? Why this sudden willingness to share the truth?

It’s because they no longer support Washington’s policy, that’s why. No one in Europe wants the US to arm and train the Ukrainian army. No one wants them to deploy 600 paratroopers to Kiev and increase US logistical support. No one wants further escalation, because no one wants a war with Russia. It’s that simple.

For the first time, EU leaders, particularly Merkel, understand that the United States’ strategic objectives (the pivot to Asia) do not align with those of the EU, in fact, Washington’s geopolitical ambitions pose a serious threat to Europe’s security. Regrettably, it’s not enough for Merkel to simply understand what is going on. She needs to huddle with her EU colleagues and take positive steps to derail Washington’s plan now, otherwise the US will continue its incitements and false flags until Putin is forced to respond. Once that happens, a broader and, perhaps, catastrophic conflagration will be unavoidable.

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on NATO Lies and Provocations: Splitting the Atlantic Alliance

The Republican Senators Push for World War III

March 10th, 2015 by Global Research News

An Open Letter to the Republic of Iran from a cabal of 47 U.S. senators, written in the interests of the Israel lobby in Washington, on how ‘American democracy’ actually works to satisfy the demands of a foreign state to the detriment of the elected President of the United States and the vitally important current negotiations for peace being held by Iran, Britain, the United States, Russia, China, France and Germany, in Geneva.

The text of the letter is provided below:

United States Senate

Washington DC 20510.

March 9th. 2015

“It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system. Thus, we are writing to bring to your attention two features of our Constitution–the power to make binding international agreements and the different character of federal offices–which you should seriously consider as negotiations progress. 

First, under our Constitution, while the president negotiates international agreements, Congress plays the significant role of ratifying them. In the case of a treaty, the Senate must ratify it by a two-thirds vote. A so-called congressional-executive agreement requires a majority vote in both the House and the Senate (which, because of procedural rules, effectively means a three-fifths vote in the Senate). Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement. 

Second, the offices of our Constitution have difference characteristics. For example, the president may serve only two 4-year terms, whereas senators may serve an unlimited number of 6-year terms. As applied today, for instance, President Obama will leave office in January 2017, while most of us will remain in office well beyond then–perhaps decades. 

What these two constitutional provisions mean is that we will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei. The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time. 

We hope this letter enriches your knowledge of our constitutional system and promotes mutual understanding and clarity as nuclear negotiations progress. 

Sincerely

47 Republican Senators

http://go.bloomberg.com/assets/content/uploads/sites/2/150309-Cotton-Open-Letter-to-Iranian-Leaders.pdf

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Republican Senators Push for World War III

On March 3, 2015, The Telegraph and a few other major news sources broke the quite extraordinary story that the chairman of the Nobel Peace Prize Committee – the body that decides who is awarded the Prize – former Norwegian PM Thorbjoern Jagland had been demoted; it’s the first time it has ever happened.

It was during his chairmanship the will of Alfred Nobel was ignored most systematically; e.g., by awarding the world’s allegedly most prestigious prize to President Obama, the EU and Chinese human rights (but pro-war) Liu Xiaobo.

It’s about seven years ago that a small group of Scandinavian scholars decided to investigate how this prize is managed.

The basic research can be found in a book by Norwegian lawyer and author, Fredrik S. HeffermehlThe Nobel Peace Prize: What Nobel Really Wanted which was the first major result of the group’s work.

It documents how this prize is “prestigious” only for those who either a) have never read Alfred Nobe’s will; b) don’t believe it should be interpreted with respect for his motives and goals and c) have very little knowledge about peace and peace research.

Nobel’s formulation in his will is short and clear – the Peace Prize shall go “to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.” He calls such people “champions of peace”. More here.

Thus, the Nobel Peace Prize is not a do-good prize, not a human rights or environmental prize and not a pro-war prize.

But it is a reward work for disarmament, anti-militarism and the abolition of warfare and people – be it politicians, scholars, activists – who are pro-peace, champions of peace.

The legal challenges that the Nobel Peace Prize Watch has raised over the years can be found here.

The Nobel Peace Prize Watch

Over the years, the criticism of the Nobel Peace Prize Committee’s work has increased. Seven years ago, I cannot remember that any journalist who interviewed me about the Prize had read the will. Now about 75% of them seem to have before they call.

Fredrik Heffermehl, Oslo, and Tomas Magnusson, Gothenburg, have now established the Lay Down Your Arms Association which was incorporated and registered in Gothenburg, Sweden in 2014 with a Scandinavian and an International Advisory Board.

The Association’s first project has been to set up the Nobel Peace Prize Watch where you can acquaint yourself with the Prize, its history, background, the criticism over time, etc.

The Nobel Peace Prize Watch has written a detailed letter, dated February 20, 2015, to the Norwegian Parliament, The Nobel Foundation in Stockholm and to the Norwegian Nobel Committee outlining what must be done and why a watch has become necessary.

These initiatives have, with few exceptions, been ignored by the media, media which profess to practise freedom of expression and freedom of the media but seem to hesitate to challenge the political establishment that preserves this prize as an emblem for Norway and its security and foreign policy.

Why? Few seem to be aware that the Nobel Committee, in contrast to other Nobel prize selection bodies, consists of former MPs and not of experts in the broad field of peace.

It is worth also mentioning that Nobel in his will stipulated that the Norwegian Parliament should appoint a qualified committee; he did not say it should consist of its members.

These circumstances place the “prestigious” Prize in danger of being tied to Norwegian political interests.

Whether this danger is big or small can be debated but not the fact that it is peculiar that the Peace Prize is the only one that doesn’t require any particular scientific or other competence – as if peace was not an area of knowledge, research and professionalism.

Breaking the secrecy: The candidates

A global research effort has been made to break the secrecy surrounding the selection process for the Prize and publish a list of known candidates for 2015 with documentation.

Transparency makes it possible for everyone to see for themselves which candidates satisfy Alfred Nobel’s criteria, which candidates are selected by the Committee and whether or not some were available who do satisfy the criteria.

Allegedly there are around 300 for 2015 and here is the result of the research – a list of the so far 25 known, documented candidates.*

You can read about each candidate, see who nominated them and with what motivations. And if you know about nominations not mentioned here, please alert the Nobel Peace Prize Watch.

The Prize must come back to Alfred Nobel’s champions of peace 

The work, begun seven years ago, to create debate about the Nobel Peace Prize has gained momentum.

It is unacceptable that the millions of people around the world who work for peace in the sense Alfred Nobel intended have been deprived of what is truly the most prestigious and noble thing: to be rewarded for their struggle against militarism and for a world with much fewer weapons and wars.

That work will be intensified and continue to develop a critical mass in support of Alfred Nobel’s will. I kindly urge you to spread this message through traditional media, social media and your various communities.

* TFF is immensely proud to see that four of its Associates are among the Candidates for the 2015 Prize: Richard Falk, David Krieger, Evelin Lindner and Jan Oberg.

Jan Oberg is a peace researcher, art photographer, and Director of Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research (TFF) where this article first appeared. Reach him at: [email protected]Read other articles by Jan.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “The Nobel Peace Prize Watch” Has Been Launched

The Obama Administration, which in 2009 provided the crucial assistance that enabled the progressive democratic President of Honduras to be overthrown and a junta of oligarchs to replace him; and which in 2014 perpetrated a bloody coup that replaced the corrupt but democratically elected Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, replaced by a rabidly anti-Russian equally corrupt Government, and thus sparked Ukraine’s civil war against the area of Ukraine that had voted 90% for Yanukovych; is now again trying to overthrow Venezuela’s democratically elected President, Nicolas Maduro. 

Reuters on Monday March 9th headlined “U.S. Declares Venezuela a National Security Threat, Sanctions Top Officials,” and their report gives its closing word to an opposition politician, whom Obama supports and who says: “It’s not a problem with Venezuela or with Venezuelans; it’s a problem for the corrupt ones” (i.e., Maduro and his Government).

In other words, yet again, the idea Obama is pushing is: we’re just trying to replace a ‘corrupt’ elected head-of-state.

The White House explains its Executive Order on March 9th by saying: “President Obama today issued a new Executive Order (E.O.) declaring a national emergency with respect to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by the situation in Venezuela. … Specifically, the E.O. targets those determined by the Department of the Treasury, in consultation with the Department of State, to be involved in … actions or policies that undermine democratic processes or institutions.”

The Executive Order itself declares that the existing Government of Venezuela limits rights and is corrupt, which “constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, and I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat.”

On 14 February 2015, President Maduro had thwarted a coup-attempt against him by the Governments of Canada and the UK. This followed almost exactly a year after he had already thwarted such an attempt by the U.S. Government. In December 2013, the Maduro Government presented detailed evidence that the U.S. was planning a coup against him.

On 15 January 2015, Maduro met with Russian President Vladimir Putin in the Kremlin. The Obama Administration is, of course, especially trying to bring down President Putin.

President Obama is also trying to bring down Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad. In 2011, he had bombed away the regime of Libya’s President Muammar Gaddafi. Both Assad and Gaddafi also are/were allies of Russia, as is Iran. The Obama Administration is now assisting ISIS in its war against Assad, even while bombing ISIS.

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on President Obama Declares Venezuela “A Threat to National Security”, Seeks Regime-Change

The Legacy of Burkina Faso’s Thomas Sankara

March 10th, 2015 by Abayomi Azikiwe

Martyred Burkinabe revolutionary Pan-Africanist and Marxist leader from 1983-1987, Capt. Thomas Sankara, was assassinated in a coup on October 15, 1987. He was only 37 years old. 

Sankara came to power during a critical period in the transition to a new phase of imperialist exploitation and oppression of the emerging African states. The role of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and other global financial institutions was generating tremendous social restructuring and consequent political struggle and debate.

Born in 1949, Sankara grew up during the turbulent 1950s and 1960s when independence struggles swept various African states. He joined the Upper Volta military at a young age and was stationed in Madagascar where he witnessed a popular left-leaning uprising that toppled a neo-colonialist regime in 1970.

During the 1970s he rose through the ranks of the military and was made an administrator of a training program for soldiers in the city of Po. In 1972 he went for further military training in France where he was exposed to Marxist ideas advocated by leftist organizations active during the period.

By the 1980s, unrest had reached a boiling point in Upper Volta when trade unions and students engaged in strikes and mass rebellions. A series of military coups took place and Sankara’s uncompromising positions landed him in prison on at least two occasions.

On August 4, 1983, left-wing elements within the military backed by the popular will of the masses liberated Sankara and made him leader of the National Council of the Revolution. The change of power although initiated by the junior army officers drew broad support among the working class, youth and the peasantry.

After coming to power in 1983, Sankara led a movement to change the name of the landlocked West Africa state, a former French colony labelled Upper Volta, to Burkina Faso, the land of the upright people. The program of his government called for the creation of import-substitution industries to curtail the reliance on essential and luxury goods from capitalist countries, the mobilization of youth and women to fight neo-colonialism and the cancellation of the debt owed to financial institutions based in the western imperialist states.

An article published in the Guardian on March 5 says that under Sankara the Burkina Faso government:

“launched nationalization, land redistribution and grand social programs in one of the world’s poorest countries. During his four-year rule, school attendance leaped from 6% to 22%, some 2.5 million children were vaccinated and thousands of health centers opened. Housing, road and railway building projects got under way and 10 million trees were planted.”

In addition, this same article continues,

“Sankara declared war on corruption and embraced personal austerity, paying himself a salary of $450 a month, slashing the wages of his top officials and forbidding the use of chauffeur-driven Mercedes and first class airline tickets by his ministers and senior civil servants. He refused to have his picture displayed in public buildings, still a rare thing in the Africa of 2015, and was staunchly opposed to foreign aid, declaring: ‘He who feeds you, controls you.’”

Also the Sankara government prioritized gender quality, working towards the end of female genital mutilation, forced marriages and polygamy. His influence extended far beyond Burkina Faso leading to close relations with Libya under Gaddafi and Cuba during the leadership of President Fidel Castro.

After a four year experiment in social revolution, Sankara was overthrown in a military coup led by Blaise Compaore, who was his deputy within the government. After Compaore seized power, the government moved rapidly towards the West, honoring international debts and abolishing the anti-imperialist and Pan-Africanist foreign policy of Sankara.

Blaise Campaore emerged from a meeting where Sankara was assassinated as the head-of-state who remained in power until a mass uprising during late October 2014 toppled his pro-Paris and Washington-allied regime. Compaore immediately fled to neighboring Ivory Coast.

An Investigation into the Assassination and Coup Are Required 

The courts in Burkina Faso have recently paved the way for the proper identification of the remains of the martyred leader who was buried in 1987 without an official ceremony or an explanation of the circumstances surrounding his death.

However, the widow of Sankara, Mariam, is demanding a broader inquiry into the assassination of the revolutionary leader which led to his overthrow. Compaore has stated in the past that he had no information on what happened to Sankara.

Yet he was in the meeting where the struggle erupted over the future of the government. Moreover, it was Compaore who emerged as the head-of-state after the murder of Sankara.

Any inquiry would have to look at the role of neighboring Ivory Coast and France in the coup and assassination. The policies of Sankara went radically against the French neo-colonial system so prevalent then and even now in West Africa.

Ivory Coast during the 1980s was still under the leadership of the-then President Felix Houphoet-Boigny, a proponent of the post-colonial system of economic and political integration with Paris. Tensions between Abidjan and Ouagadougou were at an all-time high.

In a promotional article for the documentary film entitled “Thomas Sankara: The Upright Man”, it says that by 1987 “Clandestinely, elements in the Burkinabe leadership forged relationships with Côte d’Ivoire president Félix Houphoet-Boigny, France’s staunchest ally and an outspoken opponent of Sankara’s increasingly influential attacks on neo-colonialism. On October 15th during a staff meeting, a gang of armed soldiers, either led or ordered by Blaise Compaoré, Sankara’s closest friend and most trusted comrade throughout the revolution, assassinated him. His body was dismembered, buried in a make-shift grave and any mention of him was erased from public view.” (October 31, 2014 Facebook posting)

Of course during the uprising that toppled Compaore last October the masses revealed that they had not forgotten Sankara at all. Hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets demanding the ouster of Compaore, many of these demonstrators were youth and workers wearing t-shirts and holding banners displaying Sankara’s image.

Elections will be held later on this year in Burkina Faso and it will remain to be seen how well the parties committed to the ideals of Sankara fair in the process. Sankara’s views on self-reliance and anti-imperialism are essential during a period of escalating French and United States military interventions in Africa.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Legacy of Burkina Faso’s Thomas Sankara

Film Review: American Sniper

March 10th, 2015 by Koozma J. Tarasoff

I saw a dangerous pro-war movie, not the anti-war film described by the director and producers.

American Sniper’ is a popular war movie about an actual decorated US sniper, Kyle, who claimed 255 ‘kills’ in Iraq. Kyle is a ‘good guy’ from Texas who failed as a cowboy only to find his true calling as a sniper in the Navy Seals.

The sniper kills from his rooftop perch, including a woman and a young boy who attempt to throw a bomb at the American invaders. He is a cog in a war killing machine.

Killing at times appears to trouble his conscience, but as a macho Navy Seal he is taught to do his job as a loyal patriot of his country.

The real Kyle was killed in the US by a fellow veteran whom Kyle offered to help overcome his Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Both were victims of PTSD.

The movie was adapted from the best selling and controversial 2012 book: American Sniper: The Autobiography of the Most Lethal Sniper in U.S. Military History (above), which netted Kyle’s family $3 million.

The film is the highest-grossing war movie ever, netting $0.5 billion. The film won 9 of 30 film awards nominated.

Because American Sniper is beautifully-produced, it appears to me to be a dangerous pro-war propaganda film, supporting an old colonial strategy that might is right. It invites young people to join the military, learn a trade and make money from the killing machine — all in the name of protecting ‘our way of life.’ ‘We must kill’ them with new weapons of mass destruction, because ‘they’ threaten ‘us,’ goes the argument. This is a deadly knee-jerk reaction orchestrated by politicians, military generals, and those seeking opportunities to profit from killing.

In my opinion, director Clint Eastwood’s claim that American Sniper is an anti-war apolitical film lacks context. It depicts the Iraqi people as savages and terrorists who must be destroyed because they threaten the American way of life. Much is missing:

  • This and most military films don’t mention the alternative paradigm of nonkilling peacemaking.
  • The repugnance of militarism and war as an institution with no viable future. As Mahatma Gandhi once said: ‘An eye for an eye makes everyone blind.’ The film continues the notion that war is the way of the future.
  • We are dealing with ‘blood oil,’ cheap oil for North America, taken by violent invasion if necessary, and the failure of the leadership to deal with climate change. The solution is to develop alternative sources of energy in ones own country.
  • We see the failure of the leadership to learn the basic lessons of physics: ‘For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction’. The remedy: Stop poking your nose into someone else’s business. Bring your troops home.
  • The film lacks humanizing the opponents in the battle. The military model is demonizing in that it pursues ‘us against them’ solution, without any attempt at discovering friends.
  • There is no mention of why the Americans invaded Iraq in the first place. No mention is made of money, oil, and a faulty foreign policy based on ‘exceptionalism.’
  • No mention is made of the money spent on war preparations, on spying, on secrecy and war itself. Just think of how trillions of dollars could be used to solve poverty, housing, healthcare, education, and cultural enrichment in our communities and the wider world?
  • We need to discover that real heroism and real patriotism is not based on killing but on getting rid of weapons. My ancestors, the Spirit Wrestlers / Doukhobors, influenced by world writer and philosopher Lev N. Tolstoy, did this in 1895 when 7,000 of them burnt their guns in three locations of Transcaucasia, Russia.

Once a broad disarmament program gets underway, preferably with support of the United Nations, we need to rapidly develop a design for a viable world order. Presently a nonkilling paradigm is available and efforts are being made to create Departments of Peace at the government’s cabinet level. Future filmmakers ought to take note and develop scenarios with exciting films featuring the role of cooperation, respect for humanity, compassion, and love in our emerging global society.

Other Reviews

  1. Vic Thiessen. ‘The winter’s most dangerous film’. Canadian Mennonite, March 2, 2015: 32.
  2. Richard Falk. ‘Viewing American Sniper’. Transcend Media Service, February 2, 2015.
  3. Cindy Sheehan. ‘Casey vs. Kyle: On Bloodlust, Loss, and Wars of Choice’.Common Dreams, January 21, 2015.
  4. Criticisms and Eastwood’s responsesWikipedia.
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Film Review: American Sniper

An interview with John Pilger, conducted by Michael Albert.

Why would the U.S. want Venezuela’s government overthrown?

There are straightforward principles and dynamics at work here. Washington wants to get rid of the Venezuelan government because it is independent of U.S. designs for the region and because Venezuela has the greatest proven oil reserves in the world and uses its oil revenue to improve the quality of ordinary lives. Venezuela remains a source of inspiration for social reform in a continent ravaged by an historically rapacious U.S. An Oxfam report once famously described the Sandinista revolution in Nicaragua as ‘the threat of a good example’. That has been true in Venezuela since Hugo Chavez won his first election. The ‘threat’ of Venezuela is greater, of course, because it is not tiny and weak; it is rich and influential and regarded as such by China. The remarkable change in fortunes for millions of people in Latin America is at the heart of U.S. hostility. The U.S. has been the undeclared enemy of social progress in Latin America for two centuries. It doesn’t matter who has been in the White House: Barack Obama or Teddy Roosevelt; the U.S. will not tolerate countries with governments and cultures that put the needs of their own people first and refuse to promote or succumb to U.S. demands and pressures. A reformist social democracy with a capitalist base – such as Venezuela – is not excused by the rulers of the world. What is inexcusable is Venezuela’s political independence; only complete deference is acceptable. The ‘survival’ of Chavista Venezuela is a testament to the support of ordinary Venezuelans for their elected government – that was clear to me when I was last there.  Venezuela’s weakness is that the political ‘opposition’ — those I would call the ‘East Caracas Mob’ – represent powerful interests who have been allowed to retain critical economic power. Only when that power is diminished will Venezuela shake off the constant menace of foreign-backed, often criminal subversion. No society should have to deal with that, year in, year out.

What methods has the U.S. already used and would you anticipate their using to unseat the Bolivarian Revolution?

There are the usual crop of quislings and spies; they come and go with their media theatre of fake revelations, but the principal enemy is the media. You may recall the Venezuelan admiral who was one of the coup-plotters against Chavez in 2002, boasting during his brief tenure in power, ‘Our secret weapon was the media’. The Venezuelan media, especially television, were active participants in that coup, lying that supporters of the government were firing into a crowd of protestors from a bridge. False images and headlines went around the world. The New York Times joined in, welcoming the overthrow of a democratic ‘anti-American’ government; it usually does. Something similar happened in Caracas last year when vicious right-wing mobs were lauded as ‘peaceful protestors’ who were being ‘repressed’. This was undoubtedly the start of a Washington-backed ‘colour revolution’ openly backed by the likes of the National Endowment for Democracy – a user-friendly CIA clone. It was uncannily like the coup that Washington successfully staged in Ukraine last year.  As in Kiev, in Venezuela the ‘peaceful protestors’ set fire to government buildings and deployed snipers and were lauded by western politicians and the western media. The strategy is almost certainly to push the Maduro government to the right and so alienate its popular base. Depicting the government as dictatorial and incompetent has long been an article of bad faith among journalists and broadcasters in Venezuela and in the U.S., the U.K. and Europe. One recent U.S. ‘story’ was that of a ‘U.S. scientist jailed for trying to help Venezuela build bombs’. The implication was that Venezuela was harbouring ‘nuclear terrorists’. In fact, the disgruntled nuclear physicist had no connection whatsoever with Venezuela.

All this is reminiscent of the unrelenting attacks on Chávez, each with that peculiar malice reserved for dissenters from the west’s ‘one true way’. In 2006, Britain’s Channel 4 News effectively accused the Venezuelan president of plotting to make nuclear weapons with Iran, an absurd fantasy. The Washington correspondent, Jonathan Rugman, sneered at policies to eradicate poverty and presented Chávez as a sinister buffoon, while allowing Donald Rumsfeld, a war criminal, to liken Chavez to Hitler, unchallenged. The BBC is no different. Researchers at the University of the West of England in the UK studied the BBC’s systematic bias in reporting Venezuela over a ten-year period. They looked at 304 BBC reports and found that only three of these referred to any of the positive policies of the government. For the BBC, Venezuela’s democratic initiatives, human rights legislation, food programmes, healthcare initiatives and poverty reduction programmes did not exist. Mission Robinson, the greatest literacy programme in human history, received barely a passing mention. This virulent censorship by omission complements outright fabrications such as accusations that the Venezuelan government are a bunch of drug-dealers.  None of this is new; look at the way Cuba has been misrepresented – and assaulted – over the years. Reporters Without Borders has just issued its worldwide ranking of nations based on their claims to a free press. The US is ranked 49th, behind Malta, Niger, Burkino Faso and El Salvador.

Why might now be a prime time, internationally, for pushing toward a coup? If the primary problem is Venezuela being an example that could spread, is the emergence of a receptive audience for that example in Europe adding to the U.S. response?

It’s important to understand that Washington is ruled by true extremists, once known inside the Beltway as ‘the crazies’. This has been true since before 9/11. A few are outright fascists. Asserting U.S. dominance is their undisguised game and, as the events in Ukraine demonstrate, they are prepared to risk a nuclear war with Russia. These people should be the common enemy of all sane human beings. In Venezuela, they want a coup so that they can roll-back of some of the world’s most important social reforms – such as in Bolivia and Ecuador. They’ve already crushed the hopes of ordinary people in Honduras. The current conspiracy between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia to lower the price of oil is meant to achieve something more spectacular in Venezuela, and Russia.

What do you think the best approach might be to warding off U.S. machinations, and those of domestic Venezuelan elites as well, for the Bolivarians?

The majority people of Venezuela, and their government, need to tell the world the truth about the attacks on their country. There is a stirring across the world, and many people are listening. They don’t want perpetual instability, perpetual poverty, perpetual war, perpetual rule by the few. And they identify the principal enemy; look at the international polling surveys that ask which country presents the greatest danger to humanity. The majority of people overwhelmingly point to the U.S., and to its numerous campaigns of terror and subversion.

What do you think is the immediate responsibility of leftists outside Venezuela, and particularly in the U.S. 

That begs a question: who are these ‘leftists’? Are they the millions of liberal North Americans seduced by the specious rise of Obama and silenced by his criminalising of freedom of information and dissent? Are they those who believe what they are told by the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Guardian, the BBC? It’s an important question. ‘Leftist’ has never been a more disputed and misappropriated term. My sense is that people who live on the edge and struggle against US-backed forces in Latin America understood the true meaning of the word, just as they identify a common enemy.  If we share their principles, and a modicum of their courage, we should take direct action in our own countries, starting, I would suggest, with the propagandists in the media. Yes, it’s our responsibility, and it has never been more urgent.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on For Washington: “What is Inexcusable is Venezuela’s Political independence”

Russia’s Remarkable Renaissance

March 10th, 2015 by F. William Engdahl

Something remarkable is taking place in Russia, and it’s quite different from what we might expect. Rather than feel humiliated and depressed Russia is undergoing what I would call a kind of renaissance, a rebirth as a nation. This despite or in fact because the West, led by the so-called neo-conservatives in Washington, is trying everything including war on her doorstep in Ukraine, to collapse the Russian economy, humiliate Putin and paint Russians generally as bad. In the process, Russia is discovering positive attributes about her culture, her people, her land that had long been forgotten or suppressed.

My first of many visits to Russia was more than twenty years ago, in May, 1994. I was invited by a Moscow economics think-tank to deliver critical remarks about the IMF. My impressions then were of a once-great people who were being humiliated to the last ounce of their life energy. Mafia gangsters sped along the wide boulevards of Moscow in sparkling new Mercedes 600 limousines with dark windows and without license plates. Lawlessness was the order of the day, from the US-backed Yeltsin Kremlin to the streets. “Harvard boys” like Jeffrey Sachs or Sweden’s Anders Aaslund or George Soros were swarming over the city figuring new ways to rape and pillage Russia under the logo “shock therapy” and “market-oriented reform” another word for “give us your crown jewels.”

The human toll of that trauma of the total collapse of life in Russia after November 1989 was staggering. I could see it in the eyes of everyday Russians on the streets of Moscow, taxi-drivers, mothers shopping, normal Russians.

Today, some two decades later, Russia is again confronted by a western enemy, NATO, that seeks to not just humiliate her, but to actually destroy her as a functioning state because Russia is uniquely able to throw a giant monkey wrench into plans of those western elites behind the wars in Ukraine, in Syria, Libya, Iraq and well beyond to Afghanistan, Africa and South America.

Rather than depression, in my recent visits to Russia in the past year as well as in numerous discussions with a variety of Russian acquaintances, I sense a new feeling of pride, of determination, a kind of rebirth of something long buried.

Sanctions Boomerang

Take the sanctions war that the Obama administration has forced Germany, France and other unwilling EU states to join. The US Treasury financial warfare unit has targeted the Ruble. The morally corrupt and Washington-influenced Wall Street credit rating agencies have downgraded Russian state debt to “junk” status. The Saudis, in cahoots with Washington, have caused a free-fall in oil prices. The chaos in Ukraine and EU sabotage of the Russian South Stream gas pipeline to the EU, all this should have brought a terrified Russia to her knees. It hasn’t.

As we have earlier detailed, Putin and an increasing number of influential Russian industrialists, some of the same who a few years ago would have fled to their posh London townhouses, have decided to stand and fight for the future of Russia as a sovereign state. Oops! That wasn’t supposed to happen in a world of globalization, of dissolution of the nation-state. National pride was supposed to be a relic like gold. Not in Russia today.

On the first anniversary of the blatant US coup in Kiev that installed a hand-picked regime of self-professed Neonazis, criminals, and an alleged Scientologist Prime Minister Andriy Yansenyuk, hand-picked by the US State Department, there was a demonstration in downtown Moscow on February 22. An estimated 35,000 to 50,000 people showed up—students, teachers, pensioners, even pro-Kremlin bikers. They protested not against Putin for causing the economic sanctions by his intransigence against Washington and EU demands. They protested the blatant US and EU intervention into Ukraine. They called the protest “Anti-Maidan.” It was organized by one of many spontaneous citizen reactions to the atrocities they see on their borders. Internet satirical political blogs are making fun of the ridiculous Jan Paski, until last week the fumbling US State Department Press Spokesperson.

Not even an evident False Flag attempt in the London Financial Times and Western controlled media to blame Putin for “creating the climate of paranoia that caused” Boris Nemtsov’s murder is being taken seriously. Western “tricks” don’t work in today’s Russia.

And look at US and EU sanctions. Rather than weakening Putin’s popularity, sanctions have caused previously apolitical ordinary Russians to rally around the president, who still enjoys popularity ratings over 80%. A recent survey by the independent Levada Center found 81 percent of Russians feel negatively about the United States, the highest figure since the early 1990s “shock therapy” Yeltsin era. And 71 percent feel negatively about the European Union.

The renaissance I detect is evident in more than protests or polls, however. The US-instigated war in Ukraine since March 2014 has caused a humanitarian catastrophe, one which the US-steered German and other western media have blocked out of their coverage. More than one million Ukrainian citizens, losing their homes or in fear of being destroyed in the insane US-instigated carnage that is sweeping across Ukraine, have sought asylum in Russia. They have been welcomed as brothers according to all reports. That is a human response that has untold resonances among ordinary Russians. Because of the wonders of YouTube and smart phone videos, Russians are fully aware of the truth of the US war in eastern Ukraine. Russians are becoming politically sensitive for the first time in years as they realize that some circles in the West simply want to destroy them because they resist becoming a vassal of a Washington gone berserk.

Rather than bow to the US Treasury’s Ruble currency war and the threat that Russian banks will be frozen out of the SWIFT (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication) international interbank clearing system, something likened to an act of war, on February 16, the Russian government announced that it had completed its own banking clearing network in which some 91 domestic credit institutions have been incorporated. The system allows Russian banks to communicate seamlessly through the Central Bank of Russia.

That is inside Russia among banks that otherwise were vulnerable even domestically to a SWIFT cut. Russia joined the Brussels-based private SWIFT system as the Berlin Wall crumbled in 1989. Today her banks are the second largest users of SWIFT. The new system is inside Russia. Necessary, but not sufficient, to protect against SWIFT cutoff. The next step in discussion is joint Russia-China interbank clearing independent of SWIFT and Washington. That is also coming.

The following day after Russia’s “SWIFT” alternative was announced as operational, Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Cheng Guoping said China will build up its strategic partnership with Russia in finance, space and aircraft building and “raise trade cooperation to a new level.” He added that China plans to cooperate more with Russia in the financial area and in January Russia’s First Deputy Prime Minister Igor Shuvalov said that payments in national currencies, de-dollarization, were being negotiated with China. China realizes that if Russia collapses, China is next. Failing empires try desperate measures to survive.

Russians also realize that their leaders are moving in unprecedented ways to build an alternative to what they see as a morally decadent and bankrupt American world. For most Russians the disastrous decade of poverty, chaos and deprivation of the Yeltsin era in the 1990’s was reminder enough what awaits should Russia’s leaders again prostitute themselves to American banks and corporations for takeover, Hillary Clinton’s infamous “reset” of US-Russian relations she attempted when Medvedev was President. Russians see what the US has done in neighboring Ukraine where even the Finance Minister, Natalia Jaresko, is an American, a former State Department person.

Russia and its leaders are hardly trembling behind Kremlin walls. They are forging the skeleton of a new international economic order that has the potential to transform the world from the present bankruptcy of the Dollar System. Moscow and Beijing recently announced, as I discussed in a previous posting, their project to create a joint alternative to the US credit rating monopoly of Moody’s, S&P and Fitch. President Putin’s travel agenda in the past year has been mind-boggling. Far from being the international paraiah Washington and Victoria Nuland hoped for, Russia is emerging as the land which has the courage to “just say No!” to Washington.

Russia’s president has been in Cyprus where possible basing for the Russian navy was discussed, in Egypt where General al-Sisi warmly welcomed the Russian leader and discussed significant economic and other joint cooperation. Late last year Russia and the BRICS states agreed to form a $100 billion infrastructure bank that makes the US-controlled World Bank irrelevant. The list grows virtually every day.

The special human side

For me, however, the most heartening feature of this Russian renaissance is in the generation which is today in their late thirties to early forties—young, highly intelligent and having experience of both the depravity of Soviet communist bureaucracy but as well of the hollow world of US-led so-called “free market capitalism.” I share some examples from the many Russians I have come to know in recent years.

What is unique in my mind about this generation is that they are the hybrid generation. The education they received in the schools and universities was still largely dominated by the classical Russian science. That classical Russian science, as I have verified from many discussion with Russian scientist friends over the years, was of a quality almost unknown in the pragmatic West. An American Physics professor from MIT who taught in Moscow universities in the early 1990s told me,

“When a Russian science student enters first year university, he or she already has behind them 4 years of biology, 4 of chemistry, of physics, both integral and differential calculus, geometry…they are starting university study at a level comparable to an American post-doctoral student.”

They grew up in a Russia where it was common for young girls to learn classical ballet or dance, for all children to learn to play piano or learn a musical instrument, to do sports, to paint, as in classical Greek education of the time of Socrates or Germany in the 1800s. Those basics which were also there in American schools until the 1950s, were all but abandoned during the 1980s. American industry wanted docile “dumbed-down” workers who asked no questions.

Russian biology, Russian math, Russian physics, Russian astrophysics, Russian geophysics—all disciplines approached their subject with a quality that had long before disappeared from American science. I know, as I grew up during the late 1950’s during the “Sputnik Shock,” where we were told as high school pupils we had to work doubly hard to “catch up to the Russians.” There was a kernel of truth, but the difference was not lack of American students working hard. In those days we worked and studied pretty hard. It was the quality of Russian scientific education that was so superior.

Teaching of the sciences especially, in Russia or the Soviet Union, had been strongly influenced by the German education system of the 1800s, the so-called Humboldt Reforms of Alexander von Humboldt and others.

The strong ties in Russian education with classical 19th Century German culture and science went deep, going back to the time under Czar Alexander II who freed the serfs in 1861, following the example of his friend, Abraham Lincoln. The ties were deepened to German classical culture later under Czar Alexander II prior to the 1905 Russo-Japanese War when the brilliant Sergei Witte was Transport Minister, then Finance Minister and finally Prime Minister before western intrigues forced his resignation. Witte translated the works of the German national economist Friederich List, the brilliant opponent of England’s Adam Smith, into Russian. Before foreign and domestic intrigues manipulated the Czar into the disastrous Anglo-Russian Entente of 1907 against Germany a pact which made England’s war in 1914 possible, the Russian state recognized the German classical system as superior to British empiricism and reductionism.

Many times I have asked Russians of the 1980s generation why they came back to Russia to work after living in the USA. Always the reply more or less, “The US education was so boring, no challenge…the American students were so shallow, no idea of anything outside the United States…for all its problems, I decided to come home and help build a new Russia…”

Some personal examples illustrate what I have found: Irina went with her parents to Oregon in the early 1990s. Her father was a high-ranking military figure in the USSR. After the collapse he retired and wanted to get away from Russia, memories of wars, to live his last years peacefully in Oregon. His daughter grew up there, went to college there and ultimately realized she could be so much more herself back in Russia where today as a famous journalist covering US-instigated wars in Syria and elsewhere including Ukraine, she is making a courageous contribution to world peace.

Konstantin went to the USA to work as a young broadcast journalist, did a master’s degree in New York in film and decided to return to Russia where he is making valuable TV documentaries on dangers of GMO and other important themes. Anton stayed in Russia, went into scientific and business publishing and used his facility with IT to found his own publishing house. Dmitry who taught physics at a respected German university, returned to his home St Petersburg to become a professor and his wife also a physicist, translates and manages a Russian language internet site as well as translating into Russian several of my own books.

What all these Russian acquaintances, now in their late 30s or forties share is that they were born when the remnants of the old Soviet Russia were still very visible, for better and for worse, but grew to maturity after 1991. This generation has a sense of development, progress, of change in their lives that is now proving invaluable to shape Russia’s future. They are also, through their families and even early childhood, rooted in the old Russia, like Vladimir Putin, and realize the reality of both old and new.

Now because of the brazen open savagery of Washington policies against Russia, this generation is looking at what was valuable. They realize that the stultifying bureaucratic deadness of the Soviet Stalin heritage was deadly in the USSR years. And they realize they have a unique chance to shape a new, dynamic Russia of the 21st Century not based on the bankrupt model of the now-dying American Century of Henry Luce and FD Roosevelt.

This for me is the heart of an emerging renaissance of the spirit among Russians that gives me more than hope for the future. And, a final note, it has been policy among the so-called Gods of Money, the bankers of London and New York, since at least the assassination in 1881 of Czar Alexander II, to prevent a peaceful growing alliance between Germany and Russia. A prime aim of Victoria Nuland’s Ukraine war has been to rupture that growing Russo-German economic cooperation. A vital question for the future of Germany and of Europe will be whether Germany’s politicians continue to kneel to the throne of Obama or his successor or define their true interests in closer cooperation with the emerging Eurasian economic renaissance that is being shaped by President Putin’s Russia and by President Xi’s China.

Ironically, Washington’s and now de facto NATO’s “undeclared war” against Russia has sparked this remarkable renaissance of the Russian spirit. For the first time in many years Russians are starting to feel good about themselves and to feel they are good in a world of some very bad people. It may be the factor that saves our world from a one world dictatorship of the bankers and their military.

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Russia’s Remarkable Renaissance

Euro zone finance ministers met Monday to discuss a set of proposals from the Syriza-led Greek government based on the austerity programme both sides signed on February 20. Greece was required to submit a list of austerity measures deemed acceptable to its creditors as a precondition for receiving a pending load of €7.2 billion and any further loans.

The Eurogroup meeting ended within 90 minutes. In a clear sign that there would be no retreat from finalising an austerity package, the finance ministers agreed that “technical talks” between Greece and its main creditors, the European Union (EU), European Central Bank (ECB) and International Monetary Fund (IMF), would begin Wednesday.

Speaking at a press conference following the meeting, Eurogroup Chairman Jeroen Dijsselbloem said, “We have spent the last two weeks discussing who will meet whom, where, and in what configuration. It’s been a complete waste of time…”

The Eurogroup “needed to see signs that reforms are being implemented,” he demanded, warning that there “can be no talk about early disbursement if there is no agreement and no implementation.” The Greek government, he added, had promised the Eurogroup that it would take no unilateral actions or roll back austerity measures already adopted.

Without billions of euros being made available in loans, Greece faces default on its €320 billion foreign debt in a matter of weeks. The euro zone meeting took place amid dire warnings that Greece’s banks can no longer finance the economy due to their lack of liquidity and an ongoing flight of deposits.

Nearly €20 billion were withdrawn from the banks in January and February. There is a nearly €80 billion gap between the €135 billion available in the banks’ deposits and their loan balance, which exceeds €210 billion. The banks only have temporary access to high interest rate emergency liquidity assistance (ELA) from the ECB, which can be ended at any time.

One senior bank official told Kathimerini, “As things stand, it is simply impossible for us to finance the economy, as we can only marginally cover the cash needs of our clients.”

Last Friday, Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis submitted a letter to the Eurogroup with a list of six proposed reforms. These included hiring students and even tourists as temporary “nonprofessional” tax inspectors, vague “antibureaucracy” initiatives, and measures to raise revenue from online gambling. The letter was derided as being nowhere near adequate.

Upon taking office, Syriza began its rapid capitulation to the demands of global capital, insisting it had already agreed to 70 percent of the austerity measures in place. Addressing Syriza’s latest proposals Sunday, Dijsselbloem said, “Those absolutely won’t be accepted as the 30 percent that they wanted to replace.”

In a letter to Varoufakis, Dijsselbloem stressed that the proposals would also have to be evaluated and approved by the ECB and the IMF.

European Commission Vice President Valdis Dombrovskis rejected Greece’s letter out of hand, telling a German newspaper that “a letter here or there isn’t going to change much.”

Since the February agreement, the ECB has tightened the screws, insisting that there is no alternative to continuing with mass austerity and repayment of Greece’s mountain of debt. ECB Governing Council member Luc Coene told the Belgian daily De Tijd Saturday that Greece would have to carry out new austerity measures or face leaving the euro zone, which “will be ten times worse for them. Ten times.”

Coene declared, “I do not believe there is a radically different way… Syriza has made promises it cannot keep,” and the Greek people “will understand quickly that they were deceived by false promises.”

He threatened, “Reform is the only way… Tell me where the money should come from if the Greeks do not want reform and do not want to repay other European countries?”

In agreeing last month to an extension of the austerity agreement signed by the previous New Democracy/PASOK government, Varoufakis and Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras, the leader of Syriza, farcically claimed that they would no longer be accountable to the widely despised EU, ECB, IMF “troika,” which, they declared, would no longer be returning to Athens to monitor austerity. In fact, they had agreed to a continuation of Greece’s subordination to the troika members, merely—and with consummate cynicism—renaming them the “institutions.”

This terminological sleight of hand was the only “concession” won by the Greek government in nearly a month of negotiations.

In reality, everything is being done on the troika’s terms, as has been the case since 2010. Even the pretence of renaming the troika has been ditched, with German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble purposefully using the word numerous times as he entered Monday’s meeting and other euro zone ministers, including Dijsselbloem, following suit. Far from an end to the troika’s monitoring of the Greek government in Athens, the technical talks beginning Wednesday will be held in both Brussels and Greece, Dijsselbloem told the press conference.

The response of the euro zone ministers to the Greek government reveals the ruthless character of this capitalist body. Greek voters, who elected Syriza based on the party’s election promises to end austerity, have been told their votes count for nothing. The financial aristocracy and its institutions will tolerate nothing that impedes the transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich.

The response of the ruling class to Greece’s catastrophe exposes the fraudulent perspective on which Syriza secured its election victory. Syriza claimed its agenda of negotiating a debt restructuring programme on the basis of remaining in the European Union would be persuasive to sections of the ruling elite and was the only realistic way forward. Instead, Syriza was made to grovel and capitulated in a matter of days.

The Greek government moved quickly Sunday to quash comments attributed to Varoufakis in an Italian newspaper that if Athens’ proposals were not accepted, new elections or a referendum on EU membership could be contemplated.

Even after having his letter of proposals to the Eurogroup ridiculed, Varoufakis spent the weekend attempting to shore up illusions in the EU. Forced to acknowledge that his proposal to replace Greece’s current debt with bonds linked to nominal growth had met with “silence,” he pleaded, “I’d like for Europe to understand that this would be a way of paying back more money, not less.”

While a section of the ruling elite is concerned about the impact of a “Grexit” on the stability of Europe’s fragile economy, other voices are demanding that if Greece does not carry out deeper cuts, it should be allowed to leave the euro zone. The aim is to make clear that there will be no let-up in austerity in either Greece or anywhere else in Europe.

At a recent forum of the Financial Times’ FT City Network, comprised of 50 of the City of London’s most influential financiers, asset managers and insurers, Robert Swannell, chairman of Marks and Spencer, and Stephen Hester, head of insurer RSA, described Greece’s position within the euro zone as akin to “an emperor with no clothes.”

The Financial Times noted that Hester “argued that the euro zone should take a more aggressive stance, triggering Grexit if the Greek government baulks at further reforms.” Hester said, “If Greece isn’t prepared to reform enough to stay in, I don’t think the EU should risk the knock-on political dangers of too much compromise towards Greece that could halt reform in other member states.”

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Greece Told Deeper Austerity Needed to Secure Additional Loans

NATO Begins Military Manoeuvres in Black Sea

March 10th, 2015 by Johannes Stern

On Monday, NATO’s Standing Maritime Group 2 (SNMG 2) began exercises in the Black Sea, including standard anti-submarine and anti-aircraft exercises, led by the US Navy cruiser USS Vicksburg.

According to NATO sources, other ships taking part include Canadian, Turkish and Romanian frigates, and a German tanker Spessart. A NATO web site describes the SNMG 2 as a “potent NATO maritime force [that] possesses substantial sea-control, anti-submarine and anti-air warfare capabilities.”

Before the exercises began, the group commander, US Rear Admiral Brad Williamson, stated: “The training and exercises we will conduct with our Allies in the Black Sea prepares us to undertake any mission NATO might require to meet its obligations for collective defence.”

The exercise is yet another provocation against Moscow that increases the risk of war between the Western powers and Russia. It is part of a systematic military build-up in Eastern Europe since the Western-backed coup in Kiev and the subsequent integration of Crimea into Russia last year.

The SNMG 2 is part of the NATO Response Force (NRF), a so-called rapid intervention force that was doubled in size to 30,000 soldiers by NATO defence ministers at the beginning of February.

Before the exercise, Russian ships and aircraft were seen in the area close to the NATO warships. However, Williamson noted that they “all abided by international regulations.”

“They (the Russians) are following their plans, and we are following ours,” the rear admiral stated at a press conference aboard the USS Vicksburg in the Bulgarian port of Varna.

According to the Russian defence ministry, around 2,000 Russian soldiers will be involved in air defence exercises until April 10 in southern Russia and the north Caucasus, near the Black Sea. In addition, Russian military bases in Armenia and pro-Russian sections of Georgia will also be included.

The military exercises take place in the context of the shaky Minsk ceasefire agreement in eastern Ukraine and ongoing provocations by the pro-western regime in Kiev and its supporters in Washington and European Union (EU) headquarters in Brussels.

Last Thursday, the Ukrainian parliament adopted a proposal from President Petro Poroshenko which orders an increase of the army deployed against the east Ukrainian population by a third, to 250,000.

Moscow sharply criticised the West’s actions. Reacting to constant threats from the US to supply lethal weapons to Ukraine, a Russian foreign minister spokesperson warned, “Russian-US relations will suffer severe damage if the people in the Donbass are killed by US weapons.”

Russian Deputy Defence Minister Anatoly Antonov accused NATO members of using the Ukraine crisis as a pretext to move closer to Russia’s borders.

In an interview with the Welt am Sonntag over the weekend, EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker called for the founding of a European army, capable of militarily standing up to Russia. According to Juncker, this would allow the EU to credibly respond to a threat to peace in a EU member state or neighbouring states.

“A European army does not exist to be deployed immediately,” said Juncker. “But it would send a clear message to Russia that we are serious about the defence of European Union values.”

Juncker’s demand was based on a strategy paper recently published by the Centre for European Policy Studies think tank in cooperation with the Friedrich Ebert Foundation. The main authors of the paper were former NATO Secretary Generals Javier Solana and Jaap de Hoop Schefer. As a pretext for a joint and autonomous European defence policy in alliance with NATO, the authors repeated the lie that Russia was guilty of aggression against Ukraine and that Moscow poses a threat to the whole of Europe.

The paper stated,

“Russia’s infiltrations in Ukraine and provocations against member states’ territorial, water, and air defences have, however, delivered a blow to Europe’s post-Cold War security order and have revived awareness in the EU about the possibility of military attack and occupation in Europe.”

According to Solana and de Hoop Schefer, the establishment of a joint European defence policy and military build-up presents “financial, technological and industrial challenges.” All of the proposals in the paper, including the creation of permanent and special rapid response troops and armed forces for deployment “would entail, for most member states, a sharp rise in military spending, even beyond NATO’s Wales Summit pledge of moving towards 2 percent of GDP by 2014.”

For this reason alone, the combination of the national capacities of the member states’ armies was required, the paper stated.

Juncker’s proposal was welcomed above all by the German government. Through deputy spokeswoman Christiane Wirtz, German Chancellor Angela Merkel (Christian Democratic Union, CDU) called for “intensified military cooperation in Europe.”

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier (Social Democratic Party, SPD) and Defence Minister Ursula Von der Leyen (CDU) spoke out in favour of a European army. “For the SPD, the long-term goal of a European army is an important political issue and has been part of the party programme for many years,” Steinmeier told the Berlin-based Tagesspiegel .

“Confronting the new dangers and threats to our peaceful European order” requires “a rapid adjustment and modernisation of the joint European security strategy,” said Steinmeier. “I am pushing for that. We have brought our ideas to Brussels on this.”

Even if the German government does not express this openly, Berlin sees Juncker’s proposal as an opportunity to achieve military dominance in Europe on top of its economic dominance, and to militarise Germany under the guise of a joint European defence force.

In an interview on Deutschlandfunk, Von der Leyen declared, “This integration of armies with the view one day to even have a European army is in my opinion the future.”

She made clear that German militarisation was intimately bound up with this agenda. She said it was

“important that we have a German army in the alliance that is in fact capable of undertaking the tasks that it has to do. That means not only sounding good on paper, but rather fulfills these in its core operations. And that’s why, if one seriously wants security, one has to seriously invest in it. And that’s why these discussions about [defence] budgets are really about the fact that the things that we want also have to be supported with substance.”

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on NATO Begins Military Manoeuvres in Black Sea

Another Dubious Jobs Report

March 10th, 2015 by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

According to the payroll jobs report today (March 6) the economy created 295,000 new jobs in February, dropping the rate of unemployment to 5.5%. However, the BLS also reported that the labor force participation rate fell and the number of people not in the labor force rose by 354,000.

In other words, the unemployment rate dropped because the labor force shrunk.

If the economy was in recovery, the labor force would be growing and the labor force participation rate would be rising.

The 295,000 claimed new jobs are highly suspect. For example, the report claims 32,000 new retail jobs, but the Census Bureau reports that retail sales declined in December and January. Why would retailers experiencing declining sales hire more employees?

Construction spending declined 1.1% in January, but the payroll jobs report says 29,000 construction jobs were added in February.

Zero Hedge reports that the decline in the oil price has resulted in almost 40,000 laid off workers during January and February, but the payroll jobs report only finds 2,900 lost jobs in oil for the two months. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-03-06/did-bls-once-again-forget-count-tens-thousands-energy-job-losses

There is no sign in the payroll jobs report of the large lay-offs by IBM and Hewlett Packard.

These and other inconsistencies do not inspire confidence.

By ignoring the inconsistencies the financial press does not inspire confidence.

Let’s now look at where the BLS says the payroll jobs are.

All of the goods producing jobs are accounted for by the 29,000 claimed construction jobs. The remaining 259,000 new jobs–90%–of the total–are service sector jobs. Three categories account for 70% of these jobs. Wholesale and retail trade, transportation and utilities account for 62,000 of the jobs. Education and health services account for 54,000 of which ambulatory health care services accounts for 19,900. Leisure and hospitality account for 66,000 jobs of which waitresses and bartenders account for 58,700 jobs.

These are the domestic service jobs of a third world country.

John Williams (shadowstats.com) reports: “As of February, the level of full-time employment still was 1.0 million shy of its pre-recession peak.”

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Another Dubious Jobs Report

An Islamist preacher from Kuwait has called to destroy Egypt’s Sphinx and pyramids, stating it is time for Muslims to erase the pharaohs’ heritage. The alleged call comes as Islamic State jihadists ramp up their attacks against historic sites.

Although the ancient monuments are not religious – but rather cultural and historic sites – they should still be “destroyed” by Muslims, putting an end to the worship of images, preacher Ibrahim Al Kandari said, according to Al-Watan daily.

“The fact that early Muslims who were among prophet Mohammed’s followers did not destroy the pharaohs’ monuments upon entering the Egyptian soil, does not mean that we shouldn’t do it now,” Al Kandari said.

Another call for the destruction of Egypt’s main symbols comes from Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who suggested the demolition of the historic monuments is a “religious duty,” Al Alam news reported on Sunday. In the extreme interpretations of Islam, no material objects should be idolized or worshiped.

It comes amid growing concerns over the safety of many other historic and architectural monuments in the region, where militants continue to destroy ancient cities and artifacts.

Only last week, the Islamic State reportedly destroyed and looted the ancient Assyrian city of Dur Sharrukin in northern Iraq, demolished the remains of the ancient city of Hatra, and bulldozed the city of Nimrud near Mosul. The assault on the latter has already been compared by archaeologists to the Taliban’s destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas in 2001.

In 2012, an Egyptian cleric also issued a fatwa calling to rid the country of its pyramids and the Sphinx. The member of the radical Salafi movement said he wanted the antiquities demolished, as Prophet Mohammed destroyed the idols in Mecca, and demanded Egypt’s tourism ministry be abolished, comparing the industry to “prostitution and debauchery.”

The religious ruling was denounced by Egypt’s officials and scholars, who claimed the site was part of the country’s cultural – not religious – heritage.

Attacks on the Sphinx date back centuries. Despite many legends surrounding the monument’s missing nose – with harm from Napoleon’s cannon being among the most popular myths – historians believe it was actually destroyed by Sufi Muslim Muhammad Sa’im al-Dahr in the 14th century, after he learned that some peasants worshipped the Sphinx.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Kuwaiti Preacher, ISIS Call for Demolition of Egypt’s Sphinx, Pyramids

In the conference organised by Dr. Mahathir’s Perdana Global Peace Foundation (PGPF), the speakers insisted that jihadist groups such as al-Qaeda and the Islamic State were funded by the US and its allies, which included the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Israel.

“They say Muslims are terrorists, but it just so happens that terrorists are Made in the America. They’re not the product of Muslim society, and that should be abundantly clear to everyone on this floor,” said Dr Michel Chossudovsky, the University of Ottawa’s Emeritus Professor of Economics.

The so-called war on terrorism was fabricated by the US and its allies to expand their global hegemony, according to a number of academics at the International Conference on New World Order presided by Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad today.

Dr Michel Chossudovsky speaks at the International Conference on ‘New World Order’ organised by the Perdana Global Peace Foundation at the Putrajaya International Convention Centre, March 9, 2015. — Picture by Yusof Mat Isa

Dr Michel Chossudovsky speaks at the International Conference on ‘New World Order’ organised by the Perdana Global Peace Foundation at the Putrajaya International Convention Centre, March 9, 2015. — — Picture by Yusof Mat Isa PUTRAJAYA, March 9

“The global war on terrorism is a fabrication, a big lie and a crime against humanity,” added the editor of the Global Research website.

The founder of the Centre for Research on Globalisation said the global war on terrorism was then used as justification for Islamophobia and to enact anti-terrorism laws that he claimed inadvertently demonised Muslims in the Western world through methods such as racial profiling.

Chossudovsky claimed that NATO and the Turkish High Command were also responsible for recruiting members of IS and al-Qaeda’s affiliate the Al Nusra Front, while Israel is funding “global jihad elements inside Syria”.

Agreeing with the assertions was Malaysia scholar Dr Chandra Muzaffar, who said that Israel can now easily label anybody who do not agree with its occupation in Palestinian territories as “terrorists”.

PGPF adviser and former minister Tan Sri Dr Rais Yatim also blamed the Western world for tarnishing Islam by calling the militant group Islamic State, claiming that the rest of the world had unquestioningly followed suit.

Former prime minister Dr Mahathir said in 2010 that the September 2011 attacks in the US were possibly staged by the superpower, claiming that “if they can make (the movie) Avatar, they can make anything”.

The conference today said there was a “New World Order”, where an allegedly secret group of elites are conspiring to rule the world via globalisation and a world government, replacing sovereign nation-states.

In November, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak tabled a White Paper in Parliament titled “Addressing the threat of Islamic State”, in which he outlined the history of IS, the threat the group poses and the impact it has on Malaysians, as well as the danger in allowing its skewed Islamic teachings and practice of violence to spread in Malaysia.

The police revealed last week that in total, there are 61 Malaysians in strife-torn Syria fighting for jihadist groups, including 10 women and five children aged between one and 12 years-old.

– See more at: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/in-dr-ms-new-world-order-meet-academics-claim-war-on-terror-big-us-lie#sthash.StbwbJ0Q.dpuf

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The “War on Terror” is a Big Lie, ISIS is “Made in America”

Book Launch: The Globalization of War by Michel Chossudovsky

March 10th, 2015 by Prof Michel Chossudovsky

The Globalization of War was launched At the International Convention Centre, Putrajaya, Malaysia, by  Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamdad, fourth Prime Minister of Malaysia

DR. MAHATHIR MOHAMAD melancarkan buku ‘The Globalization of War’

DR. MAHATHIR MOHAMAD melancarkan buku ‘The Globalization of War’ hasil tulisan Pengasas Pusat Penyelidikan Globalisasi, Dr. Michel Chossudovsky (dua dari kanan) dalam Majlis Pelancaran Persidangan Antarabangsa Orde Baharu Dunia di Pusat Konvensyen Antarabangsa Putrajaya, semalam. Turut sama, Pengerusi PGPF, Tan Sri Norian Mai (kanan) dan Penasihat PGPF, Tan Sri Dr. Rais Yatim. – BERNAMA

to order Michel Chossudovsky’s book click below

The Globalization of War by Global Research

– See more at: http://www.utusan.com.my/berita/nasional/fta-tak-bebas-tetapi-kawal-selia-perdagangan-1.67801#sthash.q5YfioK8.dpuf

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Book Launch: The Globalization of War by Michel Chossudovsky

   The US plan to train Ukrainian national guard troops is put “on hold” pending implementation of the Minsk accords in Ukraine. U.S. Army Europe Commanding General Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges said Washington was keen to see a ceasefire deal signed in Minsk between Kiev and the pro-Russian resistance movement implemented. “We are prepared to conduct training at the request of the Ukrainian government. But my government is obviously anxious to see the Minsk ceasefire agreement fulfilled and has put on hold this training mission,” Hodges told the Anadolu Agency in an exclusive interview on March 3. (1)

The U.S. was planning to train three Ukrainian battalions this month. A paratrooper battalion assigned to the 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team in Vicenza, northeast Italy, has already been readied for the deployment. The training mission was first announced in August last year and had been due to start this March. One battalion of U.S. soldiers is due to train three Ukrainian National Guard battalions. Pentagon press secretary Rear Adm. John Kirby said the training would take place inside Ukraine at an international peacekeeping and security center. “It’s an area where we do multilateral exercises. It’s an area that we’re familiar with,” said Kirby. The instructors were to move to the Yavoriv Training Area near the city of L’viv — which is about 40 miles from the Polish border.

On March 6, a spokesman for U.S. forces in Europe confirmed the delay in a statement and said: “The U.S. government would like to see the Minsk agreement fulfilled.”

The training mission has been the subject of plenty of discussion among US policy makers for months, and the United States has already earmarked $19 million to help build the Ukrainian National Guard. “We’re very open to the idea that this becomes a first step in further training for the Ukrainian military,” Derek Chollet, former assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs, told Defense News. (2) One of the biggest challenges for US policy makers is trying to discern “where could this lead and how does this make us think anew about European security issues and force posture issues or defense spending issues?” he added.

The move comes as more Democrats and Republicans in Congress have increased the pressure on the administration to provide US assistance to Ukrainian forces.  House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner and other senior Republican and Democratic House members urged Barack Obama to expedite the authorization of lethal weapons for Ukraine, according to a letter released on March 5. “We urge you to quickly approve additional efforts to support Ukraine’s efforts to defend its sovereign territory, including through the transfer of lethal, defensive weapons systems to the Ukrainian military,” they wrote in a letter, dated March 4 and signed by eight Republicans and three Democrats. (3) The letter followed up on a meeting between Boehner, other members of Congress and Ukrainian lawmakers in late February.

The list of letter signatories includes Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, who said at his February 2015 confirmation hearing that he would consider sending weapons to Ukraine. On March 2, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said he believed the United States should send guns. They were joined by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey, who told the Senate Armed Services Committee Tuesday that the United States “should absolutely consider lethal aid” to Ukraine that would be funneled through NATO.

The House and U.S. Senate voted unanimously late last year for a bill authorizing Obama to provide weapons to Kiev but he has yet to decide whether to send any.

The White House has reserved the right to consider sending lethal assistance to Kiev but has favored the European strategy of economic pressure over direct infusions of lethal military force. “If, in fact, diplomacy fails, what I’ve asked my team to do is to look at all options — what other means can we put in place to change Mr. Putin’s calculus — and the possibility of lethal defensive weapons is one of those options that’s being examined,” Obama said during a Feb. 9, 2015, press conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. (4)

The mission comes at a time of increasing concern among Eastern European countries that the fighting in the eastern Ukraine may spark again. On February 12, the leaders of Russia, Ukraine, France and Germany approved the long awaited peace deal in Minsk. The agreement introduced measures such as a ceasefire – which commenced February 15 – a pullout of heavy weapons, and constitutional reform in Ukraine by the end of the year. Obama and European leaders are weighing their next steps in dealing with the conflict in eastern Ukraine, including possibly providing weapons as well as additional sanctions against Moscow over its role in supporting rebels.

The U.S. and the EU announced a new round of sanctions toward Russia this week and have concentrated on providing non-lethal support for the Ukrainian forces. “The focus of our assistance remains on non-lethal. We continue to review requests for military assistance from the government of Ukraine through an interagency process,” Kirby said.

Warning voices about US involvement into Ukraine are raised inside the United States. Michael Kofman is a well-known defense expert. In his piece Start a Proxy War with Russia published in the February issue of National Interest journal, he writes, “Arming the Ukrainian government would be a bad idea, no matter what the next defense secretary says.”  Kofman warns that “Sending a mix of weapons to Ukraine is unlikely to improve the situation, given the overwhelming force-on-force mismatch the country faces against Russia, but it could add fuel to a fire that is steadily consuming the country’s chances of emerging as a new nation on a European path.” According to him, “by giving Ukraine the ability to kill more Russian soldiers, sending weapons would raise the costs of war for Moscow to an unacceptable level, thus forcing Russia to abandon its existing policy and thus deterring further aggression. The weakness in the armaments proposal is that it offers no vision for what a new political settlement to the current conflict might look like.”  The expert emphasizes that, “If Obama sends weapons, it’ll get the U.S. into a “proxy war” against Russia, and one that we’ll almost certainly lose.”

The warning voices don’t prevent the US from choosing a dangerous path to stride.  Step by step the US continues to move on the way to deteriorate its relationship with Russia.

On March 6, some major Russian banks saw about $640 million of assets frozen in the U.S. in a move “to punish” Russia for its stance on Ukraine.  U.S. President Barack Obama issued an order to extend by one year a series of sanctions against Russia over its role in the Ukraine crisis, the White House said on March 3. (5)

The President said he was extending U.S. sanctions imposed on Russia last March and December in light of the continuing “unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.”

Ukraine is not the only issue to deteriorate the bilateral relationship. Washington and Moscow have long questioned each other’s commitment to the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty that eliminated nuclear and conventional ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with a range of 500-5,500 km (300-3,400 miles) near the end of the Cold War. The US has said Moscow’s testing of a ground-launched cruise missile violated the treaty. Russia argues that Washington’s use of drones and other intermediate-range arms amounts to a violation.  Ashton Carter, the President Barack Obama’s nominee to become the next U.S. Defense Secretary said on March 4 that Russia needed to be reminded that a Cold War-era arms control agreement was a “two-way street” and that Washington could respond to any violations.     According to Carter, the United States has a range of actions it could take, including defensive and deterrent steps, if Russia violates the treaty. (6)

Hans Kristensen, a member of the Federation of American Scientists, told Russian online newspaper Vzglaid from a technical point of view, even if the Russian side tests a new missile, it is not a breach of the contract as long as it does not go into production and will not be put into service. (7)

The list of US-initiated statements and actions hostile to Russia can be easily continued…

On February 6, the Project on International Order and Strategy hosted U.S. National Security Advisor Susan Rice for the launch of President Obama’s National Security Strategy (NSS), which outlines the president’s foreign policy vision and priorities.  (1)

In a nutshell, it’s the same good old song and dance about US global leadership and exceptional role to make America dominate the world.  Launching the strategy at Brookings Institution,  US National Security Advisor Susan E. Rice said, “Across a range of issues with an array of partners, the United States is proudly shouldering the responsibilities of global leadership.” According to her, “The question is not whether America leads in the world, but how. And the answer is we are pursuing an ambitious yet achievable agenda, worthy of a great power. The president’s budget directly supports his strategy. Our national security leadership is united around this shared vision and agenda”. (2)

On the discussion of whether or not to provide Ukraine with more assistance, including defensive arms, she said that: “We are already providing military assistance to Ukraine. We have not taken the decision yet to up the nature of that assistance to include lethal defensive equipment. It’s something that’s under consideration, but obviously it is a significant step and we will want to do so in close consultation and in coordination with our partners.” (3)

The document offers no pithy foreign policy guidelines. Nevertheless, the NSS breaks new ground in its emphasis on strategic patience, its broad view of national security, and its preoccupation with world order. The document states that “strong and sustained American leadership remains essential, as ever. Maintaining a national defense that is the best trained, equipped, and led force in the world.” (4)

Consistent with previous NSS documents, the 2015 version starts with separate chapters explaining how the United States will advance its “security” goals, its “economic” objectives, and its “values” (particularly by promoting democracy and human rights). The final chapter explains how the United States will deter and respond to instability resulting from the misbehavior of influential states and the actions of malevolent non-state actors. It calls on the US to “fortify” the institutional foundations of a rules-based order, while “helping it evolve to meet the wide range of challenges described throughout this strategy.” The global order remains resilient. “Despite undeniable strains,” the strategy notes, “the vast majority of states do not want to replace the system we have.” Rather, what other countries are looking for is firm U.S. leadership, including a willingness to “exact an appropriate cost on transgressors” who violate international rules of the road.

In Europe, the United States reaffirms the importance of NATO as “the hub of a global security network,” and pledges to deepen its cooperation with the EU in countering Russian “aggression” in Ukraine, which has violated longstanding “international rules and norms.”

The strategy repeatedly mentions Russia’s alleged “intervention” in Ukraine as a key foreign policy challenge for the administration. As the White House is weighing whether to ship defensive military weapons to Ukraine, the national security strategy hints at potential new assistance for “partners” such as the government in Kiev. “We will deter Russian aggression, remain alert to its strategic capabilities, and help our allies and partners resist Russian coercion over the long term, if necessary,” the strategy document warns. All in all, the document uses the word Russia 16 times. 12 times the country is mentioned in the context of “aggression”, “violence” and “hostility”. Russia is accused of all evil-doing in the world including outright “aggression and interference into other states’ internal affairs”.

The US realizes that Russia is a much harder nut to crack in comparison with Yugoslavia, Lebanon or Iraq.   So the NSS points out that “The United States will “continue to impose significant costs” on Russia, but it will avoid a Cold War, keeping the “door open” to greater collaboration “in areas of common interests, should it choose a different path.”

Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin stated in his latest interview that the leaders of France and Germany genuinely want to find a compromise that would help end the conflict in eastern Ukraine. Speaking to Rossiya 1 TV channel on the conflict and the breakthrough of the Minsk agreement, Putin said that “it seemed to me [the leaders of France and Germany], have a genuine desire to find such compromise solutions that would lead to the final settlement [of the conflict]…” “I had the impression that our partners have more trust in us than distrust, and in any case believe in our sincerity,” Putin noted on February 23. (5)

If the US were to supply Ukraine with ammunition and weapons, it would “explode the whole situation” in eastern Ukraine and Russia would be forced to respond “appropriately,” Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov said On February 24. (6)  “It would be a major blow to the Minsk agreements and would explode the whole situation,” he was quoted saying. Moscow would not be able to remain indifferent “to such provocative actions,” he added. “We’ll have to respond appropriately.”

“Is that necessary for those who are allegedly calling for the normalization of the situation in Ukraine? I have serious doubts. People may be irresponsible in their actions, but there must be an end to this madness [of] indulging Kiev’s warmongering,” explained Ryabkov.

The Russian Foreign Ministry official statement (7) says “We have repeatedly informed US representatives about our serious concern regarding Washington’s intention to provide modern lethal weapons to Kiev, directly or through intermediaries, under the Ukraine Freedom Support Act, which permits and even encourages these deliveries.” It adds, “It would also deliver a huge blow to Russian-US relations, especially if US weapons are used to kill people in Donbass. We are also warning the US Administration against moving weapons and military equipment from Afghanistan to Ukraine following the completion of the ISAF mission.”

Relations between Russia and the US are at their lowest ebb since the Cold War but the fact that the Obama administration put on hold the training of Ukraine’s national guards at the last moment, as well as the decision on lethal arms supplies, shows the President realizes the threat. The steps already taken and planned will no doubt put the US on the way to being dragged into another conflict to sap the country’s resources and put it into dangerous confrontation with Russia, a powerful country to reckon with. The far-away Ukraine, is it where the US vital interests are? Does the United States really believe it has an axe to grind in Ukraine? Does it serve the interests of  Americans? No way!  But the pressure is really hard. The hawks in Congress will go to any length aggravating things even further. The US has already gone far enough down by the slippery slope.  Can it stop in time to prevent the worst? Can the administration resist the pressure? That is the question.

Endnotes:

  1.   http://www.aa.com.tr/en/news/473917–us-suspends-plans-to-train-ukrainian-military
  2. http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/land/army/2015/01/21/ukraine-us-army-russia/22119315/
  3. http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/05/us-ukraine-crisis-congress-idUSKBN0M11V120150305
  4. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/0a197070089a4a769a6c73f2122b90b8/us-official-obama-still-weighing-sending-arms-ukraine
  5. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/03/03/notice-continuation-national-emergency-respect-ukraine
  6.   http://news.yahoo.com/u-must-warn-russia-arms-treaty-two-way-001434576.html
  7. http://vz.ru/news/2015/2/24/731171.html
  8. http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/brookings-now/posts/2015/02/susan-rice-2015-national-security-strategy
  9.  ibid
  10. ibid
  11. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2015_national_security_strategy_2.pdf
  12. http://rt.com/news/234911-us-arming-kiev-explosive/
  13. http://rt.com/news/234911-us-arming-kiev-explosive/)
  14. http://www.mid.ru/brp_4.nsf/0/0242E25EDF4EE67743257DE40032C022

Colonel (ret) Andrei Akulov, is a Moscow-based expert on military  and political issues.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Ukraine: Relations between Russia and the US are at their Lowest Ebb since the Cold War

“Five hundred Australian soldiers on the ground is boots on the ground.  They will be on the frontline…  Their lives will be at risk and you’ve got to ask why.” Andrew Wilkie, MP from Tasmania, Mar 2, 2015

Last Tuesday, Tony Abbott, Australia’s war crazed, and somewhat enfeebled prime minister decided that a further three hundred troops were needed for operations in Iraq.  The decision has historical form, demonstrating again how Australia’s standing status as a vassal of greater powers has conditioned its politicians to disgorge men, women and material, when seemingly required.  In Australia, the syndrome has been termed that of “great and powerful friends”, a childlike Freudian craving for the security of the grand bosom and warm embrace.

Such conduct indicates against how a prostrate country before the altar of power relationships finds it hard getting up – the habit is simply too hard to break.  The confirmation last year of a 25 year agreement to rotate US marines and air force personnel through the northern city of Darwin in the Northern Territory; and the tagging of Australia to the American ballistic missile defence systems in north Asia, suggested that the wind was only blowing one way – away from Australia, and favourably towards the power centre of the United States.

The communique issued after the annual Ausmin talks in Sydney spoke of how Australia and the United States had “committed to continue to work together to counter the growing threat of ballistic missiles in the Asia Pacific region – including by establishing a bilateral working group to examine options for potential Australian contributions to ballistic missile defence in the region”.[1]  Fictional threats beget actual consequences.

Togetherness, in such relationships, is always forced, a form of tarting up on the part of Australia for the military taking on the part of the United States.  Another reading of same words in the communique should be clear: Australia will make avail itself of its resources and its personnel for Washington’s grand power game, however specious, however misguided.

The terminology in such ties is deemed important. When the Prime Minister and cabinet need to convince the Australian public that troops are required in theatres they can barely locate on a map, the public relations strategists get busy.  Don’t upset the voters with the most accurate details. Deem any troop mission to be one of “trainers” and “assistants” – in the of Iraq, the “building partner capacity training mission”. Use the terms “phase” to segment time and periods of deployment – this gives the impression that such missions have definite ends to meet, with an immaculate timetable to police.

Then comes the humanitarian mash to add to the sauce. In Abbott’s paternalistic words, “This is a training mission, not a combat mission.  Nevertheless, it is a mission which is necessary, because obviously in the face of the initial death cult onslaught, the Iraqi regular army melted like snow in summer.  That’s been a disaster for the people in Iraq, millions of whom now live in a new dark age.”[2]

In addition to murdering the English language with managerial lingo, the fundamental inconsistency between sending more troops on the one hand, and emphasising the damage done to the enemy, must be avoided.  Air Chief Marshal Binskin, for instance, emphasises that the fighters of the Islamic State have been impaired by coalition air strikes.  Losses lie somewhere in the range of 2000 fighters, notably around Kobane in Syria.

This begs the question as to why any extra deployment would be necessary.  Australia already has 200 special forces operating in Iraq.  There are also six Super Hornets, a K-30 airborne refuelling aircraft and a Wedgetail airborne control aircraft in use.

The mania for such futile deployments is such that local funding opportunities – the sort that actually obtain results – are neglected.  Even as Australia persists in draining its resources in interminable, open-ended conflicts that draw in resources, its government is undertaking a local sacking of the science brains trust, with 27 science research facilities at risk from June 30 because of the withdrawal of $150 million in funding.[3]

The National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Scheme (NCRIS) is set for the chop.  “Ultimately,” lamented astronomer and Nobel laureate Brian Schmidt, “this is not the way a grown up country behaves. It’s very childish and it’s having a profound impact on something that is going to increase the productivity of a nation.”[4]

Australia’s local loss there will be the gain of other countries.  The difference there is that such people, instead of running around with arms bolstering dubious regimes against dubious foes, will be working in labs on funded projects.

The New Zealand Prime Minister, John Key, has also joined his colleague across the Tasman in a similar exercise of muscular brawn over brain, attempting to explain to the country’s parliament that the 143 soldiers he has decided to send form part of a 400-strong joint “Australia-NZ training team”.  What exactly such training such a mission entails should be obvious.  Such soldiers are hardly there to be idle footnotes in the military plan.  They will be shot at.  In the end, they will achieve nothing, other than more harm than has already been inflicted.

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US-NATO’s “Global War on Terrorism”: Australian Troops to the Middle East to Fight ISIS

Washington’s Al Qaeda Ally Now Leading ISIS in Libya

March 10th, 2015 by Eric Draitser

 The revelations that US ally Abdelhakim Belhadj is now leading ISIS in Libya should come as no surprise to those who have followed US policy in that country, and throughout the region. It illustrates for the umpteenth time that Washington has provided aid and comfort to precisely those forces it claims to be fighting around the world.

According to recent reports, Abdelhakim Belhadj has now firmly ensconced himself as the organizational commander of the ISIS presence inside Libya. The information comes from an unnamed US intelligence official who has confirmed that Belhadj is supporting and coordinating the efforts of the ISIS training centers in eastern Libya around the city of Derna, an area long known as a hotbed of jihadi militancy.
While it may not seem to be a major story – Al Qaeda terrorist turns ISIS commander – the reality is that since 2011 the US and its NATO allies have held up Belhadj as a “freedom fighter.” They portrayed him as a man who courageously led his fellow freedom-lovers against the “tyrannical despot” Gaddafi whose security forces at one time captured and imprisoned many members of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), including Belhadj.

Belhadj served the US cause in Libya so well that he can be seen receiving accolades from Sen. John McCain who referred to Belhadj and his followers as heroes. He was initially rewarded after the fall of Gaddafi with the post of military commander of Tripoli, though he was forced to give way to a more politically palatable “transitional government” which has since evaporated in that chaotic, war-ravaged country.

Belhadj’s history of terrorist activity includes such “achievements” as collaboration with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Iraq, and of course his convenient servitude to the US-NATO sponsored rampage across Libya that, among other things, caused mass killings of black Libyans and anyone suspected of being part of the Green Resistance (those loyal to the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya led by Gaddafi). Although the corporate media tried to make a martyr of Belhadj for his alleged torture via the CIA rendition program, the inescapable fact is that wherever he goes he leaves a violent and bloody wake.

While much of this information is known, what is of paramount importance is placing this news in a proper political context, one that illustrates clearly the fact that the US has been, and continues to be, the major patron of extremist militants from Libya to Syria and beyond, and that all talk of “moderate rebels” is merely rhetoric designed to fool an unthinking public.

The Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend…Until He Isn’t

There is ample documented evidence of Belhadj’s association with Al Qaeda and his terrorist exploits the world over. Variousreports have highlighted his experiences fighting in Afghanistan and elsewhere, and he himself has boasted of killing US troops in Iraq. However, it was in Libya in 2011 where Belhadj became the face of the “rebels” seeking to topple Gaddafi and the legal government of Libya.

As the New York Times reported:

The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group was formed in 1995 with the goal of ousting Colonel Qaddafi. Driven into the mountains or exile by Libyan security forces, the group’s members were among the first to join the fight against Qaddafi security forces… Officially the fighting group does not exist any longer, but the former members are fighting largely under the leadership of Abu Abdullah Sadik [aka Abdelhakim Belhadj].

So, not only was Belhadj a participant in the US-NATO war on Libya, he was one of its most powerful leaders, heading a battle-hardened jihadist faction that constituted the leading edge of the war against Gaddafi. Nowhere was this more clearly demonstrated than when the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) took the lead in the attack on Gaddafi’s compound at Bab al-Aziziya. In this regard, LIFG was provided intelligence, and likely also tactical support, from US intelligence and the US military.

This new information about Belhadj’s association with the suddenly globally relevant ISIS certainly bolsters the argument that this writer, among many others, has made since 2011 – that the US-NATO war on Libya was waged by terrorist groups overtly and tacitly supported by US intelligence and the US military. Moreover, it dovetails with other information that has surfaced in recent years, information that shines a light on how the US exploited for its own geopolitical purposes one of the most active terrorist hotbeds anywhere in the world.


According to the recent reports, Belhadj is directly involved with supporting the ISIS training centers in Derna. Of course Derna should be well known to anyone who has followed Libya since 2011, because that city, along with Tobruk and Benghazi, were the centers of anti-Gaddafi terrorist recruitment in the early days of the “uprising” all through the fateful year of 2011. But Derna was known long before that as a locus of militant extremism.

In a major 2007 study entitled “Al-Qa’ida’s Foreign Fighters in Iraq: A First Look at the Sinjar Records” conducted by the Combating Terrorism Center at the US Military Academy at West Point, the authors noted that:

Almost 19 percent of the fighters in the Sinjar Records came from Libya alone. Furthermore, Libya contributed far more fighters per capita than any other nationality in the Sinjar Records, including Saudi Arabia… The apparent surge in Libyan recruits traveling to Iraq may be linked the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group’s (LIFG) increasingly cooperative relationship with al-Qa’ida which culminated in the LIFG officially joining al-Qa’ida on November 3, 2007…The most common cities that the fighters called home were Darnah [Derna], Libya and Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, with 52 and 51 fighters respectively. Darnah [Derna] with a population just over 80,000 compared to Riyadh’s 4.3 million, has far and away the largest per capita number of fighters in the Sinjar records.

And so, the US military and intelligence community has known for nearly a decade (perhaps longer) that Derna has long been directly or indirectly controlled by jihadis of the LIFG variety, and that that city had acted as a primary recruiting ground for terrorism throughout the region. Naturally, such information is vital if we are to understand the geopolitical and strategic significance of the notion of ISIS training camps associated with the infamous Belhadj on the ground in Derna.

This leads us to three interrelated, and equally important, conclusions. First, Derna is once again going to provide foot soldiers for a terror war to be waged both in Libya, and in the region more broadly, with the obvious target being Syria. Second is the fact that the training sites at Derna will be supported and coordinated by a known US asset. And third, that the US policy of supporting “moderate rebels” is merely a public relations campaign designed to convince average Americans (and those in the West generally) that it is not supporting terrorism, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

The Myth of ‘Moderate Rebels’

The news about Belhadj and ISIS must not be seen in a vacuum. Rather, it should be still further proof that the notion of “moderates” being supported by the US is an insult to the intelligence of political observers and the public at large.

For more than three years now, Washington has trumpeted its stated policy of support to so-called moderate rebels in Syria – a policy which has at various times folded such diverse terror groups as the Al Farooq Brigades (of cannibalism fame) and Hazm (“Determination”) into one large “moderate” tent. Unfortunately for US propagandists and assorted warmongers however, these groups along with many others have since voluntarily or forcibly been incorporated into Jabhat al-Nusra and ISIS/ISIL.

Recently, there have been many reports of mass defections of formerly Free Syrian Army factions to ISIS, bringing along with them their advanced US-supplied weaponry. Couple that with the “poster boys” for Washington policy, the aforementioned Hazm group, now having become part of Jabhat al Nusra, the Al Qaeda linked group in Syria. Of course these are only a few of the many examples of groups that have become affiliated with either the ISIS or Al Qaeda brand in Syria, including Liwaa Al-Farouq, Liwaa Al-Qusayr, and Liwaa Al-Turkomen to name just a few.

What has become clear is that the US and its allies, in their unending quest for regime change in Syria, have been overtly supporting extremist elements that have now coalesced to form a global terror threat in ISIS, Nusra, and Al Qaeda.

But of course, this is nothing new, as the Belhadj episode in Libya demonstrates unequivocally. The man who was once Al Qaeda, then became a “moderate” and “our man in Tripoli,” has now become the leader of the ISIS threat in Libya. So too have “our friends” become our enemies in Syria. None of this should surprise anyone.

But perhaps John McCain would like to answer some questions about his long-standing connections with Belhadj and the “moderates” in Syria. Would Obama like to explain why his “humanitarian intervention” in Libya has become a humanitarian nightmare for that country, and indeed the whole region? Would the CIA, which has been extensively involved in all of these operations, like to come clean about just who they’ve been supporting and what role they’ve played in fomenting this chaos?

I doubt any such questions will ever be asked by anyone in the corporate media. Just as I doubt any answers will ever be furnished by those in Washington whose decisions have created this catastrophe. So, it is for us outside the corporate propaganda matrix to demand answers, and to never let the establishment suppress our voices…or the truth.

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Washington’s Al Qaeda Ally Now Leading ISIS in Libya

There have been times when history has played tricks with man and…has magnified the features of essentially small persons into a parody of greatness.

Rabindranath Tagore(on Benito Mussolini)  

            How is it that the ruler (Benjamin Netanyahu) of a puny country (Israel) of 8.2 million (6.2 million Jews) with the 37th biggest economy (GDP in current prices) in the world  dictates war policy and secures the willing submission of the legislature of the largest economy and most powerful military empire in the world?

            What significance does Netanyahu’s speech to the US Congress have, beyond the fact that he uses it as a platform to attack the elected President of the US, to denounce US peace negotiations and to demand that Congress adopt policies designed to precipitate a war with Iran?

Netanyahu’s Dominant Presence in the US

            There is only one reason that Netanyahu is received as a Viceroy overseeing and dictating strategic policy to what clearly is a servile colonial legislature:  over the past quarter of a century, Israel’s proxy in the US, an entire panoply of Zionist political organizations, government officials, propaganda mills, media moguls, billionaires and millionaires, have deeply penetrated the legislature, executive and administrative centers of decision making.  Netanyahu’s arrogance and “brazen” presumption (Financial Times, 3/4/15, p. 6) to dictate policy to the US Congress is rooted in the pre-existing power base created by the proxy Zionist power configuration.

            Netanyahu can sneer, with a crooked smile, at the US President, because, after several decades of  Zionist permeation of the US state, he knows that he comes not as an outside power but as a leader and spokesperson of an inside power.

His presence was hailed by all the mass media as a major event, as international news, for over a month in advance.  With Napoleonic presumption he dared to announce in advance that he would advance a war thesis in the fashion of any head of state.  He can act as an unelected dictator because the elected officials have been converted into docile and complicit subjects by his proxy power structure. Netanyahu follows the political precept of his predecessor Ariel Sharon, who faced with Israeli worrywarts criticizing his obstreperous intervention in US politics, once stated “Don’t worry. We lead the US by the nose”.

The crucial theoretical point is that the conditions, that enabled Netanyahu to come, to see and to conquer, were not of his doing.  His presence in the US Congress and his message is derived from the power of his supporters, deeply embedded in the structure of political power in the US.

Otherwise, who would take serious his delusional military fantasies, his clinically paranoid vision of peaceful adversaries, conspiring to “nuke Israel” and then the world, without a single nuclear bomb!

Prominent among Netanyahu’s financial backers are a group of prominent Zionist lumpen-bourgeoisie, billionaires who lent to millions of borrowers at extortionate rates(between 1400 and 4000% ) and played a leading role in the fraudulent mortgage induced crises of 2009-forward.They include Al Goldstein co-founder of AvantCredit and CashNetUSA; Sasha Orloff and Jacob Rosenberg founders of Lendup; Daniel Gilbert founder of QuickenLoans – a predator subprime lender; Ronald Arnall owner of Ameriquest…  They used part of their ill-gotten gains to ease their consciences by donating millions to Israeli and US Jewish causes. Being generous to Israel provides a sort of perverse “absolution” for screwing millions of Americans.

One does not need much imagination to envision them cheering Netanyahu’s AIPAC and Congressional diatribes. It is not surprising that the lumpen-bourgeoisie backs a lumpen-prime minister.

The best and the brightest among the Zionist phalanx of pundits, professors, lawyers, economists and financiers have created an aura of gravitas and profundity around this vulgar beerhall brawler.

This raises a basic question:  Why do upwardly mobile, prosperous and elite-educated Zionist majorities enthusiastically pledge unconditional loyalty to a crude authoritarian foreign ruler who humiliates their country of birth?

Why did ten thousand American-born Zionist professionals stand and cheer, as they did the day before his congressional speech, as Netanyahu dictatedhis rabid bellicose political line to them at the AIPAC conference?

Is it because they believe he is their Chosen Leader of their Chosen Fatherland?

Netanyahu, with all his vulgarity and mediocrity, strikes a deep and abiding chord in the soul of his Zionist followers.  They believe they are the collective geniuses of a superior species, who need not abide by the legal norms of non-Zionist states and international laws which hinder his colonial rule over millions of Palestinians.

What else but that identity of superiority allows the educated and prosperous, the humane and the cruel, to bond and welcome Netanyahu, as a modern secular Moses crossing the Potomac, delivering “the Jews” (for the messianic Netanyahu claims to speak for “all Jews”) from the mortal threats (Iran) cultivated by gentile politicians.  The great majority of Zionist activists are deaf, dumb and blind to those who criticize and refute his infantile and grotesque lies, the scrofulous screeds about non-existing “existential threats” which infest his speeches.  Worse they will terrorize and cow any critic, demand that their employers fire them, as they have done over the past two decades.  They believe that the Palestinians, who Israel bombed into the Stone Age, are threats to Israel.  They believe that nuclear weapon-less Iranians, facing hundreds of Israeli nuclear bombs, are a threat to Israel.  They believe there is one “truth”:  that all measures, speeches and actions, which enhance the power and glory of Israel, are virtuous.  It is this “truth” that motivates hundreds of thousands of “virtuous” Zionists to donate hundreds of millions of dollars to buy and/or intimidate presidents and congresspeople, governors and mayors, university presidents and faculty, police informers and academic thugs. It is this Zionist power configuration, which allows a political low-life like Netanyahu to enter and dominate the legislative chamber and tell US citizens where and when their next war should take place.  It is for this power configuration that Congressmen and women “perform” – applauding and jumping up on cue for each and every one of Netanyahu’s emotional ejaculations.

Broad sectors of the Israeli public were immensely impressed by Netanyahu’s capacity to humiliate the President, by his willingness to dictate policy to the US and by the hyperkinetic docility and submissiveness of US Congress people.  But this is not surprising:  After all, Israelis are used to dominating Palestinians and torturing them into submission and colonizing a whole people.  Why shouldn’t they gloat and puff up with pride when Netanyahu speaks and acts as a colonial viceroy to the US?  After all, their leader is dominating a so-called ‘world power’!

No doubt the Israeli empire loyalists will overwhelmingly vote for Netanyahu, even if the “opposition” claims they also denounce the US-Iranian peace negotiations.  Opposition leaders Isaac Herzog and Tzipi Livni don’t have Netanyahu’s gangster look, that crooked smile that says to the US leaders: “We lead you by the nose and you love it!”  What the rest of the world thinks of a braying donkey in Washington led by the nose is not hard to imagine:  US world leadership certainly is not foremost in their minds…

There is much idle chatter from liberals, leftists and progressives, claiming that Netanyahu’s ‘brazen intervention’ would backfire; that it would damage relations with the US;  that it would weaken and undermine US-Israeli relations and allow Iran to secure nuclear weapons.  Liberal Zionists claim that Netanyahu’s speech would weaken support for Israel among Democratic congress people.   Liberal Zionists claim that Netanyahu’s speech would weaken US support for Israel (God forbid!).

These lamentations have no substance; they are mendacious concoctions of minds which lack any capacity to understand power especially the permanent power of the Zionist power configuration.

Even a cursory reading of the political facts which preceded, accompanied and followed Netanyahu’s Congressional dictates, demonstrates the exact opposite.

Immediately after Netanyahu’s intervention, Congressional leaders moved ahead to fast track legislation to heighten Iranian sanctions, to veto any Executive agreement.  The Republication majority and over half of the Democrats chose to back the “foreign Viceroy” on policies of war and peace.

Far from “prejudicing” relations with the Obama regime, the Administration in the person of Secretary of State John Kerry vetoed a measure passed by the UN Human Right Commission condemning Israel’s savage war crimes against Palestinians… Obama’s United Nations Ambassador Samantha Power did her usual belly crawl for Israel at the AIPAC conference following Netanyahu’s rousing diatribe. US-Iranian “negotiations” in Switzerland increasingly turned on exactly the issues Netanyahu demanded.  US Secretary of State Kerry insisted on on-going intrusive inspections of Iran’s entire nuclear and military installations; retaining most sanctions for a decade; eliminating most enriched uranium …In a word disarming Iran, increasing its military vulnerability to an Israeli nuclear attack, without any deterrence or retaliatory capacity!  Iran is formally negotiating with Kerry on behalf of the 5 plus 1, but the agenda and demands are set by the raucous over-voice of Netanyahu, who is the most influential invisible presence.

In other words, there is ample evidence that Netanyahu’s intervention, far from ‘damaging’ US-Israeli relations, further reinforced Israel’s power over the US.  By securing the Administration’s declarations of unconditional loyalty while humiliating the President and seizing executive prerogatives, Israel demonstrates to the world that it can and will dictate US strategic policy and denounce its President with total impunity.

Netanyahu is far from being ostracized.  He has a global platform from which to spew his rabid chauvinist diatribes against peace and negotiations.  His speech, its content and style, received front page and extended prime time coverage.  His war-mongering resonated with the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post and US News and World Report.

Netanyahu’s political line inspired AIPAC’s ten thousand ultra-Zionists, who stormed Capital Hall and demanded Congress people and Congressional staff act on His message.  Not a single dissenting voice emanated from the Presidents of the 52 Major American (sic) Jewish organizations whose first loyalty continued to be toward Israeli interests as defined by their Prime Minister.

The voices of dissent among the few dozen Jews on Capitol Hill, and outside the AIPAC conference hall, did not register in Congress or among the vast majority of Jewish community leaders or in the mass media.

Contrary to the lamentations and claims that Netanyahu has “weakened” Israel, the facts on the ground demonstrate that he has strengthened his “leadership” among the billionaires who buy US Congressional leaders.  He has demonstrated that US officials, even ones who he insults and attacks, will continue to support Israeli war crimes in international forums; regale Israel with $3 billion a year in military aid to enhance its military supremacy in the Middle East; and incorporate its demands in any strategic negotiations with ‘Islamic’ countries like Iran, even if it undermines the basis of any negotiated agreement.

Conclusion

Clearly Netanyahu alienated a minority of US Congressional Democrat but mostly on procedural issues of protocol rather than on the more substantive issues of mongering for war and sanctions against Iran.  Netanyahu’s messianic claim to speak for “all Jews” did arouse over 2,000 American Jews and non-Jews to sign a paid advertisement denying his status as the Second Coming of Moses.

But as the rousing welcome and conclusion to his speech by the Congressional majority and the unanimity of AIPAC’s thousands demonstrate, Israel’s formidable Zionist power configuration still dominates US policy in the Middle East.

The ‘debate’ over Netanyahu’s episodic presence in the US Congress and humiliation of the US President is misplaced. What really needs to be debated is the more fundamental question of the permanent presence, power and prerogatives of the Zionist power configuration in the making of US Middle East policy.

No other visiting Prime Minister or President will be received with so much media attention and political fanfare as Netanyahu because none possess the formidable, organized, well-financed and disciplined political apparatus which Israel possess.  This is an apparatus which defends and promotes US wars on behalf of Israel, Israel’s war crimes, land seizures and torture of Palestinians.  That they support Netanyahu’s gross humiliation of Obama is not surprising – it merely confirms the “Law of the Return”:  that for American Zionists there is only one true state of the Jews –and that is Israel; and that their only “true” leaders are Israelis… As it happens, today he is called Benjamin Netanyahu.  And that any US policy, negotiations or agreements in the Middle East have to be in accord with their leader.

Congress knows that.

The “52” know that.

Only the majority of the American electorate, who still believe they live in a free and independent country, is not privy to that reality, even though Netanyahu’s intervention in the US Congress and gross humiliation of the President should tell them otherwise.

            But then we live in a peculiar sui generis ‘meritocracy’ in which the opinions of the 2%, the so-called chosen people, counts more than that of 98% of our citizens.

            The critics, Jews and non-Jews, must realize that their problem with Netanyahu requires them to delve deeper, and that their opposition needs to become more systematic and more directly confrontational with the Zionist power configuration. Otherwise, there is no basis for believing that the US can end national humiliations and regain its status as a free and democratic republic.

            James Petras is the author of four volume study of US – Israeli relations.  The most recent is The Politics of Empire:  The US, Israel and the Middle East (Atlanta:  Clarity        Press 2014).

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Netanyahu: He Came, He Saw, He Conquered The Power of Israel over the United States

Syriza inspira la lucha antiausteridad en Quebec

March 9th, 2015 by Jorge Zegarra

En Canadá, los quebequeses y representantes de partidos políticos europeos reflexionaron sobre las perspectivas para la “izquierda radical” después de la victoria de la Coalición de la Izquierda Radical de Grecia (Syriza, en su acrónimo griego).

  • Posted in Español
  • Comments Off on Syriza inspira la lucha antiausteridad en Quebec

UPDATE: Venezuela’s foreign minister says Caracas will soon respond to Washington’s statements.

U.S. President Barack Obama issued a new Executive Order against Venezuela Monday aimed at interfering in the country’s politics, claiming, “Venezuelan officials past and present who violate the human rights of Venezuelan citizens and engage in acts of public corruption will not be welcome” in the United States.

Immediately after, Venezuela’s Foreign Ministry announced the government of President Nicolas Maduro would “soon” respond to Obama’s executive action against the Latin American country.

“We will soon make Venezuela’s response to the extent and reach of these statements,” Venezuelan Foreign Minister Delcy Rodriguez said in a news conference.

Reuters reported that Obama declared Venezuela a national security threat, sanctioning seven individuals and expressing concern about the Venezuelan government’s treatment of political opponents.

Also read: US Aggression Against Venezuela Fact Not Fiction

“We now have the tools to block their assets and their use of U.S. financial systems,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest said in a statement.

“We are deeply concerned by the Venezuelan government’s efforts to escalate intimidation of its political opponents. Venezuela’s problems cannot be solved by criminalizing dissent,” Earnest added.

The White House spokesperson also said that, “We are deeply concerned by the Venezuelan government’s efforts to escalate intimidation of its political opponents. Venezuela’s problems cannot be solved by criminalizing dissent.”

Earnest said Washington has consistently called on the Venezuelan government to release opposition member they claim to be unjustly jailed.

“The Venezuelan government should release all political prisoners, including dozens of students, opposition leader Leopoldo Lopez and Mayors Daniel Ceballos and Antonio Ledezma,” he stated, completely ignoring all the conclusive evidence presented by the Venezuelan government against the these and other members of the right-wing opposition.

These statements come despite the fact that grave human rights violations have been reported in the United States, including the police killing of various unarmed African-Americans and hispanics without any legal consequences against the perpetrators.

The U.S. is also responsible for serious human rights violations against dozens of arbitrarily detained people in Guantanamo.

The Obama administration has also opted to ignore the extremely serious human rights issues in allied countries such as Mexico, despite the fact that international organizations, including the United Nations, have continuosly reported on them.

teleSUR

See teleSUR’s special extensive coverage: Economic War on Venezuela

And: The War on Venezuela’s Democracy

Also read: 92% of Venezuelans Oppose US Invasion


Defend the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela!
Ottawa
Denounce Economic and Political War Against Venezuela
Wednesday, March 11 — 4:30 – 5:30 pm
Prime Minister’s Office, Corner of Elgin and Wellington
Organized by: Hugo Chavez Peoples’ Defence Front
For information: Facebook

click on image to enlarge

Democracy and Human Rights in Venezuela:
The Recent Coup Attempt and Economic War

Thursday, March 12 — 7:00 pm
Speakers
Wilmer Omar Barrientos Fernández,
Ambassador of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela to Canada
Dr. George Sorger, Former Professor of Biology, McMaster University
Sam Heaton, Independent Journalist
Morisset Hall (MRT), Room 221, University of Ottawa, 65 University
For information: Facebook

Click on image to enlarge

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US Declares Venezuela a Threat to ‘National Security’

Lieberman: Behead Arabs Who Aren’t Loyal to Israel

March 9th, 2015 by Middle East Monitor

Israel’s Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman

Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman yesterday threatening to cut off with an axe the heads of Arab-Israeli citizens who are not loyal to the state.

“Those with us, should receive everything” in terms of rights, he says, according to Israel’s Channel 2. “Those against us, it cannot be helped, we must lift up an axe and behead them – otherwise we will not survive here,” Lieberman said during an election rally in the western city of Herzliya.

He, meanwhile, added that there was no reason for Umm Al-Fahm, an Arab city in northern Israel, to continue to be part of his country.

Israel took control of the city in 1949 in the light of the Armistice Agreement between Israel and Jordan. It is the third largest Arab city in Israel.

During yesterday’s rally, Lieberman said those who raised the black flag of Nakba Day in mourning over the establishment of Israel, did not deserve to belong to the state of Israel.

“I am quite willing to donate them [the people who raise the black flags] to PA chief Mahmoud Abbas,” Lieberman said. “It would be my pleasure.”

He called for including Arab states and Israel’s Arab citizens in any settlement with the Palestinians.

Lieberman said Israel should seize the opportunity of the presence of similar views with Arab states, without mentioning what these were.

“The Palestinians know what is being said about them now in the Arab world,” Lieberman said.

He added that some Arab states believe that real threats came from the Palestinian faction Hamas and the militant group ISIS and not from Israel.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Lieberman: Behead Arabs Who Aren’t Loyal to Israel

How Putin Blocked the U.S. Pivot to Asia

March 9th, 2015 by Mike Whitney

“The collapse of the Soviet Union removed the only constraint on Washington’s power to act unilaterally abroad…. Suddenly the United States found itself to be the Uni-power, the ‘world’s only superpower.’  Neoconservatives proclaimed ‘the end of history.’”

—  Paul Craig Roberts,  former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury

“Don’t blame the mirror if your face is crooked.”

— Russian proverb

On February 10, 2007,   Vladimir Putin delivered a speech at the 43rd Munich Security Conference that created a rift between Washington and Moscow that has only deepened over time.  The Russian President’s blistering hour-long critique of US foreign policy provided a rational, point-by-point indictment of US interventions around the world and their devastating effect on global security.   Putin probably didn’t realize the impact his candid observations would have on the assembly in Munich or the reaction of  powerbrokers in the US who saw the presentation as a turning point in US-Russian relations. But, the fact is, Washington’s hostility towards Russia can be traced back to this particular incident, a speech in which Putin publicly committed himself to a multipolar global system, thus, repudiating the NWO pretensions of US elites. Here’s what he said:

“I am convinced that we have reached that decisive moment when we must seriously think about the architecture of global security. And we must proceed by searching for a reasonable balance between the interests of all participants in the international dialogue.”

With that one formulation, Putin rejected the United States assumed role as the world’s only superpower and steward of global security, a privileged position which Washington feels it earned by prevailing in the Cold War and which entitles the US to unilaterally intervene whenever it sees fit. Putin’s announcement ended years of bickering and deliberation among think tank analysts as to whether Russia could be integrated into the US-led system or not.  Now they knew that Putin would never dance to Washington’s tune.

In the early years of his presidency, it was believed that Putin would learn to comply with western demands and accept a subordinate role in the Washington-centric system. But it hasn’t worked out that way. The speech in Munich merely underscored what many US hawks and Cold Warriors had been saying from the beginning, that Putin would not relinquish Russian sovereignty without a fight.  The declaration challenging US aspirations to rule the world, left no doubt that  Putin was going to be a problem that had to be dealt with by any means necessary including harsh economic sanctions, a State Department-led coup in neighboring Ukraine, a conspiracy to crash oil prices, a speculative attack of the ruble, a proxy war in the Donbass using neo-Nazis as the empire’s shock troops, and myriad false flag operations used to discredit Putin personally while driving a wedge between Moscow and its primary business partners in Europe. Now the Pentagon is planning to send 600 paratroopers to Ukraine ostensibly to “train the Ukrainian National Guard”, a serious escalation that violates the spirit of Minsk 2 and which calls for a proportionate response from the Kremlin. Bottom line: The US is using all the weapons in its arsenal to prosecute its war on Putin.

Last week’s gangland-style murder of Russian opposition leader, Boris Nemtsov, has to be considered in terms of the larger geopolitical game that is currently underway. While we may never know who perpetrated the crime, we can say with certainly that the lack of evidence hasn’t deterred the media or US politicians from using the tragedy to advance an anti-Putin agenda aimed at destabilizing the government and triggering regime change in Moscow.  Putin himself suggested that the killing may have been a set-up designed to put more pressure on the Kremlin. The World Socialist Web Site summed up the political implications like this:

“The assassination of Russian opposition politician Boris Nemtsov is a significant political event that arises out of the US-Russia confrontation and the intense struggle that is now underway within the highest levels of the Russian state. The Obama administration and the CIA are playing a major role in the escalation of this conflict, with the aim of producing an outcome that serves the global geo-political and financial interests of US imperialism…

It is all but obvious that the Obama administration is hoping a faction will emerge within the Russian elite, backed by elements in the military and secret police, capable of staging a “palace coup” and getting rid of Putin….

The United States is not seeking to trigger a widespread popular revolt. (But) are directed entirely at convincing a section of the oligarchy and emerging capitalist class that their business interests and personal wealth depend upon US support. That is why the Obama administration has used economic sanctions targeting individuals as a means of exerting pressure on the oligarchs as well as broader sections of the entrepreneurial elite…

It is in the context of this international power struggle that one must evaluate Nemtsov’s murder. Of course, it is possible that his death was the outcome of his private dealings. But it is more likely that he was killed for political reasons. Certainly, the timing of the killing—on the eve of the opposition’s anti-Putin demonstration in Moscow—strongly indicates that the killing was a political assassination, not a private settling of accounts.”  (Murder in Moscow: Why was Boris Nemtsov assassinated?, David North, World Socialist Web Site)

Just hours after Nemtsov was gunned down in Moscow, the western media swung into action releasing a barrage of articles suggesting Kremlin involvement without a shred of  evidence to support their claims. The campaign of innuendo has steadily gained momentum as more Russia “experts” and politicians offer their opinions about who might be responsible. Naturally, none of the interviewees veer from the official storyline that someone in Putin’s charge must have carried out the attack.  An article in the Washington Post is a good example of the tactics used in the latest PR campaign to discredit Putin.  According to Vladimir Gel’man, Political Scientists European University at St. Petersburg and the University of Helsinki:

“Boris Nemtsov, one of the leaders of political opposition, was shot dead nearby the Kremlin. In my opinion, it has all the hallmarks of a political assassination provoked by an aggressive Kremlin-induced campaign against the “fifth column of national traitors”, who opposed the annexation of Crimea, war with the West over Ukraine, and further decline of political and civil freedoms in the country. We may never know whether the Kremlin ordered this killing, but given the fact that Nemtsov was one of the most consistent critics not only of the Russian regime as such but also of Putin in person, his dissenting voice will never upset Putin and his inner circle anymore.”  (What does Boris Nemtsov’s murder mean for Russia?, Washington Post)

The article in the Washington Post is fairly typical of others published in the MSM. The coverage is invariably long on finger-pointing and insinuation and short on facts. Traditional journalistic standards of objectivity and fact-gathering have been jettisoned to advance a political agenda that reflects the objectives of ownership. The Nemtsov assassination is just the latest illustration of the abysmal state of western media.

The idea that Putin’s agents would “whack” an opposition candidate just a stone’s throw from the Kremlin is far fetched to say the least.  As one commenter at the Moon of Alabama blog noted:

“Isn’t the image of a dead political opponent lying on a bridge overlooked by the Kremlin a bit rich? I mean, short of a dagger lodged between his shoulder blades with the inscription “if found, please return to Mr Putin”, I can’t think of a more over-egged attempt at trying to implicate the Government. And on the night before an opposition rally Nemtsov hoped to lead. I mean, come on.”

While there’s no denying that Moscow could be involved, it seems unlikely. The more probable explanation is that the incident is part of a larger regime change scheme to ignite social unrest and destabilize the government. The US has used these tactics so many times before in various color-coded revolutions, that we won’t reiterate the details here. Even so, it’s worth noting that the US has no red lines when it comes to achieving its strategic goals.  It will do whatever it feels is necessary to prevail in its clash with Putin.

The question is why? Why is Washington so determined to remove Putin?

Putin answered this question himself recently at a celebration of Russia’s diplomatic workers’ day. He said Russia would pursue an independent foreign policy despite pressure in what he called “today’s challenging international environment.”

“No matter how much pressure is put on us, the Russian Federation will continue to pursue an independent foreign policy, to support the fundamental interests of our people and in line with global security and stability.” (Reuters)

This is Putin’s unforgivable crime, the same crime as Venezuela, Cuba, Iran, Syria and countless other nations that refuse to march in lockstep to Washington’s directives.

Putin has also resisted NATO encirclement and attempts by the US to loot Russia’s vast natural resources. And while Putin has made every effort to avoid a direct confrontation with the US, he has not backed down on issues that are vital to Russia’s national security, in fact, he  has pointed out numerous times not only the threat that encroaching NATO poses to Moscow, but also the lies that preceded its eastward expansion. Here’s Putin at Munich again:

“I would like to quote the speech of NATO General Secretary Mr. Woerner in Brussels on 17 May 1990. He said at the time that: “the fact that we are ready not to place a NATO army outside of German territory gives the Soviet Union a firm security guarantee….

Where are these guarantees?”

Where, indeed. Apparently, they were all lies.  As political analyst Pat Buchanan said in his article “Doesn’t Putin Have a Point?”:

“Though the Red Army had picked up and gone home from Eastern Europe voluntarily, and Moscow felt it had an understanding we would not move NATO eastward, we exploited our moment. Not only did we bring Poland into NATO, we brought in Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, and virtually the whole Warsaw Pact, planting NATO right on Mother Russia’s front porch. Now, there is a scheme afoot to bring in Ukraine and Georgia in the Caucasus, the birthplace of Stalin….

… though Putin gave us a green light to use bases in the old Soviet republics for the liberation of Afghanistan, we now seem hell-bent on making those bases in Central Asia permanent.

… through the National Endowment for Democracy, its GOP and Democratic auxiliaries, and tax-exempt think tanks, foundations, and “human rights” institutes such as Freedom House,… we have been fomenting regime change in Eastern Europe, the former Soviet republics, and Russia herself….

These are Putin’s grievances. Does he not have a small point?” “(Doesn’t Putin Have a Point?”, Pat Buchanan, antiwar.com)

Now the US wants to deploy its missile defense system to Eastern Europe, a system which–according to Putin

“will work automatically with and be an integral part of the US nuclear capability. For the first time in history, and I want to emphasize this, there are elements of the US nuclear capability on the European continent. It simply changes the whole configuration of international security…..Of course, we have to respond to that.”

How can Putin allow this to happen?  How can he allow the US to situate nuclear weapons in a location that would increase its first-strike capability and undermine the balance of deterrents allowing the US to force Russia to follow its orders or face certain annihilation. Putin has no choice but to resist this outcome, just as has no choice but to oppose the principle upon which US expansion is based, the notion that the Cold War was won by the US, therefore the US has the right to reshape the world in a way that best suits its own economic and geopolitical interests. Here’s Putin again:

“What is a unipolar world? However one might embellish this term,  it refers to a type of situation where there is one center of authority, one center of force, one center of decision-making.   It is world in which there is one master, one sovereign. At the end of the day, this is pernicious not only for all those within this system, but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within…

I consider that the unipolar model is not only unacceptable but also impossible in today’s world…. the model itself is flawed because at its basis there is and can be no moral foundations for modern civilization…” (Munich, 2007)

What sort of man talks like this? What sort of man talks about “the moral foundations for modern civilization” or invokes FDR in his address?

Putin:

“‘Security for one is security for all’. As Franklin D. Roosevelt said during the first few days that the Second World War was breaking out: ‘When peace has been broken anywhere, the peace of all countries everywhere is in danger.’ These words remain topical today.”

I urge everyone to watch at least the first 10 minutes of Putin’s speech and decide for themselves whether they think the characterization (and demonization) of Putin in the media is fair or not. And pay special attention to Minute 6 where Putin says this:

“We are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic principles of international law. And independent legal norms are, as a matter of fact, coming increasingly closer to one state’s legal system. One state and, of course, first and foremost the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way. This is visible in the economic, political, cultural and educational policies it imposes on other nations. Well, who likes this? Who is happy about this?” (Vladimir Putin’s legendary speech at Munich Security Conference)

While Putin is making this statement, the camera pans to John McCain and Joe Lieberman who are sitting stone-faced in the front row seething at every word uttered by the Russian president. If you look close enough, you can see the steam emerging from McCain’s ears.

This is why Washington wants regime change in Moscow. It’s because Putin refuses to be pushed around by the United States. It’s because he wants a world that is governed by international laws that are impartially administered by the United Nations. It’s because he rejects a “unipolar” world order where one nation dictates policy to everyone else and where military confrontation becomes the preferred way for the powerful to impose their will on the weak.

Putin:

“Today we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force that is plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts…The United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way….And of course this is extremely dangerous. It results in the fact that no one feels safe. I want to emphasize this — no one feels safe.” Vladimir Putin, Munich 2007

Putin isn’t a perfect man. He has his shortcomings and flaws like everyone else. But he appears to be a decent person who has made great strides in restoring Russia’s economy after it was looted by agents of the US following the dissolution of the Soviet Union. He has lifted living standards,  increased pensions,  reduced poverty, and improved education and health care which is why his public approval ratings are currently hovering at an eye-watering 86 percent.  Even so, Putin is most admired for standing up to the United States and blocking its strategy to pivot to Asia. The proxy war in Ukraine is actually a struggle to thwart Washington’s plan to break up the Russian Federation, encircle China, control the flow of resources from Asia to Europe,  and rule the world.   Vladimir Putin is at the forefront of that conflagration which is why he has gained the respect and admiration of people around the world.

As for “democracy”, Putin said it best himself:

“Am I a ‘pure democrat’? (laughs) Of course I am. Absolutely. The problem is that I’m all alone, the only one of my kind in the whole world. Just look at what’s happening in    America, it’s terrible—torture, homeless people, Guantanamo, people detained without trial or investigation.     And look at  Europe—harsh treatment of demonstrators, rubber bullets and tear gas used in one capital after another, demonstrators killed on the streets….. I have no one to talk to since Gandhi died.”

Well said, Vladimir.

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on How Putin Blocked the U.S. Pivot to Asia

Unemployment-Public-Domain-300x300

Nearly at ‘Full Employment’? 10 Reasons Why the Unemployment Numbers Are a Massive Lie, Michael Snyder, March 09, 2015

On Friday, we learned that the official “unemployment rate” has fallen to 5.5 percent. Since an unemployment rate of 5 percent is considered to be “full employment” by many economists, many in the mainstream media took this as a sign…

obama-isis

The Relationship between Washington and ISIS: The Evidence, Prof. Tim Anderson, March 08, 2015

Reports that US and British aircraft carrying arms to ISIS have been shot down by Iraqi forces have been met with shock and denial in western countries. Few in the Middle East doubt that Washington is playing a ‘double game’ with its proxy armies in Syria

putin

The ‘Democrat’ Brzezinski Says Russia’s Putin Wants to Invade NATO, Eric Zuesse, March 08, 2015

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…

THE KUALA LUMPUR INITIATIVE TO CRIMINALISE WAR

The Ultimate War Crime: America’s “Global War on Terrorism”, Prof Michel Chossudovsky, March 08, 2015

The Obama administration has embarked upon the ultimate war crime, a Worldwide military adventure, “a long war”, which threatens the future of humanity. The Pentagon’s global military design is one of world conquest.

Indicting the Supreme Court

How the US Supreme Court Has Treasonously Destroyed America’s Democratic Republic, Joachim Hagopian, March 08, 2015

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…

putin

The Nemtsev Assassination: New Cold War and the Politics of Russia, Michael Welch and Roger Annis, March 08, 2015

“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…

burqa-3

From Afghanistan to Syria: Women’s Rights, War Propaganda and the CIA, Julie Lévesque, March 08, 2015

Western heads of state, UN officials, military spokespersons will invariably praise the humanitarian dimension of the October 2001 US-NATO led invasion of Afghanistan, which allegedly was to fight religious fundamentalists, help little girls go to school, liberate women subjected to the yoke of the Taliban.

rp_monsanto300.jpg

Monsanto’s Deep Legacy Of Corruption And Cover-Up, Barbara Minton, March 08, 2015

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…

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Evidence of Washington’s Links to ISIS, the Global War on Terror and Women’s Rights

Hundreds of people participated in protests over the weekend in Madison, Wisconsin after a police officer gunned down an unarmed nineteen-year-old on Friday.

Anthony Terrell Robinson, Jr. died after Matt Kenny, a twelve-year veteran of the Madison Police Department (MPD), forced his way into Robinson’s home and fatally shot him.

Just hours after the shooting, at least 150 demonstrators gathered near Robinson’s home. The crowd was addressed by relatives of the youth, who said that they were barred from seeing him at the hospital.

“They won’t let his mother in to see him,” declared Lorien Carter, Robinson’s aunt. “They told her that because he’s evidence, she cannot see him… The next time she sees him he’ll be in a casket with embalming fluids.”

Sharon Irwin, Robinson’s grandmother, demanded to know why police responded with lethal force. “He was unarmed. Why would you shoot him five times? What happened to your taser gun?” She shouted at police cordoning off the scene of the shooting, “You’re not protecting us! You’re killing us!”

Kenny was involved in another fatal police shooting in 2007, which was declared to have been a “suicide-by-cop.” The officer received a commendation of valor for his participation in the 2007 shooting.

According to his family, Robinson was preparing to attend Milwaukee Area Technical College to study business.

Authorities declined to reveal how many shots were fired or other details of the incident pending the release of a report by Wisconsin’s Division of Criminal Investigation.

“He was unarmed,” MPD Chief Michael Koval admitted Saturday morning. “And that’s going to make this all the more complicated… for the public, to accept, to understand, and to wait patiently for what other circumstances, if any, were there… such that deadly force had to be used.”

Police said Kenny was investigating calls that Robinson was jumping into traffic and had “hit one of his friends.” Police Chief Koval claimed that Kenny heard a “disturbance” coming from within Robinson’s upstairs apartment, forced entry, entered “mutual combat” with Robinson in which Kenny received a “blow to the head,” and then drew his pistol and shot Robinson multiple times. Following the shooting, Kenny was placed on paid administrative leave.

Andrea Irwin, Robinson’s mother, said in an interview with a local television station that the police killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri last August had deeply affected her son.

“[He] was so into watching everything that happened in Ferguson, and he was one of the people who spoke out about this constantly. And he—to turn around and have him die of the same thing that he was so fearful of, it’s not, it’s not fair, it’s not right… My son is now another statistic of the things that are happening all over the United States. Another black kid shot by the police for no reason.”

Robinson is the 192nd person to be killed by police in the US so far this year. Just since his death, four more people have been killed by police, according to killedbypolice.org, a site that tracks media reports of police killings.

This reign of police violence, which has prompted popular outrage nationwide, has been sanctioned at the highest levels of the state. This has taken the form of a refusal of officials at the local, state and federal levels to prosecute officers responsible for the deaths of unarmed individuals, overwhelmingly poor and working class.

Robinson’s murder came just two days after the US Justice Department said it would not bring charges against Darren Wilson, the Ferguson police officer who killed unarmed teenager Michael Brown on August 9, triggering weeks of protests in the St. Louis suburb and around the country.

On Friday, the same day Robinson was killed, President Obama declared that he had “complete confidence” in and stood by “the decision that was made by the Justice Department” not to bring federal civil rights charges against Wilson.

Speaking before students at a town hall event in Columbia, South Carolina, Obama said, “Officer Wilson, like anybody else who is charged with a crime, benefits from due process and a reasonable doubt standard. And if there is uncertainty about what happened, then you can’t just charge them anyway just because what happened was tragic.”

Obama, a former professor of constitutional law, knows full well that the standard for charging someone with a crime is “probable cause,” a far lower bar than the proof “beyond a reasonable doubt” required to convict a defendant.

The fact is, Wilson and other police involved in recent killings have not been charged, and the standard Obama set forth—certainty of guilt, something that under the US Constitution is to be determined at trial—all but precludes the prosecution of any killer cop.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Wisconsin Cop Guns Down Unarmed Teenager as Obama Whitewashes Ferguson Police Killing

Instead of fearing diseases like measles and succumbing to pharmaceutical company propaganda, the average person should be asking questions like:

Does this vaccine lead to viral shedding?

Is the vaccine I’m considering a live virus vaccine that could infect me?

How does the viral shedding affect others around me, especially those with weaker immune systems?

Any “medicine” that does harm to oneself or others is no medicine at all. It is a weapon of filth with the potential to destroy a person’s quality of life, forcing dependence on further medical intervention and more pharmaceutical products. If a vaccine is capable of spreading the same virus it purports to eliminate, then not only is the vaccine ineffective, but it is a facade, a lie and also a weapon of biological terrorism.

In the case of measles, the population should be asking questions like:

Should I be so afraid of a benign disease like measles and believe in a vaccine that can put myself and others at risk?

How do we strengthen our inherent immune systems so we can face illnesses like measles, to prep our bodies to be able to handle future diseases that are more deadly?

Government documents reveal measles can be spread through MMR vaccinations

The MMR combination vaccine, designed for mumps, measles and rubella, is a live virus onslaught, and for the past 20 years, has been clinically linked to measles infection. Scientists working for the CDC’s National Center for Infectious Diseases made the initial discovery in the early ’90s. They made the connection while working for the National Vaccine Program, analyzing urine samples of newly vaccinated individuals. In the study, the CDC scientists tested the urine of 15-month-old children and a group of young adults who were recently vaccinated with MMR. Their results were published in a 1995 edition of the Journal of Clinical Microbiology. The report, titled “Detection of Measles Virus RNA in Urine Specimens from Vaccine Recipients,” opened up a new can of worms and brought the issue of viral shedding from vaccines to the light.

During the two-week sampling period, the scientists detected measles virus RNA in 10 of the 12 children tested. The virus RNA was detected as early as one day after vaccination and was even measurable up to two weeks later (14 days). Additionally, between 1 and 13 days after vaccination, measles virus RNA was detected in the urine samples of all four young adults tested.

The technology used at the time was called reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). If used correctly today, this technology could be used to detect measles in previously vaccinated individuals and pinpoint asymptomatic measles cases in vaccinated persons. It could also be used to differentiate measles from measles-like symptoms that could be caused from various other pathogens.

However, during the recent Disneyland measles outbreaks, the technology was not used. If it had been, then the origin of the outbreaks could be properly identified and possibly traced back to MMR vaccinated individuals. This would make perfect sense, correlating with the CDC’s own experiments showing how MMR vaccines shed the measles virus.

It is very arrogant and ignorant to suggest that healthy unvaccinated individuals are transmitting disease, but this is the narrative that is often parroted in the mainstream media. What the government knows and what is not revealed by the mainstream media is that virus shedding comes from vaccines, and these vaccine-induced infections put both the vaccinated and the unvaccinated at risk.

We are putting ourselves and others at risk with live virus vaccines

Additional evidence of vaccines spreading measles can be found in reports from the National Vaccine Information Center. On page 34-36 of the report The Emerging Risks of Live Virus & Virus Vectored Vaccines: Vaccine Strain Virus Infection, Shedding & Transmission, Barbara Fisher, president of the NVIC, gives further evidence of how MMR vaccination can lead to measles infection and transmission weeks after vaccination through live virus shedding.

She discusses a 2010 report in Eurosurveillance “about excretion of vaccine strain measles virus in urine and pharyngeal secretions of a Croatian child with vaccine-associated rash illness.” The document reveals, “A healthy 14-month old child was given MMR vaccine and eight days later developed macular rash and fever.”

Notably, “Lab testing of throat and urine samples between two and four weeks after vaccination tested positive for vaccine strain measles virus.”

The authors said that only molecular techniques can differentiate between vaccine-associated disease and wild-type infection. They summarized, “This case report demonstrates that excretion of Schwartz measles virus occurs in vaccinees.”

In a 2013 Eurosurveillance report, a two-year-old Canadian child was infected with measles after recent MMR vaccination. The toddler developed runny nose, fever, cough, macular rash and conjunctivitis. In subsequent throat swab and blood tests, it was confirmed the toddler was infected with measles virus. As reported by GreenMedInfo, the authors stated, “We describe a case of measlesmumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine-associated measles illness that was positive by both PCR and IgM, five weeks after administration of the MMR vaccine.”

They concluded, “Further investigation is needed on the upper limit of measles vaccine virus shedding based on increased sensitivity of the RT-PCR-based detection technologies and immunological factors associated with vaccine-associated measles illness and virus shedding.”

It is important to note that the measles vaccine is not the only live virus vaccine. Potential shedding of viral RNA and the spread of infection is also realistic for the chicken pox vaccine, rotavirus vaccines, nasal spray flu vaccine, yellow fever vaccine, adenovirus vaccine, typhoid, tuberculosis, smallpox and oral polio vaccines.

Sources:

http://www.greenmedinfo.com

http://www.nvic.org[PDF]

Owen Pornillos, Jennifer E. Garrus and Wesley I. Sundquist. “Mechanisms of enveloped RNA virus budding.” Trends in Cell Biology, Volume 12, Issue 12, 1 December 2002, Pages 569-579

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Vaccines Spread Measles, Government Documents Reveals

Egyptian Junta Begins Executions of Islamists

March 9th, 2015 by Alex Lantier

With Saturday’s execution of an Islamist defendant, the first state killing of the hundreds of people sentenced to death in mass show trials following the July 2013 military coup, the US-backed Egyptian junta is stepping up its campaign of police-state terror against the people.

The junta chose to begin the executions with a defendant, Mahmoud Ramadan, who was personally involved in a gruesome crime: the killing of a young man in the Sidi Gaber district of Alexandria during mass protests against Egypt’s Islamist president, Mohamed Mursi, in the run-up to the 2013 coup. It doubtless calculated that the selection of such a target would lend a veneer of legitimacy to its show trials and summary death sentences handed down over the last year.

Ramadan was one of a group of Islamist thugs who assaulted the teenager, who allegedly had thrown rocks at pro-Mursi protesters, and threw him off of a roof—a crime that was captured in a widely-viewed online video. In the video, Ramadan has a black flag inscribed with the Shahada, the Islamic profession of faith—a flag often associated with Al Qaeda.

However heinous the Sidi Gaber murder was, the Egyptian junta of General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi has no political standing to execute Ramadan. It is guilty of far greater crimes against the Egyptian masses, carried out with the support of Washington and the major European powers. After overseeing countless acts of violence against protesters under Mursi prior to the July 2013 coup, the army shot thousands of peaceful protesters opposing the coup in the streets of Cairo and other cities.

In killing Ramadan, the junta’s purpose is the same as in its murder in January of 18 protesters as they marched on the fourth anniversary of the toppling of US-backed Egyptian military dictator Hosni Mubarak. It aims to prevent a renewed revolutionary upsurge of the working class against the military through sheer police terror, making it clear that all political opponents face a potential death sentence.

Ramadan’s trial was a mockery of justice. According to court documents, Ramadan was found guilty of “killing a child by stabbing him and throwing him off the roof.” He was condemned to death in May 2014, a sentence subsequently upheld by Egypt’s Grand Mufti Shawqy Allam, as required by Egyptian law.

The ruling apparently relied on Ramadan’s televised confession following his arrest by the military in which he acknowledged his involvement in the crime. However, Ramadan later admitted only to stabbing the youth, denying that he had thrown him from the roof of the building. The online video does not show Ramadan throwing the youth off the roof.

Ramadan’s lawyers therefore requested that prosecutors provide evidence to prove their client’s involvement in the killing. The prosecutors and the judge simply ignored their requests.

Human rights groups denounced the trial. “The execution happened after an unfair trial where not all the [testimonies] were included, and where the conviction depended on very fragile evidence,” Amnesty International-Egypt researcher Mohamed Elmessiry said. “The execution should not have happened, and a retrial should have been ordered.”

The Arab Organization for Human Rights (AOHR) also condemned the ruling. “The court viewed fabricated evidence and refused to look into evidence that denies the charges from the defendants,” it declared.

A spokesman for Mursi’s Muslim Brotherhood (MB) also condemned the execution. “There is no difference between a murderer with a rifle and a murder on a court bench,” said Mohamed Montaser, adding: “The death sentences are political.”

The counterrevolutionary terror of the Sisi junta relies above all on the support of Washington and its imperialist allies in Europe, who have maintained a deafening silence on Ramadan’s execution. They gave the green light for the mass death sentences last year, handed down in summary rulings issued after show trials of alleged members or supporters of Mursi’s Muslim Brotherhood (MB)–529 in March 2014, 683 in April, and 185 in December.

Though the mass death sentences fell primarily on a right-wing Islamist movement, their political target was the continuing opposition of the working class, the leading force in the revolutionary struggles that broke out four years ago in Tunisia and Egypt.

Between the July 2013 coup and the first mass death sentence in March 2014, the junta attacked waves of strikes and protests that culminated in a strike by workers at textile factories in Mahalla. The junta feared broad popular opposition to its dictatorial methods and free market measures, such as the slashing of food and fuel subsidies for working people as demanded by the International Monetary Fund and the imperialist powers. The subsidy cuts were ultimately introduced by Sisi last July.

Washington and its European allies piled on their support for the Sisi junta as it rained down social cuts and death sentences, rewarding Cairo with ever-closer ties and growing military supplies. The Obama administration delivered Apache attack helicopters to the junta after the March 2014 death sentences and greeted Egyptian Foreign Minister Nabil Fahmy when he visited Washington the day after the April death sentences.

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair became a top advisor to the Sisi junta in July, and France’s Socialist Party government signed billions of dollars in weapons contracts with the junta in Paris shortly before the announcement of December’s mass death sentences.

The role of the Sisi junta as a counterrevolutionary agent of imperialism across the entire Middle East has emerged ever more clearly. Its targeting of Islamists to justify counterrevolutionary violence at home aligned it with the deepening imperialist intervention in the Middle East against the Islamic State (IS) militia and its regional proxies after IS victories in Iraq and Syria last spring.

The Sisi junta has been increasingly integrated into imperialism’s military operations against Islamist militias across the region. As Western military forces began deploying troops back to Iraq and bombing the country, Egypt bombed areas of Libya held by Islamist guerrillas since the 2011 NATO war that toppled the regime of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi.

The bloodletting across the region is dragging Egypt itself deeper into conflict, as the junta faces threats that Islamist groups or domestic militias will retaliate against its show trials with armed struggle or terrorist actions.

“The reply to Ramadan’s execution is an uprising and the [declaration] of jihad,” said Mohamed Galal, a leader in the Islamist Salafi Front.

Egyptian press outlets cited statements by political movements, such as the Popular Resistance in Giza and Revolutionary Punishment, vowing to avenge Ramadan’s execution.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Egyptian Junta Begins Executions of Islamists

In yet another example of the growing trend of the process of acclimatization of the general public to an open military presence on American streets as well as greater cooperation between the US Military and civilian law enforcement, South Carolina was recently the scene of a statewide “emergency preparedness” drill that incorporated both of these aspects in a visible form.

On March 7, 2015, the state-wide drill, entitled Operation Vigilant Guard, took place under the pretext of preparation for the inevitable destruction a hurricane would bring to South Carolina. According to reports in the local media, the drills were based on the premise of the landfall of a Category 4 hurricane and “how they’d respond to get citizens help” in such an event.

The training involved the South Carolina National Guard as well as National Guard units from Georgia in addition to participants from local and state law enforcement agencies as well as local and state “officials.”

In the Florence area, there were at least 400 hundred military personnel involved in the exercise. All in all, however, around 2,000 military personnel participated state-wide and 5,000 participants were involved from South Carolina emergency management Divisions and county divisions of Emergency Management.

According to the National Guard press release announcing the drill,

The South Carolina National Guard, along with state and county emergency management agencies, will conduct a disaster readiness exercise called Vigilant Guard beginning this weekend, part of which will include the mock in-processing of approximately 300 military and civilian personnel Saturday at McCrady Training Center in Eastover.

Joint Reception, Staging, Onward Movement, and Integration, or JRSOI, is the process that will be utilized by the South Carolina National Guard to in-process support personnel from partner agencies during a real-world emergency.

[…]

Vigilant Guard is an eight-day field exercise held March 5-12, taking place at numerous locations across South Carolina. This exercise will test the ability of the National Guard to support response operations based on simulated emergency scenarios such as the landfall of a hurricane, a collapsed building, widespread fires and mass casualties.

The National Guard, along with local, state and federal partners will be deployed to exercise venues in Georgetown, with other sites including Moncks Corner, Spartanburg, Florence, West Columbia and Williamsburg.

While this writer witnessed a portion of the drill in Florence, the application of the drill in Monck’s Corner is what is most disturbing.

In Monck’s Corner, SC National Guard personnel, the Berkeley County Sheriff’s Office, and other state and local “emergency responders” went door to door conducting “wellness checks” on civilian homes. The sight of military personnel going door to door in civilian neighborhoods is beyond creepy to say the least.

As the Press Release on the SC National Guard website states,

The SCNG partnered with the S.C. State Guard, the Berkeley County Sheriff’s Department and other local emergency responders to conduct health and wellness checks in the Overton neighborhood. The joint task force went door-to-door checking on the local residents, assessed their needs and determined how best to meet those needs in a real response.

“In the scenario, our job today was to assist the S.C. State Guard, along with various Berkeley County emergency responders, and perform health and wellness checks for citizens who might have been affected by the storm,” said Sgt. Jeremy Argabright, Bravo Company, 1-118 Infantry.

Such door-to-door “wellness checks” also took place in Overton, S.C.

The portion of the drills that were witnessed by this writer involved a setup of about 9 military tents outside of the Florence, SC airport. A number of trucks were present as well as Humvees, many of which were outfitted with machine gun turrets and machine guns. A sign reading “Region 4: HRF” was posted outside of the airport. HRF stands for Homeland Response Force and Region 4 represents the FEMA region of the area. As the convoy was preparing to leave the field site in front of the airport, a bus had been added to the mix. Many helicopters and chopper sightings were reported as well.

Numerous military vehicles were seen on the streets of Florence throughout the day.

It should be noted, however, that while the local media and the State Guard represented the exercises as having been focused on hurricane landfall and natural disasters, there were unconfirmed reports of artillery being fired in the areas near Florence and Pamplico.

There were other reports suggesting (also not confirmed) that private military contractors may have been involved as well.

Although both the National Guard and the media implied that the Vigilant Guard exercise was state-based, Vigilant Guard is a federally-funded exercise sponsoredby US NORTHCOM that seeks to encourage and further cooperation between Federal, State, and local “emergency management” agencies and “first responders.”

This is perhaps why the same drill took place in North Carolina as well on the same day since the training is based in terms of region. In Charlotte, military personnel practiced providing security for the Water Treatment plant while other personnel drilled on “keeping the peace.”

Of course, few would argue that preparedness and training for emergencies on the part of government agencies, the military, or other appropriate public institutions is a bad idea. However, given the fact that these drills and training operations are clearly being used to acclimatize the general public to seeing and accepting an open military presence on the streets of the U.S., one would be justified in wondering whether or not these drills are truly designed to prepare anything other than the minds of the American people.

Considering what happened in the wake of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans and the treasonous response of the National Guard there, one would certainly hope that lessons have been learned. Unfortunately, the trend of events in the United States tends to point toward more Katrina-style responses, not less.

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 Freedom7 Real ConspiraciesFive 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. 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Military Presence on American Streets: South Carolina National Guard Drills Door-to-Door ”Wellness Checks”

Walt Whitman Rostow, McGeorge Bundy’s successor as national security adviser, shows President Lyndon B. Johnson a model of the Khe Sanh area on Feb. 15, 1968. (Photo: public domain)

Policy intellectuals — eggheads presuming to instruct the mere mortals who actually run for office — are a blight on the republic. Like some invasive species, they infest present-day Washington, where their presence strangles common sense and has brought to the verge of extinction the simple ability to perceive reality. A benign appearance — well-dressed types testifying before Congress, pontificating in print and on TV, or even filling key positions in the executive branch — belies a malign impact. They are like Asian carp let loose in the Great Lakes.

It all began innocently enough.  Back in 1933, with the country in the throes of the Great Depression, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt first imported a handful of eager academics to join the ranks of his New Deal.  An unprecedented economic crisis required some fresh thinking, FDR believed. Whether the contributions of this “Brains Trust” made a positive impact or served to retard economic recovery (or ended up being a wash) remains a subject for debate even today.   At the very least, however, the arrival of Adolph Berle, Raymond Moley, Rexford Tugwell, and others elevated Washington’s bourbon-and-cigars social scene. As bona fide members of the intelligentsia, they possessed a sort of cachet.

Then came World War II, followed in short order by the onset of the Cold War. These events brought to Washington a second wave of deep thinkers, their agenda now focused on “national security.”  This eminently elastic concept — more properly, “national insecurity” — encompassed just about anything related to preparing for, fighting, or surviving wars, including economics, technology, weapons design, decision-making, the structure of the armed forces, and other matters said to be of vital importance to the nation’s survival.  National insecurity became, and remains today, the policy world’s equivalent of the gift that just keeps on giving.

People who specialized in thinking about national insecurity came to be known as “defense intellectuals.”  Pioneers in this endeavor back in the 1950s were as likely to collect their paychecks from think tanks like the prototypical RAND Corporation as from more traditional academic institutions.  Their ranks included creepy figures like Herman Kahn, who took pride in “thinking about the unthinkable,” and Albert Wohlstetter, who tutored Washington in the complexities of maintaining “the delicate balance of terror.”

In this wonky world, the coin of the realm has been and remains “policy relevance.”  This means devising products that convey a sense of novelty, while serving chiefly to perpetuate the ongoing enterprise. The ultimate example of a policy-relevant insight is Dr. Strangelove’s discovery of a “mineshaft gap” — successor to the “bomber gap” and the “missile gap” that, in the 1950s, had found America allegedly lagging behind the Soviets in weaponry and desperately needing to catch up.  Now, with a thermonuclear exchange about to destroy the planet, the United States is once more falling behind, Strangelove claims, this time in digging underground shelters enabling some small proportion of the population to survive.

In a single, brilliant stroke, Strangelove posits a new raison d’être for the entire national insecurity apparatus, thereby ensuring that the game will continue more or less forever.  A sequel to Stanley Kubrick’s movie would have shown General “Buck” Turgidson and the other brass huddled in the War Room, developing plans to close the mineshaft gap as if nothing untoward had occurred.

The Rise of the National Insecurity State

Yet only in the 1960s, right around the time that Dr. Strangelove first appeared in movie theaters, did policy intellectuals really come into their own.  The press now referred to them as “action intellectuals,” suggesting energy and impatience.  Action intellectuals were thinkers, but also doers, members of a “large and growing body of men who choose to leave their quiet and secure niches on the university campus and involve themselves instead in the perplexing problems that face the nation,” as LIFE Magazine put it in 1967. Among the most perplexing of those problems was what to do about Vietnam, just the sort of challenge an action intellectual could sink his teeth into.

Over the previous century-and-a-half, the United States had gone to war for many reasons, including greed, fear, panic, righteous anger, and legitimate self-defense.  On various occasions, each of these, alone or in combination, had prompted Americans to fight.  Vietnam marked the first time that the United States went to war, at least in considerable part, in response to a bunch of really dumb ideas floated by ostensibly smart people occupying positions of influence.  More surprising still, action intellectuals persisted in waging that war well past the point where it had become self-evident, even to members of Congress, that the cause was a misbegotten one doomed to end in failure.

In his fine new book American Reckoning: The Vietnam War and Our National Identity, Christian Appy, a historian who teaches at the University of Massachusetts, reminds us of just how dumb those ideas were.

As Exhibit A, Professor Appy presents McGeorge Bundy, national security adviser first for President John F. Kennedy and then for Lyndon Johnson.  Bundy was a product of Groton and Yale, who famously became the youngest-ever dean of Harvard’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences, having gained tenure there without even bothering to get a graduate degree.

For Exhibit B, there is Walt Whitman Rostow, Bundy’s successor as national security adviser.  Rostow was another Yalie, earning his undergraduate degree there along with a PhD.  While taking a break of sorts, he spent two years at Oxford as a Rhodes scholar.  As a professor of economic history at MIT, Rostow captured JFK’s attention with his modestly subtitled 1960 bookThe Stages of Economic Growth:  A Non-Communist Manifesto, which offered a grand theory of development with ostensibly universal applicability.  Kennedy brought Rostow to Washington to test his theories of “modernization” in places like Southeast Asia.

Finally, as Exhibit C, Appy briefly discusses Professor Samuel P. Huntington’s contributions to the Vietnam War.  Huntington also attended Yale, before earning his PhD at Harvard and then returning to teach there, becoming one of the most renowned political scientists of the post-World War II era.

What the three shared in common, apart from a suspect education acquired in New Haven, was an unwavering commitment to the reigning verities of the Cold War.  Foremost among those verities was this: that a monolith called Communism, controlled by a small group of fanatic ideologues hidden behind the walls of the Kremlin, posed an existential threat not simply to America and its allies, but to the very idea of freedom itself.  The claim came with this essential corollary: the only hope of avoiding such a cataclysmic outcome was for the United States to vigorously resist the Communist threat wherever it reared its ugly head.

Buy those twin propositions and you accept the imperative of the U.S. preventing the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, a.k.a. North Vietnam, from absorbing the Republic of Vietnam, a.k.a. South Vietnam, into a single unified country; in other words, that South Vietnam was a cause worth fighting and dying for.  Bundy, Rostow, and Huntington not only bought that argument hook, line, and sinker, but then exerted themselves mightily to persuade others in Washington to buy it as well.

Yet even as he was urging the “Americanization” of the Vietnam War in 1965, Bundy already entertained doubts about whether it was winnable.  But not to worry:  even if the effort ended in failure, he counseled President Johnson, “the policy will be worth it.”

How so?  “At a minimum,” Bundy wrote, “it will damp down the charge that we did not do all that we could have done, and this charge will be important in many countries, including our own.”  If the United States ultimately lost South Vietnam, at least Americans would have died trying to prevent that result — and through some perverted logic this, in the estimation of Harvard’s youngest-ever dean, was a redeeming prospect.  The essential point, Bundy believed, was to prevent others from seeing the United States as a “paper tiger.”  To avoid a fight, even a losing one, was to forfeit credibility.  “Not to have it thought that when we commit ourselves we really mean no major risk” — that was the problem to be avoided at all cost.

Rostow outdid even Bundy in hawkishness.  Apart from his relentless advocacy of coercive bombing to influence North Vietnamese policymakers, Rostow was a chief architect of something called the Strategic Hamlet Program.  The idea was to jumpstart the Rostovian process of modernization by forcibly relocating Vietnamese peasants from their ancestral villages into armed camps where the Saigon government would provide security, education, medical care, and agricultural assistance.  By winning hearts-and-minds in this manner, the defeat of the communist insurgency was sure to follow, with the people of South Vietnam vaulted into the “age of high mass consumption,” where Rostow believed all humankind was destined to end up.

That was the theory.  Reality differed somewhat.  Actual Strategic Hamlets were indistinguishable from concentration camps.  The government in Saigon proved too weak, too incompetent, and too corrupt to hold up its end of the bargain.  Rather than winning hearts-and-minds, the program induced alienation, even as it essentially destabilized peasant society.  One result: an increasingly rootless rural population flooded into South Vietnam’s cities where there was little work apart from servicing the needs of the ever-growing U.S. military population — hardly the sort of activity conducive to self-sustaining development.

Yet even when the Vietnam War ended in complete and utter defeat, Rostow still claimed vindication for his theory.  “We and the Southeast Asians,” he wrote, had used the war years “so well that there wasn’t the panic [when Saigon fell] that there would have been if we had failed to intervene.”  Indeed, regionally Rostow spied plenty of good news, all of it attributable to the American war.

”Since 1975 there has been a general expansion of trade by the other countries of that region with Japan and the West.  In Thailand we have seen the rise of a new class of entrepreneurs.  Malaysia and Singapore have become countries of diverse manufactured exports.  We can see the emergence of a much thicker layer of technocrats in Indonesia.”

So there you have it. If you want to know what 58,000 Americans (not to mention vastly larger numbers of Vietnamese) died for, it was to encourage entrepreneurship, exports, and the emergence of technocrats elsewhere in Southeast Asia.

Appy describes Professor Huntington as another action intellectual with an unfailing facility for seeing the upside of catastrophe.  In Huntington’s view, the internal displacement of South Vietnamese caused by the excessive use of American firepower, along with the failure of Rostow’s Strategic Hamlets, was actually good news.  It promised, he insisted, to give the Americans an edge over the insurgents.

The key to final victory, Huntington wrote, was “forced-draft urbanization and modernization which rapidly brings the country in question out of the phase in which a rural revolutionary movement can hope to generate sufficient strength to come to power.”  By emptying out the countryside, the U.S. could win the war in the cities.  “The urban slum, which seems so horrible to middle-class Americans, often becomes for the poor peasant a gateway to a new and better way of life.”  The language may be a tad antiseptic, but the point is clear enough: the challenges of city life in a state of utter immiseration would miraculously transform those same peasants into go-getters more interested in making a buck than in signing up for social revolution.

Revisited decades later, claims once made with a straight face by the likes of Bundy, Rostow, and Huntington — action intellectuals of the very first rank — seem beyond preposterous.  They insult our intelligence, leaving us to wonder how such judgments or the people who promoted them were ever taken seriously.

How was it that during Vietnam bad ideas exerted such a perverse influence?  Why were those ideas so impervious to challenge?  Why, in short, was it so difficult for Americans to recognize bullshit for what it was?

Creating a Twenty-First-Century Slow-Motion Vietnam

These questions are by no means of mere historical interest. They are no less relevant when applied to the handiwork of the twenty-first-century version of policy intellectuals, specializing in national insecurity, whose bullshit underpins policies hardly more coherent than those used to justify and prosecute the Vietnam War.

The present-day successors to Bundy, Rostow, and Huntington subscribe to their own reigning verities.  Chief among them is this: that a phenomenon called terrorism or Islamic radicalism, inspired by a small group of fanatic ideologues hidden away in various quarters of the Greater Middle East, poses an existential threat not simply to America and its allies, but — yes, it’s still with us — to the very idea of freedom itself.  That assertion comes with an essential corollary dusted off and imported from the Cold War: the only hope of avoiding this cataclysmic outcome is for the United States to vigorously resist the terrorist/Islamist threat wherever it rears its ugly head.

At least since September 11, 2001, and arguably for at least two decades prior to that date, U.S. policymakers have taken these propositions for granted.  They have done so at least in part because few of the policy intellectuals specializing in national insecurity have bothered to question them.

Indeed, those specialists insulate the state from having to address such questions.  Think of them as intellectuals devoted to averting genuine intellectual activity.  More or less like Herman Kahn and Albert Wohlstetter (or Dr. Strangelove), their function is to perpetuate the ongoing enterprise.

The fact that the enterprise itself has become utterly amorphous may actually facilitate such efforts.  Once widely known as the Global War on Terror, or GWOT, it has been transformed into the War with No Name.  A little bit like the famous Supreme Court opinion on pornography: we can’t define it, we just know it when we see it, with ISIS the latest manifestation to capture Washington’s attention.

All that we can say for sure about this nameless undertaking is that it continues with no end in sight.  It has become a sort of slow-motion Vietnam, stimulating remarkably little honest reflection regarding its course thus far or prospects for the future.  If there is an actual Brains Trust at work in Washington, it operates on autopilot.  Today, the second- and third-generation bastard offspring of RAND that clutter northwest Washington — the Center for this, the Institute for that — spin their wheels debating latter day equivalents of Strategic Hamlets, with nary a thought given to more fundamental concerns.

What prompts these observations is Ashton Carter’s return to the Pentagon as President Obama’s fourth secretary of defense.  Carter himself is an action intellectual in the Bundy, Rostow, Huntington mold, having made a career of rotating between positions at Harvard and in “the Building.”  He, too, is a Yalie and a Rhodes scholar, with a PhD. from Oxford.  “Ash” — in Washington, a first-name-only identifier (“Henry,” “Zbig,” “Hillary”) signifies that you have truly arrived — is the author of books and articles galore, including one op-ed co-written with former Secretary of Defense William Perry back in 2006 calling for preventive war against North Korea.  Military action “undoubtedly carries risk,” he bravely acknowledged at the time. “But the risk of continuing inaction in the face of North Korea’s race to threaten this country would be greater” — just the sort of logic periodically trotted out by the likes of Herman Kahn and Albert Wohlstetter.

As Carter has taken the Pentagon’s reins, he also has taken pains to convey the impression of being a big thinker.  As one Wall Street Journal headlineenthused, “Ash Carter Seeks Fresh Eyes on Global Threats.”  That multiple global threats exist and that America’s defense secretary has a mandate to address each of them are, of course, givens.  His predecessor Chuck Hagel (no Yale degree) was a bit of a plodder.  By way of contrast, Carter has made clear his intention to shake things up.

So on his second day in office, for example, he dined with Kenneth Pollack, Michael O’Hanlon, and Robert Kagan, ranking national insecurity intellectuals and old Washington hands one and all.  Besides all being employees of the Brookings Institution, the three share the distinction ofhaving supported the Iraq War back in 2003 and calling for redoubling efforts against ISIS today.  For assurances that the fundamental orientation of U.S. policy is sound — we just need to try harder — who better to consult thanPollackO’Hanlon, and Kagan (any Kagan)?

Was Carter hoping to gain some fresh insight from his dinner companions?  Or was he letting Washington’s clubby network of fellows, senior fellows, and distinguished fellows know that, on his watch, the prevailing verities of national insecurity would remain sacrosanct?  You decide.

Soon thereafter, Carter’s first trip overseas provided another opportunity to signal his intentions.  In Kuwait, he convened a war council of senior military and civilian officials to take stock of the campaign against ISIS.  In a daring departure from standard practice, the new defense secretary prohibited PowerPoint briefings.  One participant described the ensuing event as “a five-hour-long college seminar” — candid and freewheeling.  “This is reversing the paradigm,” one awed senior Pentagon official remarked.  Carter was said to be challenging his subordinates to “look at this problem differently.”

Of course, Carter might have said, “Let’s look at a different problem.” That, however, was far too radical to contemplate — the equivalent of suggesting back in the 1960s that assumptions landing the United States in Vietnam should be reexamined.

In any event — and to no one’s surprise — the different look did not produce a different conclusion.  Instead of reversing the paradigm, Carter affirmed it: the existing U.S. approach to dealing with ISIS is sound, he announced.  It only needs a bit of tweaking — just the result to give the Pollacks, O’Hanlons, and Kagans something to write about as they keep up the chatter that substitutes for serious debate.

Do we really need that chatter? Does it enhance the quality of U.S. policy? If policy/defense/action intellectuals fell silent would America be less secure?

Let me propose an experiment. Put them on furlough. Not permanently — just until the last of the winter snow finally melts in New England. Send them back to Yale for reeducation. Let’s see if we are able to make do without them even for a month or two.

In the meantime, invite Iraq and Afghanistan War vets to consider how best to deal with ISIS.  Turn the op-ed pages of major newspapers over to high school social studies teachers. Book English majors from the Big Ten on the Sunday talk shows. Who knows what tidbits of wisdom might turn up?

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Rationalizing Lunacy: The Intellectual as Servant of the State and Perpetual War

A federal lawsuit has been filed against the chemical company Dupont by residents of West Virginia after being poisoned with a chemical called C8. The plaintiffs seek damages from Dupont for contaminating their drinking water.

DuPont has a habit of poisoning people – as many chemical companies do. The company has been sued hundreds of times for contamination both the environment and humankind. The chemical C8 is used to make the product Teflon, which can cause liver, prostate, and testicular cancer. Dupont was aware of this danger for a long time, but continued to use it in the manufacturing of products anyway.

As early as the 1950s, Dupont knew just how dangerous C8 could be to human beings. In the name of profit, white collar criminals decided to ignore the facts.

DuPont dumped C8 chemicals into two local aquifers, whereupon West Virginia residents have been drinking the poisoned water for years.

DuPont knew since the 1980s that the chemical-water was causing birth defects, and could have acted then, but still chose to do nothing. 3M, one company who was using Teflon, even told DuPont that they didn’t want to use their product anymore due to the dangers it posed to public health.

Most notable of the non-stick cookware dangers, chemical compounds known as perfluorinated compounds are also emitted from using this cookware. Once the compounds become heated, they are considered to be a potentially deadly vapor gas if taken in too quickly. Perfluorinated compounds are amongst many non stick surfaces, as well as in popcorn packaging, french fry boxing, candy bar wrappers as well as  other various food items. It is best to stay away from anything that may contain perfluorinated compounds in them.

DuPont continues to sell their cancer-causing chemically laden Teflon to this day.

DuPont had criminal intent if they knew their products were poisoning people. Not only should they pay fines to West Virginia residents, but they should do time. DuPont’s motto – “better things for better living – through chemistry” – is a farce.

You can watch Mike Papantonio talk about the case further in this video.


Follow us: @naturalsociety on Twitter | NaturalSociety on Facebook

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Major Chemical Company Dupont “Poisoned Water Supply” for 50 Years

Real U.S. Unemployment Rate at 23.2%, not 5.5%

March 9th, 2015 by Global Research News

The seasonally-adjusted SGS Alternate Unemployment Rate reflects current unemployment reporting methodology adjusted for SGS-estimated long-term discouraged workers, who were defined out of official existence in 1994. That estimate is added to the BLS estimate of U-6 unemployment, which includes short-term discouraged workers.

The U-3 unemployment rate is the monthly headline number. The U-6 unemployment rate is the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) broadest unemployment measure, including short-term discouraged and other marginally-attached workers as well as those forced to work part-time because they cannot find full-time employment.

The ShadowStats Alternate Unemployment Rate for January 2015 is 23.2%.

Unemployment Data Series   subcription required(Subscription required.)  View  Download Excel CSV File   Last Updated: March 6th, 2015

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Real U.S. Unemployment Rate at 23.2%, not 5.5%

On Friday, we learned that the official “unemployment rate” has fallen to 5.5 percent. Since an unemployment rate of 5 percent is considered to be “full employment” by many economists, many in the mainstream media took this as a sign that the U.S. economy has almost fully “recovered” since the last recession.  In fact, according to the Wall Street Journal, some Federal Reserve officials believe that “the U.S. economy is already at full employment“.  But how can this possibly be?  It certainly does not square with reality.  Personally, I know people that have been struggling with unemployment for years and that still cannot find a decent job.  And I get emails from readers all the time that are heartbroken because they are suffering through extended periods of unemployment.  So what in the world is going on?  How can the government be telling us that we are nearly at “full employment” when so many people can’t find work?  Could it be possible that the government numbers are misleading?

It is my contention that the official “unemployment rate” has become so politicized and so manipulated that it is essentially meaningless at this point.  The following are 10 reasons why…

#1 Since February 2008, the size of the U.S. population has grown by 16.8 million people, but the number of full-time jobs has actually decreased by 140,000.

#2 The percentage of working age Americans that have a job right now is still about the same as it was during the depths of the last recession.  Posted below is a chart that shows how the employment-population ratio has changed since the beginning of the decade.  Does this look like a full-blown “employment recovery” to you?…

 

#3 The primary reason for the decline in the official “unemployment rate” is the fact that the government now considers millions upon millions of long-term unemployed workers to “no longer be in the labor force”.  Just check out the following numbers

The number of Americans participating in the labor force has been on a decline for the past few years. Nearly 33 percent of the Americans above age 16 are not part of the workforce, the highest number since 1978. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) report issued recently has found 92,898,000 Americans above age 16 not a part of the labor force of the country as on February 2015.

When President Obama took over the office in January 2009, nearly 80,529,000 Americans were not a part of the labor force. The number has increase by nearly 12 million over the last few years.

#4 Over the past couple of years, the labor force participation rate in this country has been hovering near mutli-decade lows

The labor force participation rate hovered between 62.9 percent and 62.7 percent in the eleven months from April 2014 through February, and has been 62.9 percent or lower in 13 of the 17 months since October 2013.

Prior to that, the last time the rate was below 63 percent was 37 years ago, in March 1978 when it was 62.8 percent, the same rate it was in February.

#5 When you add the number of “officially unemployed” Americans (8.7 million) to the number of Americans “not in the labor force” (92.9 million), you get a grand total of 101.6 million working age Americans that do not have a job right now.  Does that sound like “full employment” to you?

#6 The quality of our jobs continues to decline.  Right now, only 44 percent of U.S. adults are employed for 30 or more hours each week.

#7 Millions upon millions of Americans have been forced to take part-time jobs because that is all they can find, and wages for American workers are at depressingly low levels.  The following numbers come directly from the Social Security Administration

-39 percent of American workers make less than $20,000 a year.

-52 percent of American workers make less than $30,000 a year.

-63 percent of American workers make less than $40,000 a year.

-72 percent of American workers make less than $50,000 a year.

#8 The average duration of unemployment for an unemployed worker is still about twice as long as it was just prior to the last recession.

#9 Most Americans feel as though the Obama administration has done little to nothing to help the middle class.  Just consider the following poll numbers

According to a new poll by the Pew Research Center, Americans see government policies under the Obama administration as having mostly benefited wealthy people, large corporations and financial institutions.

Seventy-two percent of respondents said government policies have done little or nothing to help the middle class, and 65 percent said they have done nothing to help the poor. Sixty-eight percent said the policies have done nothing to help small businesses.

Meanwhile, 45 percent said the policies have done a “great deal” to help large banks and financial institutions, 38 percent say they have helped large corporations, and 36 percent say they have helped the wealthy.

#10 If the unemployment rate was calculated honestly, we would all be talking about the horrific “unemployment crisis” that we were currently enduring.  According to John Williams of shadowstats.com, the real unemployment rate in the United States right now is above 23 percent.

Our politicians and the mainstream media are attempting to convince us that everything is just fine.

But what they are telling us simply does not match the cold, hard reality on the streets.

And since the talking heads on television are proclaiming that we are nearly at “full employment”, that just makes millions upon millions of Americans that can’t seem to find work no matter how hard they try feel even worse than they already do.

If jobs are “easy to get”, then those that are chronically unemployment must have “something wrong” with them.  That is the message that we are being given.  If the mainstream media says that unemployment has gone way down, then anyone that is still unemployed must be really “lazy”, right?

When you are unemployed for an extended period of time, it can really suck the life right out of you.  It can be really tempting to believe that you are viewed as a failure by your family and friends.  And for the government to lie to us like this just makes things even harder.

If you are unemployed and can’t find a job right now, I want you to understand that you are caught in the midst of a long-term downward economic spiral which is going to get a lot worse.

When the government tells you that we are in a “recovery”, they are lying to you.

And when the government tells you that things are about to get a lot better, they are lying to you.

Everyone has times in their lives when they get knocked down.

The key is to always get back up and to never, ever stop fighting.

Yes, we are facing some really hard economic times.  But that does not mean that your life is over.  Never give up, and never give in to fear.  Just do what you can with what you have today, and tomorrow get up and fight with everything that you have got.

The truth is that the best chapters of your life could be just around the corner.

Just don’t sit back and wait for the government to save you.  If you are waiting for the government to save you, then you are going to be deeply disappointed.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Nearly at ‘Full Employment’? 10 Reasons Why the Unemployment Numbers Are a Massive Lie

The US plan to train Ukrainian national guard troops is put “on hold” pending implementation of Minsk accords in Ukraine. U.S. Army Europe Commanding General Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges said Washington was keen to see a ceasefire deal signed in Minsk between Kiev and pro-Russian resistance movement implemented. “We are prepared to conduct training at the request of the Ukrainian government. But my government is obviously anxious to see the Minsk ceasefire agreement fulfilled and has put on hold this training mission,” Hodges told the Anadolu Agency in an exclusive interview on March 3. (1)

The U.S. was planning to train three Ukrainian battalions this month. A paratrooper battalion assigned to the 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team in Vicenza, northeast Italy, has already been readied for the deployment. The training mission was first announced in August last year and had been due to start this March. One battalion of U.S. soldiers is due to train three Ukrainian National Guard battalions. Pentagon press secretary Rear Adm. John Kirby said the training would take place inside Ukraine at an international peacekeeping and security center. “It’s an area where we do multilateral exercises. It’s an area that we’re familiar with,” said Kirby. The instructors were to move to the Yavoriv Training Area near the city of L’viv — which is about 40 miles from the Polish border.

On March 6, a spokesman for U.S. forces in Europe confirmed the delay in a statement and said: “The U.S. government would like to see the Minsk agreement fulfilled.”

The training mission has been the subject of plenty of discussion among US policy makers for months, and the United States has already earmarked $19 million to help build the Ukrainian National Guard. “We’re very open to the idea that this becomes a first step in further training for the Ukrainian military,” Derek Chollet, former assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs, told Defense News. (2) One of the biggest challenges for US policy makers is trying to discern “where could this lead and how does this make us think anew about European security issues and force posture issues or defense spending issues?” he added.

The move comes as more Democrats and Republicans in Congress have increased the pressure of the administration for US assistance to Ukrainian forces.  House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner and other senior Republican and Democratic House members urged Barack Obama to expedite the authorization of lethal weapons for Ukraine, according to a letter released on March 5. “We urge you to quickly approve additional efforts to support Ukraine’s efforts to defend its sovereign territory, including through the transfer of lethal, defensive weapons systems to the Ukrainian military,” they wrote in a letter, dated March 4 and signed by eight Republicans and three Democrats. (3) The letter followed up on a meeting between Boehner, other members of Congress and Ukrainian lawmakers in late February.

The list of letter signatories includes Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, who said at his February 2015 confirmation hearing that he would consider sending weapons to Ukraine. On March 2, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said he believed the United States should send guns. They were joined by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey, who told the Senate Armed Services Committee Tuesday that the United States “should absolutely consider lethal aid” to Ukraine that would be funneled through NATO.

The House and U.S. Senate voted unanimously late last year for a bill authorizing Obama to provide weapons to Kiev but he has yet to decide whether to send any.

The White House has reserved the right to consider sending lethal assistance to Kiev but has favored the European strategy of economic pressure over direct infusions of lethal military force. “If, in fact, diplomacy fails, what I’ve asked my team to do is to look at all options — what other means can we put in place to change Mr. Putin’s calculus — and the possibility of lethal defensive weapons is one of those options that’s being examined,” Obama said during a Feb. 9, 2015, press conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. (4)

The mission comes at a time of increasing concern among Eastern European countries that the fighting in the eastern Ukraine may spark again. On February 12, the leaders of Russia, Ukraine, France and Germany approved the long awaited peace deal in Minsk. The agreement introduced measures such as a ceasefire – which commenced February 15 – a pullout of heavy weapons, and constitutional reform in Ukraine by the end of the year. Obama and European leaders are weighing their next steps in dealing with the conflict in eastern Ukraine, including possibly providing weapons as well as additional sanctions against Moscow over its role in supporting rebels.

The U.S. and the EU announced a new round of sanctions toward Russia this week and have concentrated on providing non-lethal support for the Ukrainian forces. “The focus of our assistance remains on non-lethal. We continue to review requests for military assistance from the government of Ukraine through an interagency process,” Kirby said.

Warning voices about the involvement into Ukraine are raised inside the United States. Michael Kofman is a well-known defense expert. In his piece Start a Proxy War with Russia published in the February issue of National Interest journal, he writes, “Arming the Ukrainian government would be a bad idea, no matter what the next defense secretary says.” Kofman warns that:

“Sending a mix of weapons to Ukraine is unlikely to improve the situation, given the overwhelming force-on-force mismatch the country faces against Russia, but it could add fuel to a fire that is steadily consuming the country’s chances of emerging as a new nation on a European path.” According to him, “by giving Ukraine the ability to kill more Russian soldiers, sending weapons would raise the costs of war for Moscow to an unacceptable level, thus forcing Russia to abandon its existing policy and thus deterring further aggression. The weakness in the armaments proposal is that it offers no vision for what a new political settlement to the current conflict might look like.” The expert emphasizes that, “If Obama sends weapons, it’ll get the U.S. into a “proxy war” against Russia, and one that we’ll almost certainly lose.”

The warning voices don’t prevent the US from choosing a dangerous path to stride. Step by step the US continues to move on the way to deteriorate its relationship with Russia.

On March 6, some major Russian banks saw about $640 million of assets frozen in the U.S. in a move “to punish” Russia for its stance on Ukraine. U.S. President Barack Obama issued an order to extend by one year a series of sanctions against Russia over its role in the Ukraine crisis, the White House said on March 3. (5)

The President said he was extending U.S. sanctions imposed on Russia last March and December in light of the continuing “unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.”

Ukraine is not the only issue to deteriorate the bilateral relationship. Washington and Moscow have long questioned each other’s commitment to the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty that eliminated nuclear and conventional ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with a range of 500-5,500 km (300-3,400 miles) near the end of the Cold War. The US has said Moscow’s testing of a ground-launched cruise missile violated the treaty. Russia argues that Washington’s use of drones and other intermediate-range arms amounts to a violation. Ashton Carter, the President Barack Obama’s nominee to become the next U.S. Defense Secretary said on March 4 that Russia needed to be reminded that a Cold War-era arms control agreement was a “two-way street” and that Washington could respond to any violations. According to Carter, the United States has a range of actions it could take, including defensive and deterrent steps, if Russia violates the treaty. (6)

Hans Kristensen, a member of the Federation of American Scientists, told Russian online newspaper Vzglaid from a technical point of view, even if the Russian side tests a new missile, it is not a breach of the contract as long as it does not go into production and will not be put into service. (7)

The list of US-initiated statements and actions hostile to Russia can be easily continued…

On February 6, the Project on International Order and Strategy hosted U.S. National Security Advisor Susan Rice for the launch of President Obama’s National Security Strategy (NSS), which outlines the president’s foreign policy vision and priorities. (1)

In a nutshell, it’s the same good old song and dance about US global leadership and exceptional role to make America dominate the world. Launching the strategy at Brookings Institution, US National Security Advisor Susan E. Rice said, “Across a range of issues with an array of partners, the United States is proudly shouldering the responsibilities of global leadership.” According to her,

“The question is not whether America leads in the world, but how. And the answer is we are pursuing an ambitious yet achievable agenda, worthy of a great power. The president’s budget directly supports his strategy. Our national security leadership is united around this shared vision and agenda”. (2)

On the discussion of whether or not to provide Ukraine with more assistance, including defensive arms, she said that:

“We are already providing military assistance to Ukraine. We have not taken the decision yet to up the nature of that assistance to include lethal defensive equipment. It’s something that’s under consideration, but obviously it is a significant step and we will want to do so in close consultation and in coordination with our partners.” (3)

The document offers no pithy foreign policy guidelines. Nevertheless, the NSS breaks new ground in its emphasis on strategic patience, its broad view of national security, and its preoccupation with world order. The document states that “strong and sustained American leadership remains essential, as ever. Maintaining a national defense that is the best trained, equipped, and led force in the world.” (4)

Consistent with previous NSS documents, the 2015 version starts with separate chapters explaining how the United States will advance its “security” goals, its “economic” objectives, and its “values” (particularly by promoting democracy and human rights). The final chapter explains how the United States will deter and respond to instability resulting from the misbehavior of influential states and the actions of malevolent non-state actors. It calls on the US to “fortify” the institutional foundations of a rules-based order, while “helping it evolve to meet the wide range of challenges described throughout this strategy.” The global order remains resilient. “Despite undeniable strains,” the strategy notes, “the vast majority of states do not want to replace the system we have.” Rather, what other countries are looking for is firm U.S. leadership, including a willingness to “exact an appropriate cost on transgressors” who violate international rules of the road.

In Europe, the United States reaffirms the importance of NATO as “the hub of a global security network,” and pledges to deepen its cooperation with the EU in countering Russian “aggression” in Ukraine, which has violated longstanding “international rules and norms.”

The strategy repeatedly mentions Russia’s alleged “intervention” in Ukraine as a key foreign policy challenge for the administration. As the White House is weighing whether to ship defensive military weapons to Ukraine, the national security strategy hints at potential new assistance for “partners” such as the government in Kiev. “We will deter Russian aggression, remain alert to its strategic capabilities, and help our allies and partners resist Russian coercion over the long term, if necessary,” the strategy document warns. All in all, the document uses the word Russia 16 times. 12 times the country is mentioned in the context of “aggression”, “violence” and “hostility.” Russia is accused of all evil-doing in the world including outright “aggression and interference into other states’ internal affairs”.

The US realizes that Russia is a much harder nut to crack in comparison with Yugoslavia, Lebanon or Iraq. So the NSS points out that “The United States will “continue to impose significant costs” on Russia, but it will avoid a Cold War, keeping the “door open” to greater collaboration “in areas of common interests, should it choose a different path.”

Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin stated in his latest interview that the leaders of France and Germany genuinely want to find a compromise that would help end the conflict in eastern Ukraine. Speaking to Rossiya 1 TV channel on the conflict and the breakthrough of the Minsk agreement, Putin said that “it seemed to me [the leaders of France and Germany], have a genuine desire to find such compromise solutions that would lead to the final settlement [of the conflict]…” “I had the impression that our partners have more trust in us than distrust, and in any case believe in our sincerity,” Putin noted on February 23. (5)

If the US were to supply Ukraine with ammunition and weapons, it would “explode the whole situation” in eastern Ukraine and Russia would be forced to respond “appropriately,” Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov said On February 24. (6) “It would be a major blow to the Minsk agreements and would explode the whole situation,” he was quoted saying. Moscow would not be able to remain indifferent “to such provocative actions,” he added. “We’ll have to respond appropriately.”

“Is that necessary for those who are allegedly calling for the normalization of the situation in Ukraine? I have serious doubts. People may be irresponsible in their actions, but there must be an end to this madness [of] indulging Kiev’s warmongering,” explained Ryabkov.

The Russian Foreign Ministry official statement (7) says:

“We have repeatedly informed US representatives about our serious concern regarding Washington’s intention to provide modern lethal weapons to Kiev, directly or through intermediaries, under the Ukraine Freedom Support Act, which permits and even encourages these deliveries.” It adds, “It would also deliver a huge blow to Russian-US relations, especially if US weapons are used to kill people in Donbass. We are also warning the US Administration against moving weapons and military equipment from Afghanistan to Ukraine following the completion of the ISAF mission.”

Relations between Russia and the US are at their lowest ebb since the Cold War but the fact that the Obama administration put on hold the training of Ukraine’s national guards at the last moment, as well as the decision on lethal arms supplies, shows the President realizes the threat. The steps already taken and planned will no doubt put the US on the way to being dragged into another conflict to sap the country’s resources and put it into dangerous confrontation with Russia, a powerful country to reckon with. The far-away Ukraine, is it where the US vital interests are? Does the United States really believe it has an axe to grind in Ukraine? Does it serve the interests of common Americans? No way! But the pressure is really hard. The hawks in Congress will go to any length aggravating things even further. The US has already gone far enough down by the slippery slope. Can it stop in time to prevent the worst? Can the administration resist the pressure? That is the question.

Notes:

  1. http://www.aa.com.tr/en/news/473917–us-suspends-plans-to-train-ukrainian-military
  2. http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/land/army/2015/01/21/ukraine-us-army-russia/22119315/
  3. http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/05/us-ukraine-crisis-congress-idUSKBN0M11V120150305
  4. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/0a197070089a4a769a6c73f2122b90b8/us-official-obama-still-weighing-sending-arms-ukraine
  5. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/03/03/notice-continuation-national-emergency-respect-ukraine
  6. http://news.yahoo.com/u-must-warn-russia-arms-treaty-two-way-001434576.html
  7. http://vz.ru/news/2015/2/24/731171.html
  8. http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/brookings-now/posts/2015/02/susan-rice-2015-national-security-strategy
  9. ibid
  10. ibid
  11. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2015_national_security_strategy_2.pdf
  12. http://rt.com/news/234911-us-arming-kiev-explosive/
  13. http://rt.com/news/234911-us-arming-kiev-explosive/)
  14. http://www.mid.ru/brp_4.nsf/0/0242E25EDF4EE67743257DE40032C022

Andrei AKULOV, Russia, Moscow-based expert on military and political issues, Colonel, ret.

Education: Defense Institute of Foreign languages (1979), Defense Diplomatic Academy (1992), NATO school (2001, 2003), George Marshall European Center for Security Studies (2003)

Experience: military service, Colonel, retired (1999), vast experience of participation in NATO’s Partnership for Peace program. After retirement – Institute of USA and Canadian Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences, research fellow (since 1999 till summer 2005). At present – freelancer.

Languages – English (fluent, writing experience), French, Spanish.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Facing Options under Mounting Pressure: US at Crossroads on Ukraine

A study released Tuesday by the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) found that the FBI’s official annual tally of police homicides persistently undercounted police killings by more than half.

Even before the BJS study, the FBI’s annual statistics of “justifiable homicides” were widely known to be a significant undercount. A list compiled on the website Killed by Police of every police killing mentioned in the American media includes more than 2,000 deaths since May 2013.

The BJS study found that, on average, police killed 928 people per year between 2003-2009 and 2011, almost two and a half times higher than the FBI figure of 383. A total of 2,103 killings went unacknowledged by the FBI during that period.

The FBI’s figures are based on voluntary reporting by local police agencies, with no standard reporting methodology, and are “estimated to cover 46 percent of officer-involved homicides at best,” according to the report. This is despite the fact that regular annual reports to the federal government on police brutality statistics has been legally required since the 1994 passage of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act.

Every year, many states do not report any figures to the federal government at all. In 2009, for example, only 42 states sent reports. The eight states plus the District of Columbia that did not had a combined population of over 30 million as of the 2010 Census.

Even the wildly inaccurate FBI figures, however, cannot conceal the explosive growth of police violence. Last November, it was reported that 2013, the last year for which FBI statistics are available, saw the highest level of police killings on record, while the number of police killed on duty dropped to its lowest level in decades. Since that time, nearly 300 additional people have been killed by law enforcement.

Unarmed man shot in face, killed by Florida SWAT officer during drug arrest

Twenty-six-year-old Derek Cruice was fatally shot in the face early Wednesday morning by a Florida SWAT officer working during a drug arrest at his home in Deltona, northeast of Orlando.

A statement from the Volusia County Sheriff’s office claimed that Cruice “advanced” on officer Todd Raible, who was there as part of a narcotics team, as he entered the doorway, “[causing] the deputy to perceive a threat.” He fired once at Cruice, hitting him in the face, who was later pronounced dead at a local hospital. The sheriff’s department admits that Cruice was unarmed.

Five of Cruice’s friends were in the house at the time of the shooting. They have denounced the sheriff’s version of events, calling the shooting “murder.” One of Cruice’s friends, speaking anonymously to the media, said, “[The sheriff’s statement] is completely a lie. I was there; I watched the whole thing. There was no advancement. There was no reaching for anything.”

Twenty-four-year old Matthew Grody, another of Cruice’s friends, also denied that he had resisted. Grody told a local police station, “There’s a couple of seconds between opening the door, walking out, getting to my knee, and halfway out there’s gunfire. I look back as the guy’s grabbing me, and my friend is dead or dying.” Grody said that Cruice was only wearing shorts at the time of the shooting, and could not have been assumed to be carrying a weapon. “The guy was wearing basketball shorts like I am. It’s kind of hard to conceal anything or hide anything when this is all you have on,” said Cochran.

Police claim to have found only approximately 7.5 ounces of marijuana at Cruice’s home, which nevertheless is considered a third-degree felony in Florida, punishable by up to five years in prison and a $5,000 fine. Florida’s marijuana laws are considered to be among the harshest in the country.

Police in Grapevine, Texas, refuse to release dashcam video from police killing of Mexican immigrant

Police in Grapevine, Texas, a suburb between Dallas and Fort Worth, suddenly reversed course this week, declaring that they will not release dashcam footage from a police shooting of a Mexican immigrant as promised in late February.

On February 20, Grapevine police officer Robert Clark shot and killed, 31-year-old Ruben García Villalpando on the service road of a state highway during a routine traffic stop. Police have admitted that García was unarmed and had his hands up when he was shot, arguing only that he ignored Clark’s orders to stop walking towards him. García’s brother-in-law says that one of his last words before being shot was “Are you going to kill me?”

“They do not want us to release that video due to the fact that it’s evidence in a criminal investigation,” a police spokesman told the media. The district attorney’s office justified the about-face by claiming, “Due process requires that evidence not be released to the public while an investigation is ongoing.”

The killing has sparked widespread outrage throughout the area, which is home to a large and impoverished immigrant community. On Wednesday, more than 200 people demonstrated at a Grapevine city council meeting, chanting, “Hands up don’t shoot” and “Are you going to kill me?”

Louisiana sheriff unleashes vicious tirade against teenage victim of police beating

Newell Normand, the sheriff of Jefferson Parish, which is adjacent to New Orleans, called a press conference Wednesday in which he issued thinly veiled threats of physical violence against a 17-year-old who was badly beaten by an undercover deputy after leaving a Mardi Gras parade.

Cell phone video footage uploaded to YouTube by one of Brady Becker’s friends shows detective Nicholas Breaux choking Becker and pinning him against the floor of a mall parking lot, before unleashing four punches to Becker’s head, fracturing his jaw and giving him two black eyes. The video shows Becker attempting to protect himself by pushing off against Breaux’s chest. That Becker’s hands are extended near Breaux’s neck has been twisted by Normand into Becker supposedly being the one choking Breaux. Becker was later charged with possession of alcohol by a minor, resisting an officer, battery of a police officer and inciting a riot.

At the press conference, Normand angrily accused Becker of picking the fight and attempting to “bamboozle the public.” He then offered suggestions for how to properly administer such beatings in the future:

“[I’m not] so sure I would have struck him with my fist, for fear of breaking my hand. But I’d have definitely kneed him in the groin. I’d have kneed him in the stomach. I’d have tried to knock his wind out, because he does not have the legal right or authority to grab my officer. That is not what we’re paid for.”

Normand then showed the assembled reporters what he claimed to be a second cell phone video that he says shows a witness reaching for one of the deputy’s weapons and proving that Becker started the fight. Reporters were only allowed to view the video once after turning off their recording equipment. The New Orleans Advocate declined to describe the video in its report of the press conference, noting that “it was difficult to discern what the new video depicts.”

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Report Finds FBI Undercounts Police Killings by Half

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on European Union Press Syriza to Deepen its Austerity Program for Greece

Ferguson and the Logic of Neoliberalism

March 8th, 2015 by Rob Urie

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Ferguson and the Logic of Neoliberalism

On Friday, 6 March, President Obama placed temporarily on ice his planned increase in weapons and soldiers to help the Ukrainian Government to ‘defend’ Ukraine against the ‘terrorists’ in Donbass, which is the Ukrainian region that had voted 90% for the President whom the Obama Administration overthrew in February 2014. (Here is where the EU first learned, on 26 February 2014, that the overthrow of Viktor Yanukovych had been a coup instead of a genuine popular revolution.)

Obama replaced that Government with a racist-fascist anti-Russian regime, which quickly set about exterminating as many residents of Donbass as possible, as quickly as possible (calling them ‘terrorists,’ for their refusal to be ruled by the new Obama-imposed, anti-Russian, Government).

According to German Economic News, Germany’s Angela Merkel and France’s Francois Hollande are balking at the speed of Obama’s rush to war against Russia.

Earlier, some of the smaller national economies in the European Union — the Czech Republic, Hungary  and Greece — dissented from America’s effort to increase economic sanctions and military measures against Russia. But there is now increasing pressure upon the leaders in Germany, France, and Italy, also to separate the EU from the American rush to war against Russia.

Here is my translation of the key passage from the article on this matter, dated March 7th, in German Economic News:

“Apparently, the developments have shown that in the Euro-zone the Americans’ desire for a full escalation of the conflict against Russia could no longer be accepted without objection by the Europeans. The Americans were apparently informed by Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande that they are concerned about the rise of France’s National Front Party: Its chairman, Marine Le Pen, rejects the current EU policy towards Russia. If the National Front comes to power in France, it would be almost impossible for the EU to pursue a U.S.-coordinated foreign policy, such as they both want to do. Therefore, Merkel and Hollande aim to contain the negative economic consequences to their own nations of sanctions against Russia, so as to prevent victory for the National Front.

“Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi has spoken with President Putin in Moscow on a stronger partnership between Italy and Russia. The Italians are feeling the effects of the sanctions particularly strongly, and want to avoid an escalation in any case.

“Greek Foreign Minister Nikos Kotzias also has doubts as to the purpose of the US sanctions policy of the EU.”

Washington criticizes many European politicians for their opposing Washington’s anti-Russian policies. In Hungary and France, nationalist political parties offer especially strong resistance, because they oppose their own nation’s being ruled by Washington’s dictates. Even though Washington backs nazis in Ukraine, some European right-wing (though not nearly as far right-wing as in Ukraine) parties are patriotically opposed to European taxpayers donating to fund Ukraine’s fascists. The odd result is that some semi-fascist parties in Europe are especially balking at the extreme fascism, even nazism, that Washington supports in Ukraine. It’s too far to the right for them to go; they don’t want to be forced to go that far; they don’t want their nation to fund Washington’s aims.

Obama thus needs to juggle many balls at once in order to keep the Western Alliance together with him in his overriding foreign-policy goal of destroying Russia.

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Europe Blocks U.S. from Racing to War Against Russia?

“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#

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Wisconsin Hundred Thousand: Scott Walker, the White House and ISIS

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):

Screen Shot 2015-03-06 at 9.40.20 AM

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The ‘Democrat’ Brzezinski Says Russia’s Putin Wants to Invade NATO

The U.S-Israel Alliance: War, Chaos and Netanyahu’s Big Lie

March 8th, 2015 by Timothy Alexander Guzman

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:  

President Barack Obama requested a record $3.1 billion in military assistance to Israel for the 2013 fiscal year. The requested amount is not just the largest assistance request for Israel ever; it is the largest foreign assistance request ever in U.S. history

President Barack H. Obama and Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s alleged tenuous relationship is not what it seems.  Sure they probably annoy each other, but Obama has provided U.S. foreign aid just as every U.S. President before him.  The invitation granted by the speaker of the house John Boehner to Netanyahu so that he can present his case against Iran to the U.S. congress to prove that Obama’s negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program was a “bad deal.”    According to Netanyahu, Iran threatens Israel’s existence and the world.  Netanyahu’s speech was political theater.  Several democrats did not attend Netanyahu’s show.  Those that did criticized Netanyahu for trying to undermine the Obama administration is once again, all political theater.  The democrats who skipped Israeli Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s recent speech to show solidarity with President Obama’s policy towards Iran were going to attend the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) event featuring an appearance by Netanyahu the following week as the Washington Examiner reported earlier this month:

All of the members skipping Netanyahu’s congressional speech the Examiner interviewed were quick to say their anger toward the prime minister and his attempt to scuttle the Obama administration’s negotiations with Iran on its nuclear program did not extend to pro-Israel committee.

“Why would I not want to meet with my friends? They’re coming to see me next week and why wouldn’t I see them?” asked Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., referring to two American Israel Public Affairs Committee lobbyists he’s known and worked with for 25 years

Since 1948, U.S and Israeli actions taken in the Middle East has proven to be a tragic period for all people of the Middle East whether Arab, Christian, Jew, Kurdish, Sunni or Shiite.  Nothing but wars and Sectarian conflicts, poverty and Western-funded extremists has destroyed Arab countries and killed millions of Muslim men, women and children that are physically and emotionally scarred for the rest of their young and innocent lives.

Can anyone think of the U.S. and its Democratic ideals as a success?  The U.S. has done everything it can to create “order out of chaos.”  In 1947 following the “creation of Israel” by Great Britain when the Foreign secretary Arthur James Balfour confirmed a “national home of the Jewish People” when he sent the Balfour Declaration to Walter Rothschild, head of the Rothschild banking dynasty, the Palestinian people have been living in hell.  Palestine became a prison enforced by Israel’s security apparatus that resembles what George Orwell described as a total police state in his classic book “1984.”  Palestine has been divided; 1.7 million Palestinians live in an open air prison in the Gaza strip while others live in the West Bank under a police state controlled by heavily armed Israeli soldiers and police.  The Palestinians have been losing lands in an unprecedented fashion and in recent decades only to be accelerated under Netanyahu’s watch with a 40% increase in 2014 alone, outpacing the prior year.

Israel’s ambitions for nuclear weapons capability began after Israel became a Western sponsored state with the U.S, U.K. and France as its main allies.  Many conflicts in the Middle East soon followed.  The Israeli war of Independence against the Arab countries included Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria which led to the 1949 Armistice which outlined the borders of Israel.    The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) soon began military operations against Egypt, Lebanon and Jordon to prevent terrorist attacks against its Jewish citizens.  In 1956, Great Britain and France joined Israel in attacking Egypt after its government decided to nationalize the Suez Canal after the U.S. and Great Britain declined to fund the Aswan Dam.  Israel was forced to retreat from the attack by the U.S. and the USSR.  Soon after, the Six-Day War in 1967 began when Israel fought againstEgypt, Syria and Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and others contributed weapons and troops to the Arab forces.  Israel defeated the Arab armies and expanded its territory in the West Bank which included East Jerusalem to Jordan, the Golan Heights in Syria, the Sinai and the Gaza strip.  Then the War of Attrition (1967-1970), the Yom Kippur War (1973) and the War in Lebanon (1982) which the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) invaded Southern Lebanon to eliminate Palestinian guerrilla fighters (the resistance) from the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) which led to the Israeli Security Zone in South Lebanon.  Then the South Lebanon conflict with Hezbollah that lasted for at least 20 years.  It still continues today.   The first and Second Intifadas began with the Palestinian uprising against a brutal Israeli occupation and the disappearance of their lands.  Several wars soon followed.  The last war called ‘Operation Protective Edge’ which Israel launched against the Gaza Strip.  According to the State of Palestine Ministry of Health who reported on August 17, 2014 that there were 2,300 deaths and over 19,000 injured in Gaza which was a devastating conflict that traumatized the Palestinian people especially the children.  It is a tragic consequence that will last a lifetime for many.

During all of the conflicts, Israel was seeking weapons to defend their new “Jewish” nation.  Israel was eventually exposed as an undeclared nuclear power thanks to an Israeli man named Mordechai Vanunu who spent 18 years in the Shikma Prison in Ashkelon, with 10 of those years in solitary confinement.  Mordechai exposed Israel’s secrets nuclear program to the British press in 1986.

Israel is the aggressor.  It’s an illegal occupation which began under the British government and it is supported by other Western-powers, mainly the U.S. and France.  Israel’s history is filled with conflicts and terrorism against the Arab world.  Israel has committed political assassinations, supported extremists to topple governments including its current support to “moderate rebels” to oust Syrian president Bashar al-Assad.  It has control over the natural resources including vital water supplies that Palestinians solely depend on to survive.  So my question is why everyone is surprised by Netanyahu’s speech he recently gave in the U.S. House of congress?  Several members of congress were “appalled” or “upset” because he disrespected U.S. lawmakers, but the reality is that the majority of elected officials in congress and every administration even before Obama have approved military aid for Israel’s security since Israel was created in 1948.  Who are they fooling?  Netanyahu sounded like he was the U.S. president with constant standing ovations and thunderous applauds by the AIPAC controlled congress.  Those on both sides of the aisle whether democrat or republican always look forward to Jewish (Zionist) support for campaign funds.  There are several members of congress who have dual citizenships that seek to protect Israel at all costs (although the actual “costs” come at the expense of U.S. taxpayers). The U.S. has been involved in the Middle East for a long time.  Do not expect peace or stability.  War and conquest is the true nature of both the Americans and Israeli’s regarding Middle East policies.  ISIS is a perfect example of how the U.S. operates by bringing democracy to an already volatile region with its support of the Syrian rebels, al-Nusra and the decade old “al-Qaeda” with weapons to topple governments not in line with Washington only proves that war is on the agenda.  Not only does the U.S. and its allies support ISIS and other terrorist organizations to topple Arab governments they protect them according to an article by Michel Chossudovsky titled ‘Obama’s “Fake War” against the Islamic State (ISIS). The Islamic State is protected by the US and its Allies’ and made an important point when he said:

What would have been required from a military standpoint to wipe out an ISIS convoy with no effective anti-aircraft capabilities?  Without an understanding of military issues, common sense prevails.  If they had wanted to eliminate the Islamic State brigades, they could have “carpet” bombed their convoys of Toyota pickup trucks when they crossed the desert from Syria into Iraq in June

The U.S. and Israel clearly want chaos in the Middle East.  It is obvious.  However, Netanyahu did say that:

The remarkable alliance between Israel and the United States has always been above politics. It must always remain above politics.  Because America and Israel, we share a common destiny, the destiny of promised lands that cherish freedom and offer hope. Israel is grateful for the support of American — of America’s people and of America’s presidents, from Harry Truman to Barack Obama

Yes, the alliance between the U.S. and Israel is “above politics” and I agree it’s supposed to achieve “Full Spectrum Dominance” with the West and Israel controlling every aspect of Arab life including its lands, economy, and its natural resources in the Middle East.  This is the “destiny” which Netanyahu speaks of.  There is a vast amount of resources including the obvious oil, water and natural gas in the Middle East for which both the U.S. and Israel is solely interested in.  It also provides a market for the Military-Industrial Complex and corporate interests.  Netanyahu’s speech in Washington resembles what a genuine hypocrite that will claim it is he who is a victim of hatred, while committing heinous crimes against those he hates.  Netanyahu thanked President Obama for his support over the years which are no surprise:

We appreciate all that President Obama has done for Israel.

Now, some of that is widely known.  Some of that is widely known, like strengthening security cooperation and intelligence sharing, opposing anti-Israel resolutions at the U.N.  Some of what the president has done for Israel is less well- known.

I called him in 2010 when we had the Carmel forest fire, and he immediately agreed to respond to my request for urgent aid.  In 2011, we had our embassy in Cairo under siege, and again, he provided vital assistance at the crucial moment.  Or his support for more missile interceptors during our operation last summer when we took on Hamas terrorists

‘Operation Protective Edge’ was supported by the Obama administration.  They have collaborated on various programs including Israel security forces that provided training to U.S. Police forces.  I was not surprised by the recent revelations in Chicago, Illinois concerning its secret black sites used by the Chicago police department to detain and even torture suspects.  This happened under former White House Chief of Staff and also an IDF civilian volunteer and Israel supporter Rahm Emanuel whose father Benjamin M. Emanuel was once a member of the Irgun, a terrorist organization that operated in Mandate Palestine.  As Netanyahu continued:

But Iran’s regime is not merely a Jewish problem, any more than the Nazi regime was merely a Jewish problem. The 6 million Jews murdered by the Nazis were but a fraction of the 60 million people killed in World War II. So, too, Iran’s regime poses a grave threat, not only to Israel, but also the peace of the entire world. To understand just how dangerous Iran would be with nuclear weapons, we must fully understand the nature of the regime. 

The people of Iran are very talented people. They’re heirs to one of the world’s great civilizations. But in 1979, they were hijacked by religious zealots — religious zealots who imposed on them immediately a dark and brutal dictatorship

Netanyahu said that “religious Zealots” imposed a dark brutal dictatorship?  Well I guess the Western-backed Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi or the “Shah of Iran” and his secret police force the Savak who terrorized the Iranian people was their preference to keep Iran under their control.  Savak was trained and supported by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Israeli Mossad.  The most brutal dictatorship in the Gulf States such as Saudi Arabia is an ideal model for the U.S. and Israel.  If you look at the dictatorships the U.S. has supported to spread “American-Style Democracy” in the last 100 years.  The results of “American-style democracy” were disastrous causing human rights violations, countless deaths and disease.  Those same nations the U.S. either invaded or helped overthrow their respective governments (many of them democracies) still suffer from Washington’s “medicine.”  From Pinochet in Chile, to the Somoza dynasty in Nicaragua, Papa and Baby Doc Duvalier regime in Haiti to the Gulf Monarchies in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates and the list goes on, U.S. policy is about dominating nations for geopolitical interests including for the control of their natural resources.  The U.S. and Israel have an interest in the Middle East and that is to dominate it under their so-called “World Order.”   If they remove Syria and then Iran, the Middle East would become a region that would look like Iraq or Libya.  It would be a cash bonanza for the Military-Industrial Complex if they keep the civil wars among different sects and tribes going, creating a market for weapons exports.  Netanyahu said Iran is a “grave threat” to World peace.  Can someone say “Samson Option”?  Seymour M. Hersh’s ‘The Samson Option’ noted a commentary by Norman Podhoretz that summarizes how Israel would respond if they were on the verge of defeat at the hands of Arab nations in the Middle East:

For Israel’s nuclear advocates, the Samson Option became another way of saying “Never again.”  [In a 1976 essay in Commentary, Norman Podhoretz accurately summarized the pronuclear argument in describing what Israel would do if abandoned by the United States and overrun by Arabs: “The Israelis would fight . . . with conventional weapons for as long as they could, and if the tide were turning decisively against them, and if help in the form of resupply from the United States or any other guarantors were not forthcoming, it is safe to predict that they would fight with nuclear weapons in the end. … It used to be said that the Israelis had a Masada complex . . .but if the Israelis are to be understood in terms of a ‘complex’ involving suicide rather than surrender and rooted in a relevant precedent of Jewish history, the example of Sarnson, whose suicide brought about the destruction of his enemies, would be more appropriate than Masada, where in committing suicide the Zealots killed only themselves and took no Romans with them.” 

Podhoretz, asked years later about his essay, said that his conclusions about the Samson Option were just that—his conclusions, and not based on any specific information from Israelis or anyone else about Israel’s nuclear capability

What Mr. Podhoretz was describing was a “if we go down, everyone else is going down with us” scenario which is a dangerous policy for the world peace.  Netanyahu also says that Assad who is backed by Iran is slaughtering Syrians.  This serves the Obama Administration’s long-term goal to remove Assad from power:

Iran’s goons in Gaza, its lackeys in Lebanon, its revolutionary guards on the Golan Heights are clutching Israel with three tentacles of terror. Backed by Iran, Assad is slaughtering Syrians. Back by Iran, Shiite militias are rampaging through Iraq. Back by Iran, Houthis are seizing control of Yemen, threatening the strategic straits at the mouth of the Red Sea. Along with the Straits of Hormuz, that would give Iran a second choke-point on the world’s oil supply

Netanyahu claim that the Jewish people can defend themselves which I agree especially when you have nuclear weapons that can destroy the entire Middle East:

We are no longer scattered among the nations, powerless to defend ourselves. We restored our sovereignty in our ancient home. And the soldiers who defend our home have boundless courage. For the first time in 100 generations, we, the Jewish people, can defend ourselves

Iran, Syria, Lebanon (Hezbollah) and Palestine (the West Bank and Gaza) are targets for the U.S. and Israel.  They want to destabilize Syria and Iran and turn it into an Iraq and Libya with tribal and sectarian infighting among the populations.  The U.S. destroyed Iraq with the intention of dividing the people.  They create the conflict, develop hatred along Sunni and Shiite sects, and enforce a government subservient to Western interests.  How does this benefits Israel?  They keep the wars going by destabilizing regimes through ISIS and other Western-funded terrorist groups while Israel expands its territories beyond its borders.  Once Syria and Iran are destroyed, the U.S. and Israel will have no use for ISIS.  No more weapons will be shipped to ISIS and other groups and the U.S. and Israel with its military capabilities can easily defeat ISIS as Chossudovsky mentioned in his article.  It sounds cynical but it’s the truth.  It is what I call “Mafia-Style” politics, something the U.S. and Israel are very good at.  The world is not fooled by the bickering between the democrats and republicans because as we all know, they are one, united with an “unbreakable bond “with Israel as Obama declared in 2013.  We all know that without U.S. support, Israeli occupation of Palestine would end tomorrow.  But that will not happen unless the U.S. Empire falls from power and only then, a lasting peace will ensue.

Netanyahu concluded with “May God bless the state of Israel and may God bless the United States of America” And no one else, right Mr. Netanyahu?  What kind of God would bless two nations that have committed genocide against its indigenous populations?  Why would God bless a nation that lies to its people and declares war on nations that want their sovereignty respected?  If this is the God we as humans supposed to honor, then God is not who we think he is.

In conclusion, Netanyahu should listen to an interview conducted by Press TV based in Tehran, Iran in 2014 with Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss, associate director of ‘Neturei Karta International: Jews United against Zionism’ (www.nkusa.org) and was asked about U.N. monitor Richard Falk who accused Israel of ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians.  His response was as follows:

With the help of the almighty, I pray to the almighty to bestow upon me his truth, his wisdom. We are always confounded by this seeming ignorance of the issues and the ignoring of what is happening. The issues are clear from day one.  Well over one hundred years ago when this Zionist ideology came about of Jewish people creating their own sovereignty and then eventually deciding to make their sovereignty in the Holy Land, the biblical authorities in the Holy Land, the chief rabbi of Palestine, Rabbi Dushinsky…, of that time, and later in 1947 prior to the ratification of… Israel by the United Nations, the chief rabbi was Rabbi Dushinsky; he went to a meeting in Jerusalem [al-Quds] with the members of the United Nations and he pleaded with them in the name of Judaism and the religious community that we do not want, in any form, a state …, that it is illegal, it is illegitimate. Judaism does not permit us to have to have a Jewish sovereignty, Judaism does not permit us to oppress other people, steal the land, or in any manner being uncompassionate to the people. 

On the contrary we were living together with the Muslim community, with the Arabs and Muslims for hundreds and hundreds of years in Palestine and every Muslim state in total harmony without any human rights group to protect us and since this creation of Zionism and then eventually … Israel, there is an endless river of bloodshed. It is impossible to subjugate people and expect that there will be peace. Now, we are condoning what is emanating from this fact that there is a state but the fact is that it defies logic; it flies in the face of …,  righteousness and everything that the humanity calls for, by occupying Palestine and so our rabbis universally opposed the existence of … Israel and that the world should totally confuse this issue.

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The U.S-Israel Alliance: War, Chaos and Netanyahu’s Big Lie

EU Increasingly Abandons Obama on Ukraine?

March 8th, 2015 by Eric Zuesse

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on EU Increasingly Abandons Obama on Ukraine?

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/.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on How the US Supreme Court Has Treasonously Destroyed America’s Democratic Republic

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

Play

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

Play

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Dark and Secret Dungeons of Iraq. Horror Stories of Female Prisoners

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, WiredThe 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.

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 organizeddirectedfundedtrained, 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 Freedom7 Real ConspiraciesFive 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. 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Mainstream Media Discovers What Created ISIS – Global Warming!

Monsanto’s Deep Legacy Of Corruption And Cover-Up

March 8th, 2015 by Barbara Minton

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Monsanto’s Deep Legacy Of Corruption And Cover-Up
Israel-Al-Nusra-1

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-Syria-Invasion

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.

ASSAD

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.

syriaflag

From Far Away: Syria central to the 18th World Festival of Youth and Students in Ecuador, Mahdi Darius NazemroayaNorman 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.

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.

idf tank soldier

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.

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

The Houla Massacre: The Disinformation Campaign

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on CIA Asset Joins Islamic State and Evidence of Israeli Support to Al-Qaeda

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Justice Department Report on Ferguson Police: An Indictment of American Capitalism

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US Orders 7,700 Children Deported Without Court Hearings

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 US State Department literally is funding a terrorist guilty of hijacking a civilian airliner, millions of US dollars in taxpayer money to undermine and overthrow the government of Myanmar – all under the guise of “democracy promotion.”And believe it or not, the US State Department making a known terrorist head of a propaganda outfit carrying out foreign-backed subversion is relatively tame compared with Suu Kyi’s “Saffron” street front.The “Buddhist Bin Laden” and his “Saffron” Savagery 

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 magazineNew Eastern Outlook”.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Myanmar “Color Revolution”: Meet Aung San Suu Kyi’s Saffron Mobs

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Southeast Ukraine: “We Have Built an Independent State”. Interview with Deputy PM, Donetsk People’s Republic, Mikhail Mnukhin

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Israel Supports Al Qaeda Militants in Syria: Photographic Evidence

At dawn on Sunday the 22nd 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”.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Turkey’s Military Invasion of Syria Aimed at Creating a “Buffer Zone”

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Austerity Strangles Ontario: the Teaching Assistants Strikes in Context

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 21st-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 21st-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 21st-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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Washington’s Central Asian Strategy: “Color Revolution Expert” Dispatched to Kyrgyzstan