ماذا يريد الأميركيّون من الاتصال مع حزب الله؟

الجمعة 21 كانون ثاني 2022

 ناصر قنديل

ما كشفه رئيس المجلس التنفيذي في حزب الله السيد هاشم صفي الدين في السهرة التي جمعته بعدد من الشخصيات الإعلامية، عن محاولات أميركية حثيثة وحديثة للاتصال بحزب الله ودعوته لاختيار المستوى الذي يناسبه للتواصل، يطرح سؤالاً كبيراً حول كيفية الجمع بين وضع الأميركيين لمعركتهم بوجه حزب الله عنوان مقاربتهم للوضع في لبنان، وسعيهم لحشد كل خصوم حزب الله تحت شعار تحجيم الحزب وحلفائه انتخابياً، بل وضع شرط القطيعة مع حزب الله والعداء له لإدراج أية مجموعة معارضة او جمعية من جمعيات المجتمع المدني على لوائح المستفيدين من المساعدات الأميركيّة، من جهة، وبين سعيهم لهذا التواصل وإلحاحهم عليه واستعدادهم لقبول المستوى الذين يناسب حزب الله لتحقيقه؟

لو كانت هناك مواجهات عسكرية وأمنية بين القوات الأميركية وحزب الله، لكان هذا السعي مفهوماً على قاعدة الحاجة لمستوى من التواصل تفرضه الحروب على المتحاربين، لإخلاء الجرحى والممرات الإنسانيّة الآمنة، وفتح باب إعلان هدنة تفرضها سياقات الحروب، لكن في صراع سياسيّ قائم على استخدام كل الأسلحة التعبويّة، وصولاً لجعل عنوان السياسة الأميركية في مخاطبة اللبنانيين، “حزب الله سبب أزماتكم فقاطعوه وواجهوه”، ثم القيام بوساطات لتأمين تواصل يكسر هذه المقاطعة، فذلك ليس بالأمر العادي، لأن كل ما يمكن تصنيفه تحت عنوان الشؤون اللوجستية والتقنية التي قد يحتاج الأميركيون لها في لبنان لا تحتاج حواراً مع حزب الله ولا تواصلاً معه، فتسييرها لا يحتاج ما هو أبعد من التنسيق والتواصل مع أجهزة الدولة، وللأميركيين خطوط ساخنة وفاعلة، مع الجيش والقضاء ومصرف لبنان. وهي عناوين المحاور ذات الصلة بكل ما يمكن أن يندرج تحت عنوان لوجستي او تقني أو إداري.

لا يخفي الأميركيون أن ما يريدونه هو تواصل للحوار السياسي، فماذا يريدون أن يبحثوا مع حزب الله، بل لماذا يريدون أن يبحثوا أي شأن مع حزب الله، فهم ومَن معهم ومَن يدور في فلكهم، ومَن يسبّح بحمدهم، يقولون إن زمن حزب الله في لبنان قد انتهى أو هو قيد النهاية، وإن الأغلبية اللبنانية بوجه حزب الله قد تحققت شعبياً، وهي قيد التحقق نيابياً، وتردّد جماعة أميركا ما هو أبعد من ذلك بتسويقهم مقولة أنه إذا نجحت المفاوضات حول الملف النووي بين واشنطن وطهران بتأمين العودة للاتفاق، سيكون رأس حزب الله على طاولة التفاوض، وإذا فشلت المفاوضات، سيكون حزب الله عرضة لحصار مميت؟

السبب بساطة لأن الأميركيين يكذبون، وهم يقولون لجماعتهم عكس ما يعلمون وعكس ما يعملون. ويكفي التذكير بما قاله روبرت ماكفرلين مستشار الأمن القومي في أيام الرئيس رونالد ريغان، عن سبب عدم إبلاغ الرئيس اللبناني آنذاك، أمين الجميل، بنية واشنطن الانسحاب من لبنان ووجود مفاوضات بينها وبين سورية، والإيحاء له بالعكس بأن الأمور مع سورية ذاهبة للتصعيد، فيجيب أن تصعيد الحلفاء يحسّن شروط التفاوض، وأنه إذا قلنا لحلفائنا إننا نفاوض او ذاهبون للتفاوض لسبقونا الى دمشق، والأمر نفسه يحدث مع حزب الله. فواشنطن تدرك أن حزب الله قوة إقليمية صاعدة وليس قوة ثابتة فقط، وتعلم ان لا تفاوض على مستقبل حزب الله. وتعلم أن القوة اللبنانية التي لن تتأثر بنتائج الانتخابات النيابية، هي ثنائي حركة أمل وحزب الله الذي يمثل حزب الله ركناً رئيسياً فيه، بل إن واشنطن لا تقيم حساباً في مقاربتها لمستقبل لبنان سواء في المواجهة او في التفاوض، لغير هذه المقاومة التي تهدد أمن “إسرائيل”. وهذا هو الهم الأميركي الأول في المنطقة. والأميركي الذي يدرك أن حروبه بلغت نهاياتها في المنطقة، ويحتاج لبدء ترسيم خطواته في ترجمة هذه النهاية، للتفاوض والحوار حول المستقبل مع هذه المقاومة، ولأن الأميركي واثق من أنه “يمون” على الذين يصفهم بجماعته أو حلفائه في المنطقة واستطراداً في لبنان، فهو يسعى للوقوف على طبيعة ما يريده حزب الله للانخراط في تسويات، تطال ملفات تبدأ بوضع الجبهة الحدودية مع كيان الاحتلال في جنوب لبنان وجنوب سورية، وتمر بمستقبل ترسيم حدود النفط والغاز، ولا تنتهي بمستقبل الاستحقاق الرئاسي في لبنان، وربما يكون البحث بصيغة سياسية وطائفية جديدة للبنان في الجيب الأميركي، إذا كان التوصل لنقاط مشتركة في منتصف الطريق ممكناً.

السؤال عن سبب رفض حزب الله يجد جوابه في أن المقاومة ليس لديها ما تبحثه مع الأميركي، وأن المقاومة لا تكذب فهي تصنّف الأميركي عدواً، ولذلك لا تسمح لنفسها باللعب معه تحت الطاولة، وما تحتاجه المصلحة اللبنانية من بحث فليبحث مع الدولة اللبنانيّة. وما يريد حزب الله بحثه في مستقبل لبنان واستحقاقاته يبحثه مع الأطراف اللبنانيين. فهل يفهم خصوم حزب الله من اللبنانيين، المغرومين بأميركا، معنى هذا السلوك الأميركي؟

فيديوات متعلقة

Demonstrations in Yemen condemning the crimes of the coalition
Yemen: The Saudi coalition commits new massacres and the country has cut off the internet
The Saudi coalition forces deliberately create panic in the hearts of citizens and children
Only in Yemen, are you afraid to send your children to school and hospital, so that planes will not bomb them.

مقالات متعلقة

Dorothy Shea’s Empty Promises

December 28 2021

Dorothy Shea

By Mohammad Youssef

When Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah first announced the party will import fuel from Iran to break the sinister cycle of the US siege, the American ambassador to Beirut Dorothy Shea, as usual, tried to belittle the achievement. She suddenly announced that Washington is ready to help and made the necessary contacts to insure the gas supplies would reach Lebanon from Egypt via Jordan and Syria.

Months after the American ambassador’s public promise, not any drop or one single cubic centimeter of gas reached to Lebanon.

Shea did not explain why her promises did not materialize, and she disrespectfully never justified to the Lebanese people her failure to deliver.

Actually, the main motive behind the ambassador hasty decision was not alleviating the people’s suffering, because it could have done so many different things to this effect, but her basic obsession was to evacuate Hezbollah decision from its content so it would not reflect positively on the Lebanese people.

The whole issue reflects genuinely Washington’s policy and stance towards the region and its people. A policy which is based on oppression, hypocrisy and arrogance.

For its part, Hezbollah made huge efforts: from intensive contacts to necessary negotiations and from deals concluding to logistic preparations, not forgetting the military and security arrangements made to insure the whole operation. Thanks and blessings to these efforts, the fuel reached to the Lebanese houses across the nation, without any discrimination and preferences, and now hundreds of thousands of Lebanese benefit from Hezbollah and Iran’s help.

This says a lot about the party’s commitment to Lebanon and the Lebanese, and that it is always there to defend, protect and help them in any calamity.

Meanwhile, Dorothy Shea never bothered herself to say anything about her deceitful promises and misleading announcement.

But many well informed circles in Washington revealed the truth about Shea’s lies!

The American ambassador received heavy blame from her administration for making such promises to the Lebanese.

Her promise has created a division inside the US administration, many influential parties and figures refused to agree upon it, as it involved a partial lift of the Siege on Syria as well.

In fact, the United States administration has the capacity and ability to help Lebanon or at least ease its crisis, but this does not boil down to its interest of suffocating the country to make it surrender and accept Washington dictations and that of the Israeli enemy.

For her part, the US ambassador can continue her game of ignoring her fake promises, but the Lebanese will remember very well her lies and will also remember that the best thing Dorothy Shea can do is to distribute few masks in Beirut streets!

A Mass Murdering Regime Dares to Lecture the World on Human Rights

December 24, 2021

Source

Washington is a criminal regime as its illegal wars and deliberate mass murder demonstrate beyond any doubt.

An important report published this week reveals in extensive detail the shocking scale of war crimes committed by the United States in the Middle East. Thousands of civilian deaths, including children, are documented as a result of aerial bombardments conducted by the U.S. military.

It is crucial to remark that the published survey – while voluminous involving thousands of pages and documents – represents only a fraction of the full scale of mass murder. The research focuses on Syria and Iraq over a three-year period between late 2014 and early 2018. Considering that U.S. forces have been occupying those two countries alone for over a decade and considering American military operations contemporaneously in other nations, one can safely assume that the full scale of murder perpetrated is orders of magnitude greater.

The report known as the Civilian Casualty Files was commissioned by the New York Times. It took five years to compile and tortuous legal wrangling to obtain secret Pentagon files. The survey also involved the authors visiting hundreds of locations in Syria and Iraq to record witness testimonies. A good summary is provided here.

Separately, it has been previously estimated that the U.S. decade-long war in Iraq from 2003 onwards caused over one million deaths. What this latest report provides is granular detail of the countless incidents of violence from airstrikes and drone assassinations. Times, dates, villages, hamlets, towns, families, mothers, fathers and children are named in the atrocities that were carried out. But as noted, while the reported information is huge, it is still only a tiny fraction of the full extent of mass murder.

What is disturbingly clear too is the cold and barbaric logic of the Pentagon chiefs and senior figures in both the Obama and Trump administrations. Sitting president Joe Biden was vice-president in the Obama administrations (2008-2016). Civilian deaths were deemed acceptable as “collateral damage” in the pursuit of military-political objectives. Whole families were knowingly obliterated in a haphazard and vague effort to kill suspected terrorists or simply to extend the writ of U.S. imperial power.

What’s more, the Pentagon and the U.S. government covered up the extent of their psychopathic operations. Not one member of the American military or White House administration has ever been disciplined – even internally – for the rampant criminality.

A more recent incident outside of the published study period cited above would fall into the typical mold. That was the killing of a family of 10, including children, in Kabul during the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan at the end of August. Recall how the Pentagon investigated itself and concluded that no one was to blame for that drone carnage. That case garnered some publicity because the circumstances of a historic U.S. retreat were in the news. Now just imagine how easy it was for the Pentagon to bury other mass murders of civilians that occurred in remote areas of Syria and Iraq.

The published Civilian Casualty Files is substantive evidence for prosecuting U.S. political and military leaders for war crimes. Realistically, this will not happen in the near future, but nevertheless, it is an important archive for future prosecutions and the historical record.

The information is also a devastating exposition of the moral bankruptcy pervading Washington. Thus, a mass-murdering regime in Washington has no authority to lecture, as it arrogantly presumes to do all the time, the rest of the world on human rights and rule of law.

Earlier this month, President Joe Biden convened a so-called “Summit for Democracy” for invited world leaders. Biden pointedly excluded Russia and China from the online videoconference, as well as other nations deemed to be “authoritarian” or “undemocratic” by Washington.

It truly is revolting that Washington has such hubris and shamelessness. U.S. governments have systematically waged illegal wars all around the planet involving the destruction of nations and millions of innocent lives. And yet the president of the U.S. has the audacity to pontificate to the whole world about the presumed virtues of democracy, human rights and upholding international law.

This grotesque duplicity and delusion of American leaders is why the U.S. is on a collision course with Russia and China. Washington relentlessly accuses Moscow and Beijing of alleged violations. The tensions being stoked by the United States over Ukraine and Taiwan are pushing the world to the brink of war.

Just this week, President Biden signed into law a ban on imports from China’s western province of Xinjiang. The U.S. accuses China of “genocide” against the minority Uighur Muslim population. Beijing categorically rejects the claims, pointing out that the Uighur population has actually grown over recent years. Beijing says that it takes security measures against radical Uighurs who have been weaponized as part of the U.S. 20-year war in neighboring Afghanistan. In any case, Washington does not provide credible evidence to substantiate its claims. The notable thing is that such lecturing by the United States towards China serves to aggravate tensions which exacerbate other issues over Taiwan and the Olympic Games that Washington is boycotting.

Washington has zero moral authority. It is a criminal regime as its illegal wars and deliberate mass murder demonstrate beyond any doubt.

It should be observed that the Western media largely remained silent this week over the shocking Civilian Casualty Files. The New York Times deserves some credit for publishing the information conducted by outside authors. However, the monstrous scale of criminality has been met with stunning relative silence. That illustrates how the Western media is actually a propaganda system that cannot compute or comment on information that is incongruous with its day-to-day coverage.

The injustice against imprisoned whistleblower Julian Assange should also be highlighted. The mass-murder programs uncovered by the Civilian Casualty Files vindicate Assange and Wikileaks’ earlier publications exposing U.S. war crimes. It is an abomination that Assange is being persecuted and awaiting extradition to the United States where he could be jailed for the rest of his life on fabricated charges of “hacking and espionage”.

The criminality and duplicity of U.S. governments is something to behold in a perverse sort of way. It is astounding that the world is being driven further towards dangerous tensions and possible confrontation by a regime whose record is so nefarious and hypocritical. How is such a gross deception enabled? That is partly due to the function of a Goebbels-like mass media that pretends to publish news instead of propaganda.

Exit Nord Stream 2, Enter Power of Siberia 2

THURSDAY 23 DEC 21

Military superpower Russia, having had enough of U.S./NATO bullying, is now dictating the terms of a new arrangement.

PEPE ESCOBAR 

Coming straight from President Putin, it did sound like a bolt from the sky:

“We need long-term legally binding guarantees even if we know they cannot be trusted, as the U.S. frequently withdraws from treaties that become uninteresting to them. But it’s something, not just verbal assurances.”

And that’s how Russia-U.S. relations come to the definitive crunch – after an interminable series of polite red alerts coming from Moscow.

Putin once again had to specify that Russia is looking for “indivisible, equitable security” – a principle established since Helsinki in 1975 – even though he no longer sees the U.S. as a dependable “partner”, that diplomatically nicety so debased by the Empire since the end of the USSR.

The “frequently withdrawing from treaties” passage can easily be referred to as Washington in 2002 under Bush Jr. pulling out of the ABM treaty signed between the U.S. and the USSR in 1972. Or it could be referred to as the U.S. under Trump destroying the JCPOA signed with Iran and guaranteed by the UN. Precedents abound.

Putin was once again exercising the Taoist patience so characteristic of Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov: explaining the obvious not only to a Russian but also a global audience. The Global South may easily understand this reference; “When international law and the UN Charter interfere, they [the U.S.] declare it all obsolete and unnecessary.”

Earlier, Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko had been uncommonly assertive – leaving nothing for the imagination:

“We just make it clear that we are ready to talk about switching over from a military or a military-technical scenario to a political process that will strengthen the security of all countries in the area of the OCSE, Euro-Atlantic and Eurasia. If that doesn’t work out, we signaled to them [NATO] that we will also move over to creating counter threats, but it will then be too late to ask us why we made these decisions and why we deployed these systems.”

So in the end it comes down to Europeans facing “the prospect of turning the continent into a field of military confrontation.” That will be the inevitable consequence of a NATO “decision” actually decided in Washington.

Incidentally: any possible, future “counter threats” will be coordinated between Russia and China.

Mr. Zircon is on the line, Sir

Every sentient being from Atlanticist shores to Eurasian steppes by now knows the content of the Russian draft agreements on security guarantees presented to the Americans, as detailed by Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov.

Key provisions include no further NATO expansion; no Ukraine admission; no NATO shenanigans in Ukraine, Eastern Europe, Transcaucasia and Central Asia; Russia and NATO agreeing not to deploy intermediate and short-range missiles in areas from where they can hit each other’s territory; establishment of hotlines; and the NATO-Russia Council actively involved in resolving disputes.

Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs extensively reiterated that the Americans received “detailed explanations of the logic of the Russian approach”, so the ball is in Washington’s court.

Well, National Security advisor Jake Sullivan at first seemed to kick it, when he admitted, on the record, that Putin may not want to “invade” Ukraine.

Then there were rumblings that the Americans would get back to Moscow this week with their own “concrete security proposals”, after de facto writing the script for their NATO minions, invariably conveyed in spectacularly mediocre fashion by secretary-general Jens Stoltenberg.

The Ukraine narrative didn’t change an inch: “severe measures” – of an economic and financial nature – remain in the pipeline if Russia engages in “further aggression” in Ukraine.

Moscow was not fooled. Ryabkow had to specify, once again, that the Russian proposals were on a bilateral basis. Translation: we talk only to those with deciding power, not to minions. The involvement of other countries, Ryabkov said, “will deprive them of their meaning.”

From the start, NATO’s response had been predictably obvious: Russia is conducting a “substantial, unprovoked, and unjustified” military buildup along its border with Ukraine and is making “false … claims of Ukrainian and NATO provocations”.

That once again proved the point it’s a monumental waste of time to discuss with yapping chihuahuas of the Stoltenberg variety, for whom “NATO expansion will continue, whether Russia likes it or not.”

In fact, whether U.S. and NATO functionaries like it or not, what’s really happening in the realpolitk realm is Russia dictating new terms from a position of power. In a nutshell: you may learn the new game in town in a peaceful manner, civilized dialogue included, or you will learn the hard way via a dialogue with Mr. Iskandr, Mr. Kalibr, Mr. Khinzal and Mr. Zircon.

The inestimable Andrei Martyanov has extensively analysed for years now all the details of Russia’s overwhelming military dominance, hypersonic and otherwise, across the European space – as well as the dire consequences if the U.S. and NATO minions “decide that they want to continue to play dumb.”

Martyanov has also noted that Russia “understands the split with the West and is ready to take any consequences, including, already declining, shrinkage of trade and reduction of the supply of hydrocarbons to the EU.”

That’s where the whole ballet around the security guarantees intersects with the crucial Pipelineistan angle. To sum it all up: exit Nord Stream 2, enter Power of Siberia 2.

So let’s revisit why the looming energy catastrophe in the EU is not forcing anyone in Russia to lose his/her sleep.

Dancing in the Siberian night

One of the top takeaways of the strategic Putin-Xi video conference last week was the immediate future of Power of Siberia 2 – which will snake in across Mongolia to deliver up to 50 billion cubic meters of natural gas annually to China.

So it was hardly an accident that Putin received Mongolian President Ukhnaagiin Khurelsukh in the Kremlin, the day after he talked to Xi, to discuss Power of Siberia 2. The key parameters of the pipeline have already been set, a feasibility study will be completed in early 2022, and the deal – minus last-minute pricing tune-ups – is practically clinched.

Power of Siberia 2 follows the 2,200 km long Power of Siberia 1, launched in 2019 from Eastern Siberia to northern China and the focus of a $400 billion deal struck between Gazprom and China’s CNPC. Power of Siberia 1’s full capacity will be reached in 2025, when it will be supplying 38 billion cubic meters of gas annually.

Power of Siberia 2, a much bigger operation, was planned years ago, but it was hard to find consensus on the final route. Gazprom wanted Western Siberia to Xinjiang across the Altai mountains. The Chinese wanted transit via Mongolia straight into central China. The Chinese eventually prevailed. The final route across Mongolia was decided only two months ago. Construction should begin in 2024.

This is a massive geoeconomic game-changer, totally in line with the increasingly sophisticated Russia-China strategic partnership. But it’s also supremely important geopolitically (Remember Xi: China supports Russia’s “core interests”).

The gas for Power of Siberia 2 will come from the same fields currently supplying the EU market. Whatever demented concoctions the European Commission – and the new German government – may apply on stalling the operation of Nord Stream 2, Gazprom’s main focus will be China.

It doesn’t matter for Gazprom that China as a customer in the near future will not fully replace the whole EU market. What matters is the steady business flow and the absence of infantile politicking. For China what matters is an extra, guaranteed overland supply rote boosting its strategy of “escaping from Malacca”: the possibility, in case Cold War 2.0 turns hot, that the U.S. Navy would eventually block maritime shipping of energy sources via Southeast Asia to China.

Beijing of course is all over the place when it comes to buying Russian natural gas. The Chinese have a 30% stake in Novatek’s $27 billion Yamal project and a 20% stake in the $21 billion Arctic project.

So welcome to 2022 and the new, high stakes realpolitik Great Game.

U.S. elites had been terrified of playing Russia against China because they fear this would lead Germany to ally with Russia and China – leaving the Empire of Chaos out in the cold.

And that leads to the “mystery” inside the enigma of the whole Ukrainian face: use it to force the EU away from Russian natural resources.

Russia is turning the whole show upside down. As an energy superpower, instead of an internally corroded EU dictated by NATO, Russia will be mostly focused on its Asian customers.

In parallel, military superpower Russia, having had enough of U.S./NATO bullying, is now dictating the terms of a new arrangement. Lavrov confirmed the first round of Russia-U.S. talks on security guarantees will be held in early 2022.

Are these ultimatums? Not really. Seems like Ryabkov, with notable didacticism, will have to keep explaining it over and over again: “We do not speak in the language of ultimatums with anyone. We have a responsible attitude towards our own security and the security of others. The point is not that we have issued an ultimatum, not at all, but that the seriousness of our warning must not be underestimated.”

Related Posts

كيف تحاسَب أميركا على جرائمها بحق المدنيين؟

الثلاثاء 21 12 2021

العميد د. أمين محمد حطيط*

في كلّ مرة كانت أميركا تطلق بها أكذوبة أو تلفق فيها مسرحية تتهم بها جيشاً من جيوش الخصوم والأعداء بأنه خرج في الميدان عن قواعد القانون الدولي الإنساني، أو تتهم فيها مكوناً مسلحاً يقاوم احتلالها المباشر أو غير المباشر تتهمه بأنه فصيل إرهابي، في كلّ مرة تطلق فيها أميركا ذلك نجدها تخفي جريمة ارتكبتها، أو تحضر المسرح لجريمة سترتكبها منتهكة قواعد الحرب وقواعد القانون الدولي. فأميركا خلافاً لجيوش المعمورة تمارس في الميدان القتل للإرهاب وأحياناً القتال للتدمير، بينما وظيفة الجيوش عادة هي القتال دفاعاً أو هجوماً من أجل تحقيق هدف وطني أو قومي ما.

وفي احتلالها لمناطق في الشرق الأوسط بخاصة في كلّ من أفغانستان والعراق وسورية، لم تخرج أميركا عن هذا السلوك النمطي الاجرامي في أدائها الميداني، ففي الوقت الذي كانت تدّعي فيه مثلاً أن الجيش العربي السوري استعمل الأسلحة الكيماوية ضدّ «المواطنين السوريين الأبرياء» وقتل منهم الكثير، كانت طائراتها النفاثة أو المسيّرة ترتكب المجازر غير المبرّرة بحق المدنيين السوريين، على حدّ ما أوردت صحيفة «نيويورك تايمز» الأميركية، التي ذكرت أنّ هناك أكثر من 1300 تقرير سرّبت من البنتاغون تتضمّن إحصاء لحجم الخسائر الهائل في صفوف المدنيين التي أوقعتها الطائرات الأميركية، التي تدّعي أنها تملك أرقى تقنية في العالم لتحديد الأهداف وضبط النار ومنع الخطأ.

والسؤال المركزي الذي يُطرح هنا هل أن الجيش الأميركي يقتل المدنيين عن طريق الخطأ؟ أم أن القتل مسألة تدخل في صلب قواعد العمل العسكري الأميركي في الميدان؟ سؤال يفتح على سؤال آخر فيه القول كيف يمكن منع أميركا من ارتكاب هذه الجرائم؟

من يعرف ما تملكه أميركا من وسائل المراقبة والاستطلاع وتحديد الأهداف، يصل إلى نتيجة يستبعد فيها إمكان حصول الخطأ في قتل المدنيين بهذا الحجم. فأميركا وفقاً للوثائق المسرّبة نفذت خلال 5 سنوات في البلدان الثلاثة التي احتلتها كلياً أو جزئياً أكثر من 50 ضربة جوية ارتكبت فيها مئات المجازر بحق المدنيين، تنوّعت بين استهداف الجماعات والمناطق الآهلة وقوافل السير والمدارس والأعراس والتجمعات والبنى التحتية إلخ… وكلها أهداف يمنع القانون الدولي العام قصفها. وفي المقابل لم يسجل البنتاغون حادثة واحدة لوحق بها مسؤول عسكري بجريمته أو حتى اتخذ بحقه تدبير تأديبي مسلكي.

إنّ إمعان أميركا باستهداف المدنيين دونما اكتراث أو حذر يعود برأينا إلى سببين… الأول عائد إلى أنها تدرج قتل المدنيين في صلب استراتيجية ممارستها للقوة القمعية بحق الشعب في الدولة المحتلة من أجل ترهيبه ودفعه للاستسلام للاحتلال، والسبب الثاني عائد إلى شعور أميركي بالاستعلاء والممارسة فوق القانون وعدم قدرة أحد على محاسبتها أو معاقبتها، فالشعور الأميركي بالقدرة التامة على الإفلات من العقاب والتصرف بأنها فوق القانون، يدفع العسكري الأميركي للعمل باستخفاف حيال أمن الآخرين وسلامتهم، ويحول دون إلزامه باتخاذ تدابير الحيطة والحذر المفروضة في الميدان، فضلاً عن التقيد الصارم بقاعدة «التناسب والضرورة» الحاكمة في العمليات العسكرية.

والمثير للاستهجان أن أميركا التي هذا هو حال ممارستها ضدّ المدنيين، تدّعي أو تنصّب نفسها مدافعاً عنهم في وجه دولهم وجيوش دولهم، وتجيز لنفسها العدوان على تلك الجيوش بذريعة حماية المدنيين، كما فعلت أكثر من مرة في سورية، حيث زعمت أن الدولة استهدفت الشعب بالسلاح الكيماوي وقامت هي بالعدوان علي الجيش العربي السوري انتقاماً للشعب كما زعمت! ومن المفارقات المضحكة المبكية هنا أن أميركا في الوقت الذي ادّعت أن ضحايا السلاح الكيماوي في أحد المواقع كانوا32 مدنياً، تبيّن أن طيرانها كان، قبل 5 أيام فقط، قد أجهز على تجمع اجتماعي عام وقتل 120 شخصاً في سورية.

أمام هذا الواقع المثير للإدانة والاستنكار الشديدين يطرح السؤال الأساس كيف يمكن أن تعاقَب أميركا على جرائمها بحق المدنيين؟

مع تأكيدنا لرفض الاحتلال الأميركي لأيّ دولة أو منطقة واعتباره عدواناً مداناً وغير مشروع، فإنّ قتل المدنيين وفي الشكل الذي يحصل على يد القوات الأميركية يفرض البحث عن وسائل الدفاع المناسبة، خاصة أن أميركا ترى نفسها فوق القانون وبمنأى عن المحاسبة الدولية من أيّ نوع كانت. لذلك ومع عدم الجدوى من اللجوء إلى المؤسسات والقضاء الدولي لمحاسبتها لن يكون مناص من أن يتولى الشعب المعتدى عليه والمستهدف بالجرائم الأميركية، أن يمارس حق الدفاع المشروع عن النفس عبر مقاومة ضدّ قوات الاحتلال لا بدّ منها من أجل وقف الجرائم وإنهاء الاحتلال، وهذا ما أكدت عليه وقائع التاريخ الحديث التي سجلت ضدّ أميركا بدءاً بفيتنام حيث طرد الأميركي مهزوماً، وفي أفغانستان حيث هرب الأميركي مكسوراً أو في العراق حيث ألزمت المقاومة العراقية أميركا بوضع حدّ لوجودها القتالي، وتستمر المقاومة لأنهاء هذا الوجود كلياً.

أما في سورية فإنّ المقاومة الشعبية الوطنية السورية الواعدة التي تشكلت شرقي الفرات، باتت في مستوى يجعل المتابع يتفاءل خيراً بنتائجها، حيث أن تكرار التصدي للجيش الأميركي المحتلّ أثناء تنقلاته ومنعه من إكمال المسير أكثر من مرة أو استهداف مراكز عسكرية أميركية أو لأدوات أميركا من قسد وغيرها، كلها أمور تنبئ بأمر هامّ مفاده أن على أميركا أن تنهي احتلالها لشرقي الفرات السوري قبل أن تدفع الثمن الكبير الذي يجبرها على الرحيل عنه، كما طردت من سواه من مناطق احتلالها.

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

*أستاذ جامعي ـ باحث استراتيجي

The NY Times reports US forces ‘killed dozens in Syria.’ The reality is far worse.

Dec 15, 2021, RT.com

-by Eva K Bartlett

Two recent reports by the New York Times highlight some of the US’ manifold crimes in Syria, murdering untold numbers of Syrian civilians over the years, under the pretext of fighting the Islamic State.

They exposed a 2019 US bombing in Baghuz, eastern Syria, which killed 70 civilians, and that this was but one of numerous instances, with the Delta Force routinely launching “reckless airstrikes” while purportedly fighting ISIS. 

Stating the obvious: had the wanton and repeated mass murder of civilians been committed by Syria or Russia, it would have been in headlines, ad nauseum…because the legacy media genuinely cares about the Syrian people. But, since the crimes were committed by the US, we’ll neither see outrage nor crocodile tears. In fact, it’s pretty shocking that the New York Times, a noted apologist for American Imperialism which has promoted outright fabrications about Syria over the years, has deigned to report honestly on actual war crimes in the country. 

In April 2019, Airwars (and Amnesty International) reported that, “at least 1,600 civilians died in Coalition strikes on the city of Raqqa in 2017 during the battle to evict so-called Islamic State – ten times the number of fatalities so far conceded by the US-led alliance, which had admitted 159 deaths to April 24th.” 

It noted that, “most of the destruction during the battle for Raqqa was caused by incoming Coalition air and artillery strikes – with at least 21,000 munitions fired into the city over a four-month period. The United Nations would later declare it the most destroyed city in Syria, with an estimated 70% laid waste.”

Along with reporting from Syria since 2014, I’ve keenly followed news on the subject and, unless my memory betrays me, I don’t recall overwhelming media outrage following this report. 

In November, former United Nations Weapons Inspector and former Marine Corps Intelligence Officer, Scott Ritter, wrote“The Battle of Raqqa became a template for all future anti-ISIS operations involving the SDF and the US going forward. By the time the mopping up operations around Baghuz were conducted, in March 2019, there was in place a seamless killing machine which allowed the US to justify any action so long as it was conducted in support of an SDF unit claiming to be in contact with ISIS.” 

The US strikes were apparently meant to be portrayed as “self-defense” protecting US proxies on the ground, a feeble excuse for the slaughter that occurred. Yet, what Syria, with the aid of allies, has been doing the past ten years has literally been self-defense: defending the country against the death squads supported and funded by the West, the Gulf, Turkey and Israel in their war on Syria. 

Were such death squads to descend on Western cities, they would almost immediately be eviscerated. This scenario is highly unlikely given that the terrorists are tools of the West, but this illustrates the hypocrisy of the situation: Syria has been doing its utmost to restore security to the nation, via strategic warfare against terrorist factions, as well as reconciliation deals enabling Syrian armed men among the foreign terror groups to lay down their weapons and return to civilian life. Simultaneously, the US, their allies, and the terrorists they support, have wantonly murdered Syrian civilians and wreaked destruction on the country.

Referring to the New York Times reports, RT reported recently that former Pentagon and State Department adviser Larry Lewis, who co-authored a 2018 DoD report on civilian harm based on classified casualty data, said the rate was “10 times that of similar operations he tracked in Afghanistan.’ … and that, when interviewed by the New York Times, Gen. Townsend blamed any civilian casualties on “the misfortunes of war.” 

Funny how that works. When Syria is actually fighting terrorism, they are condemned. When the US is fake fighting terrorism and slaughtering civilians, it’s just a “misfortune of war.”

It should be no surprise to any thinking person that the US has committed untold war crimes in Syria (and many other countries) during its illegal presence in the country. Still, even with ample documentation of these crimes, the US is not held accountable. Completing this unjust scenario, the US and allies have repeatedly hurled unfounded accusations of chemical weapons attacks and Russian war crimes, providing no evidence and generally relying on unnamed sources or the al-Qaeda-affiliated White Helmets.

wrote about this last year, noting, “A UN-mandated report, which accuses Russia of war crimes in Syria, heavily relies on anonymous sources and lacks evidence, but also smacks of deliberate disinformation that is halting the eradication of terrorism in Idlib.” 

Emphasizing that this report was based on testimonies taken in Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon or by phone, I noted, “I scoured the 24 pages of the report, but even in the annexes I could find no transparent and credible sources, only the following vague terms repeatedly referred-to: Witnesses, civilians, NGO rescuers, medical teams, first responders, flight spotters, and early warning observers.”

In the relentless propaganda against Syria, and Russia, that report got a lot of traction in regime-change media. The recent reports on US crimes in Syria? Not so much.

Some days ago, the Twitter account @USEmbassySyria tweeted about the US standing firm in its commitment to human rights and the rights of women. A ludicrous tweet given the US’ support for terrorists who quash human rights and imprison and rape women. 

It is also worth mentioning that Twitter account represents a non-existent entity: in their push for human rights for Syrians (as they bomb and murder Syrians or starve them with sanctions), the US Embassy in Syria long ceased to exist, as did most embassies involved in the plan to put extremist terrorists in power. 

In a world where Israel can daily imprison and slaughter children and other Palestinians, and Saudi Arabia can wage war on Yemen while beheading its own civilians, the crimes of the US (and allies) in Syria are sadly not surprising.  Nor are they new. The US has a decades-long history of attempting regime-change in Syria. 

But seriously? Syria and Russia are to blame in this upside-down world…? 

RELATED LINKS:

SYRIA: My Published Articles From and on Syria (2014-2021)

It’s 10 years since the war in Syria began, and Western media & pundits are still eager to keep it going

Guilty until proven innocent (again): UN report on alleged Russian ‘war crimes’ in Syria is based on ‘We Say So’ & unnamed sources

75 Years & Counting: A History of Western Regime Change in Syria Part I

A Western-backed war couldn’t destroy Syria, now sanctions are starving its people

Israel’s airstrikes in Syria are not newsworthy for Western media, as a result status quo continues & civilians suffer

US exceptionalism: Exploiting certain Syrians, ignoring others

فيينا تدخل المناطق الحرجة

 ناصر قنديل

يبدو التصعيد السياسي الأميركي حول أوكرانيا وتايوان، ومعه تحضيرات قمة الديمقراطية في واشنطن، منصات للالهاء والاشغال للقوتين العظميين المناوئتين للهيمنة الأميركية، وقد بلغتا مرحة تشكيل خطر وجودي على الزعامة الأميركية خلال عقدي المواجهة المفتوحة في حرب الهيمنة الأميركية على العالم منذ سقوط جدار برلين عام 1990، وليست مجرد صدفة حدوث هذا الالهاء وتلك المشاغلة بالتزامن مع بدء محادثات فيينا حول الملف النووي الإيراني، فواشنطن التي تكذب على العالم كله لا تكذب على نفسها، فهي تعلم أن المعركة مع إيران، من الباب النووي بعد إقفال إيران لسائر الأبواب، تختصر معارك السيطرة على آسيا ورسم توازناتها بعد الانسحاب الأميركي من أفغانستان، وبعد حروب السيطرة الفاشلة في العراق وسورية ولبنان واليمن، ونهوض قوى المقاومة التي تشكل إيران قلعتها الاستراتيجية، لأنها ترسم صورة توازنات قلب آسيا الذي تقف روسيا والصين على طرفيه، وتضعان رصيدهما كله لدخول هذا القلب.

سرت واشنطن أهم أسلحتها وأوراقها التفاوضية، وكشفت اختلال ميزان القوى لصالح إيران، عندما قبلت التفاوض على الملف النووي من دون الدخول في ملفين سياسيين ترتبط بهما موازين القوى التي تحدد التوازنات وترسم المعادلات في المنطقة، وهما سلاح الصواريخ الإيراني، ودعم حركات المقاومة، وكشفت أن مسعاها التفاوضي يرمي لتهدئة التصعيد وتبريد الجبهات، بترسيم حدود الخسائر، عبر الاعتراف بإيران نووية، وقبول عودتها للمتاجرة والتعاملات المصرفية، وسلمت بفشل سياسة العقوبات في ترويضها، بعدما أعلنت الفشل استراتيجي للحروب بانسحابها من أفغانستان، وسقف تطلعاتها صار وقف التصعيد، بما يعنيه ذلك من دعوة حلفائها لتقبل خسائر مشابهة لخسارتها في أفغانستان، فتنسحب السعودية من اليمن، وتتجه «إسرائيل» نحو قبول تنازلات لتبريد جبهاتها الشمالية والجنوبية، وتتوج أميركا ذلك بانسحابها من العراق وسورية، وأن سقف المفاوضات النووية يهدف للحصول على شروط تضعف مقدرات البرنامج النووي الإيراني بالقياس لما بلغه من تقدم.

في الأيام الماضية حملت الأخبار الآتية من مصادر أوروبية، ما يوحي بفرضية فشل المفاوضات، وظهر أن المناخ الأوروبي يعبر عن جزء من الضغط الإعلامي والسياسي الذي تظهر عبره أوروبا تبعيتها العمياء لأميركا، وانضباطها خلفها بعدما شعرت بالخطر من التصعيد الأميركي حول أوكرانيا، لكن ما برز أمس من معطيات يؤكد أن ورقتي العمل الإيرانيتين اللتين وصفهما الأوروبيون بالمخيبتين للآمال، تشكلان أساس التفاوض القائم، وأن تقدماً جدياً يتم تحقيقه، وأن لجنة ثالثة لدمج الورقتين قد تشكلت، وأن المبعوث الأميركي الخاص بالملف النووي الإيراني روبرت مالي سيشارك في المفاوضات غير المباشرة ويدير الفريق الأميركي فيها، وهذه كلها علامات على بلوغ التفاوض مرحلة متقدمة جداً، يقترب فيها من التوصل لتفاهم، وجاء الكلام الإسرائيلي عن الخيار العسكري ليضيف مؤشراً جديداً لتقدم المسار التفاوضي، وكلما سمعنا مزيداً من الصراخ الإسرائيلي يجب أن ندرك أن المفاوضات تتقدم بجدية.

قوة إيران التفاوضية تأتي من مصدرين، الأول أنها بخلاف أميركا تملك بديلاً للتفاوض، هو المضي قدماً ببرنامجها النووي حتى  لحظة القلق الأميركي من عتبة امتلاك السلاح النووي، والمضي قدماً في مشاريع التحرر الإقتصادي من مفاعيل العقوبات، وبالتوازي الاستناد إلى ميزان قوى عسكري في المنطقة لها ولحلفائها اليد العليا فيه، ومشكلة واشنطن التفاوضية أنها تدرك بأن لا بدائل لديها، وأنها لحظة إعلانها الخروج من المفاوضات من دون نتيجة ستفتح المنطقة على أحداث كبرى ستكون فيها ومعها الحليفين الخليجي والإسرائيلي في موقع الخسارة.

فيديوات متعلقة

مقالات متعلقة

The Russian Foreign Intelligence office (SVR) issues an unprecedented warning about US operations in eastern Ukraine

November 23, 2021

The Saker

This is a machine translated text whose source is here: http://svr.gov.ru/smi/2021/11/ssha-provotsiruyut-obostrenie-na-vostoke-ukrainy.htm
(Emphasis and color added by me, Andrei)
——-

THE UNITED STATES PROVOKES AN ESCALATION IN THE EAST OF UKRAINE

The press Bureau of the SVR of Russia reports that recently Washington officials have been actively intimidating the world community by allegedly preparing Russia for “aggression” against Ukraine. According to incoming data, the US State Department through diplomatic channels brings to its allies and partners absolutely false information about the concentration of forces on the territory of our country for a military invasion of Ukraine. The Americans paint a terrible picture of how hordes of Russian tanks will begin to crush Ukrainian cities, convince them that they have some “reliable information” about such intentions of Russia.

It is surprising with what speed a previously quite respectable foreign ministry turns into a mouthpiece of false propaganda.

These fabrications, however, are not as harmless as it may seem. The quote attributed to the Minister of Propaganda of Hitler’s Germany, Joseph Goebbels, reads: “The more monstrous the lie, the more willing the crowd is to believe in it.” Of course, this line fits into the anti-Russian course of the West. We are much more concerned about the fact that such aggressive propaganda encourages the Kiev regime to build up its military grouping in the Donbas and resume shelling of civilian objects. There is data on the creeping advance of Ukrainian positions deep into the so-called gray zone along the demarcation line, as well as the concentration of forces and means of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in the border areas with Russia and Belarus. The United States and its allies continue to pump Ukraine with weapons, encourage the use of delivered means of destruction, including strike unmanned aerial systems, in order to carry out military provocations.

The provocative policy of the United States and the European Union, which deliberately strengthens Kiev’s sense of permissiveness and impunity, causes extreme concern. We observed a similar situation in Georgia on the eve of the events of 2008. Then M. Saakashvili “broke loose” and tried to destroy Russian peacekeepers and the civilian population of South Ossetia. It cost him dearly.

Head of the Press Bureau

SVR of Russia S.N. Ivanov

22.11.2021

The whitewashing murder day (UPDATED)

November 11, 2021

The whitewashing murder day (UPDATED)

Propaganda is easy to unpack once you get down a few basic rules.  One of them is this: “the louder the slogan, the bigger the lie“.

That is also the case with Veteran’s Day in which US Americans thank their veterans for their “service”.

Now even setting aside the true reasons why US Americans sign up, there is a much more important fact which the US propaganda machine is trying to whitewash: US “servicepersons” (yup, let’s keep up with the times!) ALWAYS fight in the other guy’s backyard.  Always.

So they have to somehow resolve this self-evident contradiction: I fight for the other guy, in his own backyard, by fighting against him.

In order to make that one stick or, at least, to damped the cognitive dissonance, you do two things: first, you demonize the other guy while, second, you claim to “serve” for high, lofty and utterly meaningless notions like “manifest destiny”, “democracy” or even, as I heard recently, to “save the Jews from the Nazi gas chambers”.

And it works.

The bigger the lie, the louder the slogans, the more energetic the flag-waving and the bigger the patriotic-hysteria around the “gratitude” towards those who are, undeniably, hired murders (even those who do not pull the trigger, but help others do so).

Of course, no matter what kind of mental gymnastics are needed to obfuscate the true nature of what the veterans really did (and still are doing), the truth seeps under this ideological concertina wire, especially when veterans blow their brains out, suffer from PTSD, drown in drugs and booze and end up homeless in immense numbers.

So Veteran’s Day is not about veterans at all, it is about self-absolution, about just for one day pretending to care about veterans and their “service”.  But crucially, this day of shame is about whitewashing murder.

Violence and lies are twin brothers always working hand in hand towards their common goal.

We can get a feeling for the magnitude of the violence perpetrated by the US servicepersons by observing the ideological intensity of the “protective shield” of lies which are needed to conceal its true nature of their actions.

I don’t know of Latin American drug cartels have a “Dia del Sicario” but if they don’t they should emulate the “The Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave” and create one, celebrated with lots of flags and expressions of patriotic piety.

I personally will join those few souls who hope that the day will come when the US military will truly be what it has never been before: a force whose mission is to protect the people of the USA from foreign threats (not that I see from where this threat may come from).

Only then will the US sicarios become real soldiers.

Andrei

UPDATE: in one of the comments which the mods (rightly) sent to trash there was one question which I feel needs to be addressed: what about the Russians in Syria?  Ain’t that the same?

Nope, for the following reasons:

  • The Russians went to Syria not to start a war (the Empire did that), but to STOP one
  • The Russians did not commit mass atrocities in Syria
  • The Russians were directly threatened by “Axis of Kindness” operations in the Middle-East (what the CIA was doing in Afghanistan in the 70 it never stopped doing and was STILL at it in Syria)
  • Last, but not least, the Russians did not flee in disgrace from Syria (or Afghanistan, for that matter)

So no, it ain’t the same.

Land Destroyer is now “The New Atlas” – New Name, New Website

October 24, 2021 (Brian Berletic – LD) –

After many years of running “LandDestroyer” on Blogspot, I have finally created a new independent website: NewAtlas.report

Please visit The New Atlas to find and follow all of my recent work. Below is a playlist featuring daily videos I put out on YouTube and it will update inside this post regularly – otherwise all new articles will be published only on The New Atlas website. 

There are NO ads and NO paywalls on The New Atlas website and there never will be. So please bookmark and share it with others. 

The New Atlas is on YouTube here, Odysee here (a backup if ever YouTube deletes my channel) and can be found on Patreon here

Related

Nations Built on Lies – How the US Became Rich

October 16, 2021

Nations Built on Lies – How the US Became Rich

Foreword, Prologue, Introduction:  This is Part 1 of 6 and will form a complete ebook that will be available for download with part six.

Foreword

From: James Bacque

Date: Saturday, Jan 5, 2019 9:13 PM

Dear Larry

Thanks for the information–as you guessed I have encountered much of it myself already. I wish you good luck . . . Be as moderate as you can in expressing your very important findings. Remember that hardly anyone knows as much as you do and some of your findings are very upsetting.

All the best

Jim

Prologue To Volume One

A Brief History of America That You Won’t Learn in a University

One of the more popular historical myths embedded in the American consciousness by the propaganda machine relates to the migration of settlers to the New World, the narrative detailing how hundreds of thousands of the virtuous oppressed flocked to the dockyards in a headlong rush for freedom and opportunity. There may indeed have been five or six such persons, but a much larger group was there to escape the hangman and jailer and an even larger selection were slave traders, hookers, and budding capitalist scam artists looking for greener pastures. When we add in the vast numbers hoping to escape justified persecution for their perverted witches-brew versions of Christianity, the first Americans were hardly role models for a new nation. The evidence is more clearly on the side of criminals, losers and misfits, religious whackos and opportunists than on the mythical oppressed. And, for the record, there is no evidence whatever of settlers emigrating to America in search of either “freedom” or “opportunity”, at least not within the current meaning of these words.

Good mental health was not a prerequisite for European settlers emigrating to the New World. We are fond of reminding ourselves that Australia was (and mostly still is) populated primarily with murderers, thieves and sexual perverts, but the immigrants to America were not noticeably better. Indeed, the inscription on the Statue of Liberty got the words more or less correct in referring to “the wretched refuse of your teeming shore”. While the Australians had their serial killers and muggers, the Europeans went one better with their Christian extremists who spent their weekdays burning witches and killing Indians, and their Sundays in church thanking God for the opportunity. The Australians have marginally improved their habits over the centuries while the Americans have not.

America is widely accepted, and indeed even prides itself, on being a deeply Christian country, with 65% or more of the population declaring religion important in their lives. This would be supported by history, since the major migrations to the New World consisted of a long list of flaky religious sects whose primary goal in emigration was the opportunity to build a society entirely based on those isolationist and extremist heresies. It is probably safe to say that Salem witchcraft was the seedbed in which the peculiarly American version of Christian theology sprouted and flourished, and which also served as a practical introduction to mass hysteria which would later be so usefully applied to the concepts of patriotism and democracy. The enduring echoes of this religious ancestry have been highly influential in all of subsequent American history.

The Preamble to the American Declaration of Independence (“The most famous words in the English language”, if you’re American; just another Hello Kitty greeting card, if you’re not), states: “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all White Men were created superior and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, the most important of which is slavery”. In the recent history of the modern world, only two nations of people have so thoroughly embraced slavery as to have practiced it on an immense scale for hundreds of years: the Christians in America and the Dalai Lamas in Tibet. And only these two groups so cherished slavery in their hearts they fought a civil war over the right to maintain it. It is hardly a moral selling point that both sets of racist bigots lost the war and, while Mao cleaned up Tibet, the racism and bigotry persisted in America, often violently, for another 200 years and is still widely in evidence today. Christian virtue does not die easily.

Internationally, the American government and its leaders function with an absolute amorality, driven primarily by their commercial Darwinism, their law-of-the-jungle, might-makes-right philosophy. Yet individually most Americans accept all this as somehow being righteous and pleasing in the eyes of their god. The vast network of torture prisons, the numerous governments overthrown, the countless brutal dictatorships installed and supported, the commercial and military enslavement of so many populations, the 10 to 20 million civilians massacred, the constant meddling in the internal affairs of other nations, the so-frequent destabilisation of governments, the plundering of the resources of so many nations. All of these are excused, justified, forgiven, often praised, then quickly forgotten by these moral Christians. Americans may be comfortable with all this cognitive dissonance, but as Jiddu Krishnamurti aptly wrote, “It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society”.

Hypocrisy has always been a prominent, if not quite endearing, feature of Americans, and especially of their government. It is Americans who preach democracy and freedom at home while installing brutal puppet dictators all over the world, who preach free trade at home while practicing savage mercantilistic protectionism abroad. It is Americans who espouse human rights at home while building the largest network of torture prisons in the history of the world. And of course, preaching that human life is precious at home while murdering millions in other nations in trumped-up wars of liberation. It is only Americans who moan about “the appalling loss of 5,000 American lives” in Iraq while killing one million Iraqis, half of whom were children. It is only the Americans who use the CIA, NED, USAID and the VOA to pay and prod individuals in other countries to create internal political dissent, then condemn a government for cracking down on “innocent dissidents”. Maybe one day Americans will lose their stomach for all this creation of worldwide instability and have another American revolution. And not before time.

Most Americans are only dimly aware of their own sordid past, a situation abetted by all the blank pages in the history books. The portions of US history contained in these pages have mostly been excised from the historical memory of Americans because they don’t fit the mythical narrative. Most Americans fervently believe their country was founded on God and Christian virtue, liberty, democracy, human rights and free trade, but when we dig beneath the propaganda and jingoism we discover the United States of America was founded on religious extremism, racism, slavery, genocide, a brutal imperialism and a virulently predatory strain of capitalism.

These volumes contain a capsule history of the United States of America with selections that will not be found in any history book, but that nevertheless consists of facts which are not in dispute. From here, we will look at some specifics, beginning with how America became rich. From this point forward, ideology and reality will be in constant conflict, presenting stark challenges to our uninformed beliefs.

Quiz on American History

a. Which US Secretary of State holds the World Record for being the most prolific baby-killer in recorded history?

b. Which US General holds the World Record as the greatest pathological mass killer in modern history?

c. Fidel Castro listed in the Guinness Book of Records as surviving 638 murder attempts by the US government. For what was he being punished?

d. The father of which recent US President conspired with a group of Jewish bankers and industrialists in 1933, engaging a famous General to amass an army of 500,000 troops to overthrow the US government and install a fascist dictatorship in America?

e. How many times has the US invaded Canada?

f. The US has been a nation for about 245 years. For how many of those years has the US been at war?

g. How many democracies has the US installed in other nations during its lifetime? How many brutal dictatorships has the US installed in other nations during its lifetime?

h. Japan conducted abominable human experimentation in China during WWII – Shiro Ishii’s infamous Unit 731. Why was Japan spared war crimes trials?

i. How many Presidents, Prime Ministers and senior government officials of other countries has the US assassinated for disobedience or obstruction to hegemony?

j. Which country operates the only Torture University in the world?

k. For several hundred years, slave-trading was the highest-paying job in America. What was the second-highest-paying?

l. Which government for about 100 years paid a lifetime salary to any citizen who could steal patents and processes from other countries?

m. Which revered US Supreme Court justice recommended killing off all Americans of low IQ?

n. The government of which country for decades silenced political dissidents by performing frontal lobotomies and turning them into vegetables?

o. Which famous American institution recommended “mercy killings” of the economically unfit, these to be performed in local gas chambers?

p. Which American Defense Secretary gathered 500,000 young men with an average IQ of about 65 and sent them to Vietnam? How many returned? What was his punishment?

q. Which American Military physician appeared before Congress in what year, asking for $10 million to fund the creation of the HIV virus? Did he receive the money?

r. When and where was Coca-Cola was invented?

s. Which famous person invented the incandescent light bulb? Which the telephone? The most famous American inventor was Thomas Edison. How many things did Edison invent?

t. We are told Germany killed some 6,000,000 Jews during WWII. How many Germans were killed in Germany AFTER the end of WWII?

u. Which famous physicist wrote to Roosevelt, offering to fund the entire unknown cost of creating the atomic bomb, stating the funds were already confirmed available?

v. Which famous US President was the illegitimate son of a Jewish slave trader?

w. Abraham Lincoln’s wife was an inveterate opium addict. Who was her opium supplier?

x. In what year was slavery abolished in the US?

y. Which US President exposed tens of millions of US citizens to radiation from open-air atomic tests, then instructed medics to inform women experiencing leukemia, hair loss, miscarriages, that they were suffering from “housewife syndrome”?

z. Which famous shoe did Nike design that set Phil Knight and Bill Bowerman on the road to fame and glory?

Answers

a. Madeleine Albright; Iraq, 500,000

b. Cutis LeMay; about 20 million, give or take

c. Expelling the Jews from Cuba

d. George Bush

e. Five so far

f. 235

g. Zero. More than 50, and counting

h. Ishii and his entire unit were transported to the US to teach Americans the pleasures of live vivisections and other atrocities. Ishii was a Professor at the University of Maryland until his death decades later.

i. More than 150, and counting (including Dag Hammarskjöld, Secretary-General of the UN)

j. The US of A; the “University of the Americas” in Fort Benning, Georgia

k. Killing Indians

l. The US of A. Amounts of $20,000 to $50,000, in the 1800s

m. Oliver Wendell Holmes

n. The US of A. (FBI)

o. Carnegie

p. Robert McNamara. Not many, but the Defense Dept. refuses to release statistics. Made President of the World Bank.

q. Dr. Donald MacArthur, Deputy Director, Research and Engineering, Department of Defense. 1969. Yes.

r. The Spanish town of Aielo de Malferit, 40 years before Coke stole the patent.

s. Joseph Swan, USA, five years before Edison stole the patent. Antonio Meucci, Italy, five years before Bell stole the patent. None. All Edison’s patents were either stolen, bullied, extorted or purchased.

t. Between 12 million and 14 million; some by execution, the bulk by starvation.

u. Albert Einstein, funds offered by Rothschild and other European Jewish bankers.

v. Abraham Lincoln; the son of A. A. Springs(tein) and Nancy Hanks. Adopted by the Lincoln family.

w. A Jewish drug dealer named John Wilkes Booth.

x. Slavery was never abolished in the US. It just changed form.

y. Eisenhower

z. The Japanese Onitsuka Tiger. Nike stole the design and began manufacturing in the US. American courts ruled Onitsuka and Nike could “share” the patent.

Introduction to the Series

David Edwards was quoted in the Third World Traveler as having written:

“Even open-minded people will often find themselves unable to take seriously the likes of Noam Chomsky, Edward Herman, Howard Zinn and Susan George on first encountering their work; it just does not seem possible that we could be so mistaken in what we believe. The individual may assume that these writers must be somehow joking, wildly over-stating the case, paranoid, or have some sort of axe to grind. We may actually become angry with them for telling us these terrible things about our society and insist that this simply ‘can’t be true’. It takes real effort to keep reading, to resist the reassuring messages of the mass media and be prepared to consider the evidence again.”

This is the condition we face in dealing with America and Americans today: a blind faith and conviction based on a century of clever marketing and nationalistic propaganda that is almost inevitably contradicted by the facts. In truth, there is little about the US today that is not based on fabricated historical mythologies, buried history, biased presentations, facts twisted so badly as to be often unrecognisable. Probably 95% of what Americans ‘know’ about their nation, its history and its conduct in international affairs, is wrong, and often violently wrong. I am not so much concerned with what Americans believe about their own country, but it is a concern that this enormous compendium of historical fiction has been marketed to the rest of the world as truth, with peoples in many other nations believing the same fairytales as do the Americans and holding that nation in a level of regard that is to say the least undeserved, and often dangerous for the absence of truths.

These truths are the content of these books, the history of the US as it really was then and still is today, harsh provable truths and documented realities without the vast comforter of propaganda, jingoism, patriotism and misinformation that blankets the nation we know as the United States of America. Coincident with what is truly an almost incomprehensible volume of rose-tinted misinformation about the US is an equal volume of black-tinted information about the world outside the US. To the same extent that Americans have been subjected to a century or more of positive and unforgivably false propaganda about their own nation, they have also been subjected to enormously false negative propaganda and misinformation about the world outside their borders.

This series of books was to a large extent an accident of circumstance which began with my extended stay in China and the almost immediate realisation that the voluminous negative flood about China persistently emanating from the Western Zionist media was entirely false; demonisation and propaganda at their worst, giving Americans wholly unrealistic and often vicious misinterpretations and misunderstandings about the realities of China. After viewing a decade or more of this onslaught, and after writing many series of articles in attempts to correct some of the more egregious falsehoods, it seemed a book might be a more appropriate format. But then during ten years or more of historical research, it became apparent that Americans had been subjected to an even greater campaign of misinformation about their own nation than about China and other foreign countries.

I then seemed faced with a two-fold task: to correct – in the eyes of Americans, and perhaps Westerners generally – some of the more glaring misinformation about China, but then to correct – in the eyes of Americans – the even more glaring misinformation about their own country. To further complicate the issues, it gradually became clear that the world outside the US had been so contaminated by American historical mythology, jingoism and propaganda that foreigners were largely living in the same fairyland, insofar as the realities of America were concerned, as were the Americans themselves. To add to the confusion, it eventually emerged that the US-based power of the media, of advertising, of propaganda and misinformation, had contaminated not only the American view of other nations but the views of the peoples within those nations – to the point where Russians or Chinese or Vietnamese had been excessively exposed (thanks in no small part to malignancies like the VOA and Radio Free Europe) to both the glorified but false images of the US and the comparatively derogatory but false images of their own nations that had been so heavily propagated by the American government and the Zionist media to their own people. One book thus became five.

These books are intended to provide only a summary of the related topics. Full volumes can, and have been, written on many of the topics in these chapters. We have seen many books on the CIA involvement in narcotics or in Tibet, volumes on the discrepancies in the official 9-11 narrative or the Bush regime torture prisons, others on the various failings of US democracy or the American educational system. But these individual offerings, useful as they are, treat the segments as essentially disparate and unrelated issues where in reality most of them are integral parts of a deeply-connected whole. My purpose in these volumes is to present a unified picture to enable readers to see the entire landscape as a single canvas and appreciate the inter-relationships of the parts. It is this unified image that will provide a comprehensive understanding of world events and the forces driving them.

Preface To Volume One

Almost every individual or family has what we call ‘skeletons in the closet’, a collection of perhaps embarrassing or even shameful events, regrettable actions, unsavory family members, sins we committed that we would rather not confess in public, things we do not dwell on and would prefer to forget, recognition not only of our imperfections but reflecting the reality that we not so much make mistakes as sometimes act with less than honorable motives.

Included in this category are lies that we tell. Many of these are what we call ‘white lies’, usually small avoidances of truth often done for convenience or even a good cause. No doubt all of us lie on occasion, but there are precious few of us for whom lies constitute the foundation of our lives, where we are in a real sense “living a lie”. We occasionally encounter people who lie about their educational credentials or work history, sometimes greatly exaggerating their accomplishments, and in these instances the lies may serve as an important part of the foundation of a person’s life, perhaps obtaining a highly-paid position based on entirely false credentials, a life that would in part disintegrate if all the truths were known. We find this sometimes with con artists, whose very existence seems built on a vast and intricate weaving of lies, with lives that would indeed disintegrate if the truths were made public. These latter people are, in some real sense, “living a lie”.

Moving from individuals to nations, there are a few countries in the world that fit this latter category, one being the United States of America – a nation and a people that are in every sense living a lie, with virtually the entire foundation of beliefs, of actions, of history, of national pride, of citizenship, based on things that are not only not true but constitute an all-encompassing network of fabricated historical myths. This is not an idle claim, and is not an accusation that can be made against many other countries. I know of no place regarding the US where we can look and not find the landscape littered with falsehoods and supported by an enormous scaffolding of myths, half-truths, buried facts, boldly revised history, nationalistic propaganda and magnificent outright lies. It is true that most nations sugar-coat some parts of their history, but the US is almost unique in the world in being a nation that is genuinely built – and almost entirely built – on a foundation of lies.

With most other nations, if all their historical and political lies were fully exposed with all truths openly documented, they would still survive. But for Americans, the existential threat would be unbearable and I do not believe the US could survive as a nation if all its historical truths were unveiled and confirmed, in a manner by which Americans were compelled to confront them as fact, where denial was not an option.

As two minor examples, we have the now well-documented fact that the US government abandoned several thousand prisoners of war in Vietnam, men held back by the Vietnamese pending the American payment of the agreed war reparations of several billions of dollars. The US government had no intention of paying the money and so walked away from the table, leaving the men behind. Many veterans attempted to bring this to public attention, even testifying before Congress; many had unshakable proof of their claims, but the government – and the media – ignored them until recently when all the factual details emerged in second-tier internet news sites and could no longer be avoided. A much greater existential threat lies in the truth of Pearl Harbor, where it is no longer a secret, except to Americans, that Roosevelt knew not only of the impending Japanese attack (which he had carefully and deliberately provoked), but that he knew precisely the location and course of the Japanese fleet and the date and time of the attack. Roosevelt and his aides held back this information from their own high-level military at Pearl Harbor, sacrificing those lives for the greater objective of a “justified” entry into both theaters of the Second World War.

I believe there are almost no Americans with the emotional capacity to face this brutal truth, either philosophically or emotionally, and yet similar evidence virtually floods the available information sources. I would repeat here David Edwards’ words that “we will become angry with them for telling us these terrible things about our society and insist that this simply ‘can’t be true’.” Yet these things have always been true about the American government. It wasn’t so long ago that declassified documents revealed Operation Northwoods, where the CIA proposed to shoot down a planeload of American college students and a US space shuttle launch, using those as justification to invade Cuba and remove Castro. The US government has both proposed and executed dozens of these atrocities over the years, all hidden from the American mind and heart with the compliance of the media. Pearl Harbor was by no means the worst of these, but few Americans will be able to deal with these truths of their nation.

Many other events are perhaps less brutal but no less breathtaking in their dishonesty. All the tales of how the US became rich, the jingoistic mantras of ingenuity and innovation, of wealth resulting from freedom and democracy, hard work and fair play, are entirely false, and repugnantly so. America became rich through a program of organised violence encompassing hundreds of years, through centuries of unpaid slave labor, military invasions, and the bullying and plundering of weaker nations. The propaganda of the benefits of American-style capitalism follows this same pattern, but Americans are fed this pulp from birth and no longer have the intelligence to see the truth. The US government statistics on items like inflation, unemployment, GDP and more, are the most misleading and dishonest of all nations today. The propaganda machine tells us otherwise, but one need only look at the facts. The US has for the last century been the largest perpetrator of espionage in the world, this activity provably including commercial espionage on a grand scale for more than a century, but the propaganda machine lays this accusation on other nations while claiming a desire to collect only information on terrorists. An enormous lie of a magnitude almost too large to comprehend or refute.

Thomas Edison, revered in American history books as one of the most prolific inventors of all time, never invented anything. The stories about him are fabricated historical myths, as are the cherished legends of the Wright Brothers making the first powered flight or Alexander Graham Bell inventing the telephone. Coca-Cola was a world-famous Spanish product stolen and patented by US pharmacist John Pemberton, with the US government refusing to recognise the prior patents. Tales of American inventiveness and IP are almost 180 degrees from the truth, with solidly documented proof that the US stole more IP from more countries than did any other nation, by orders of magnitude, paying $20,000 to $50,000 to anyone who could accomplish such a theft, at a time when even $20,000 was a lifetime salary for an average person. This pattern is consistent in every area and every field of endeavor in American society. The entire history of the US, as described in the history books and repeated incessantly by everyone from Hollywood to various Presidents, is almost all false, and the parts not false are almost always misrepresented. The nation of America and all of its people, are truly living a lie.

The entire thread of “Democracy” and “democratic values” is one of the greatest serial lies ever told. American history books, and American minds, are filled with tales of the US “making the world safe for democracy” by battling tyranny everywhere and installing democratic governments, but this has never happened even one time. While the propaganda machine was flooding the imaginary world with tales of democracies, the US was flooding the real world with brutal military dictators that would permit US multinationals and banks to pillage their countries. All the theory of the US’ fabled democracy, the government by the people, the checks and balances, is false, with the truth in the open but Americans so indoctrinated nobody seems able to see. Furthermore, the US government has made it illegal to teach many of these truths in America’s public schools.

All the propaganda of moral superiority, of concern for human rights, are, as we will see, lies in their entirety. The US is not only not morally superior, but has the worst human rights record of all nations excepting one, in recent centuries. Americans have many tales – almost all false – of other nations committing wartime atrocities while their own government and military were committing far worse and heavily censoring the media to prevent that knowledge from escaping custody. Almost no Americans know of the vast massacres committed by their military in the Philippines, Indonesia, Japan, Germany and Iraq. Human rights atrocities began from the first days of the white settlers landing in North America, and have never ceased. Ever since the US outsourced to other countries its human rights atrocities, it has boasted to the world of its moral righteousness in human rights leadership, but all was based on lies, deception and marketing. The world’s only “torture university” – the infamous School of the Americas, the decades of cruel and even savage atrocities inflicted on so many of the world’s nations, have been lost in the American propaganda of goodness.

The US heavily promotes its fictitious position as the world’s policeman, but it has never once acted in such a capacity. No nation has ever been protected or defended from anything by the US, but many dozens have instead been ravaged and destroyed by this same imaginary angel of mercy. Everything about the US protecting any part of the world, is an outright lie. American heads are filled with tales of American goodness rescuing these populations from tyranny, but the hundreds of US military interventions have been undertaken to beat down indigenous populations who were rebelling against American imperialism, poverty and death. The US Congressional Record lists these interventions as “protecting American interests” without providing details on precisely what interests were being protected, by what means this “protection” was being inflicted and, most importantly, why America had any “interests” in those nations in the first place.

The US government has not only lied about every war and foreign military intervention, but has most often created false-flag events to accompany the lies and create fictitious justifications for belligerent action. The American entry to World War One was promoted by perhaps the greatest woven tapestry of lies ever created, thanks to Lippman and Bernays, a project that involved literally millions of lies told over a period of years, sufficient to brainwash an entire population into hating an innocent country. The promotion of World War Two was not better in any respect. The Americans have done this since the destruction of the warship Maine in Cuba’s harbor more than a century ago, and have never ceased these enormous self-inflicted injuries. Lies used to justify more lies.

It is now well-known and not in dispute that US officials told more than 900 separate lies to justify the invasion and destruction of Iraq. The same is true with Libya, and with Syria today. The same is true of the destruction of Yugoslavia, another devastating military adventure based 100% on lies. All of the so-called “color revolutions” and other similar were not initiated to protect local populations from dictators but to punish unwilling nations for resisting the brutal American-style capitalism that was ravaging their shores. Ukraine, Russia, China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, North Korea, Iran, Cuba, Brazil, Venezuela, Nicaragua, and so many more nations have been under attack by the US government simply for resisting colonisation, but stillborn American minds believe they are God’s representatives pressuring “the bad guys”. Every part of American foreign policy and foreign involvement is covered with a carpet of lies, the media assisting in subversion and burying of the truths.

It would be useful to collect a catalogue of lies told by American presidents, Secretaries of State and other high officials, and publish these alongside the true facts. Consider this statement by George Bush made in 2003, just as his vast international kidnapping and torture regime was running at top speed: “The United States is committed to the world-wide elimination of torture and we are leading this fight by example. I call on all governments to join with the United States and the community of law-abiding nations in prohibiting, investigating, and prosecuting all acts of torture and in undertaking to prevent other cruel and unusual punishment. I call on all nations to speak out against torture in all its forms and to make ending torture an essential part of their diplomacy.” Name one president of any country that has told a greater lie than this one by George Bush.

The US government and its agencies boast to the world about their freedom of speech while condemning censorship in other nations, yet the US is probably the most heavily censored of all countries. The fact that the media are willing conspirators does not change the fact that all news and public content is heavily controlled and that 95% of what Americans “know” about their own nation and the world, is false. The US news media invariably present only one side of events that proselytise the current political agenda, leaving the American people hopelessly in the dark about the true facts. This is so true that one US columnist noted that only 4% of Americans have any awareness of the immense brutality perpetrated on the people of Palestine by the state of Israel for the past 70 years. American history books and other educational materials consist largely of historical myths, propaganda about the goodness of America, about the badness of other nations, lies about the foundation and entire history of America itself. Hollywood is one of the worst criminals in this regard, with virtually every movie containing historical content being little more than a twisted propaganda film, satisfying one ideology or another while totally misleading Americans on the truths of their own nation. Stephen Spielberg’s recent ‘Lincoln’ movie is one such example, but there are hundreds of others.

The US, the one nation in the world stridently claiming an absolute freedom from propaganda, brainwashing and censorship, is in fact and reality the nation most overwhelmed with precisely these attributes. We will see irrefutable evidence that American schoolchildren are exposed to extensive indoctrination virtually from birth in terms of politics, capitalism, consumerism, patriotism, moral superiority, American exceptionalism and so much more. We will see that this indoctrination and brainwashing are so extensive that the American view of itself and its place in the world bear almost no comparison to reality, to the extent that this vast gulf between beliefs and reality constitutes a national mental illness. Given the enormous cognitive dissonance in America today, one can conclude only that Americans are the most deluded people on earth.

And in the end, this is the reason the US Department of Homeland Security has built its 800 detention centers and purchased its three billion bullets, the same reason that many (Western) columnists are openly suggesting that the rampant abuse of power, the entrenched corruption and feeding from the public trough, the persistent plundering and terrorising of nations with civilian casualties in the millions, “has become so widespread, so deeply entrenched and so increasingly bold, that the only possible remedy is a revolution”. American and European columnists are becoming increasingly vocal in actually recommending another American revolution, convinced that only a popular uprising of the population acting in concert would have the power to reverse this tide. Until then, America, unlike almost every other nation in the world, will continue to be a nation built on lies.


Part Two of Six will contain:  Colonisation, Labor and Slavery

Image credit:  https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202109/17/WS6143dbbda310e0e3a6822281.html

Colin Powell’s Death: Liar of the Century

19 Oct 2021

Visual search query image

Source: Al Mayadeen Net

Hussam AbdelKareem

Colin Powell was part of the Quartet (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld & Powell) of American officials who were responsible for the illegal, unethical, and criminal invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Visual search query image

Colin Powell passed away at the age of 84. In his eulogy, writers in the American press will certainly talk about the “brave soldier” who ascended the US army ranks to the “Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff” position and who eventually became the first African-American Secretary of State (he’s born to Jamaican parents). But in fact, he will be remembered for his role in Iraq’s invasion more than anything else in his career. Colin Powell was part of the Quartet (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld & Powell) of American officials who were responsible for the illegal, unethical, and criminal invasion of Iraq in 2003. It was Colin Powell who presented America’s case for the war on Iraq to the world in the famous UN Security Council session on Feb 5, 2003.

“Every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. What we’re giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence”

– Colin Powell; Feb 5, 2003. 

During the UN Security Council session, Powell detailed the serious threats Iraq was posing to the world by its Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) secret programs and its links with terrorism. He even went on to show a vial in his hand saying that it could be used to store Iraq’s Anthrax germs as part of biological warheads.  

Powell actually used that UN Security Council meeting as “show business”, using projectors and audio recordings to “prove” to the world that Iraq was an imminent threat and that the US has no other option but to go to war. Well, it was all lies, nothing but lies and fabrications. Powell was lying all-out when he talked about: 

– Iraq’s possession of mobile labs to produce WMD’s 

– Iraq’s links to Al-Qa’eda and Bin-Ladin.

– Iraq’s buying Uranium from Niger

– Iraq’s possession of long-range missiles (900 km)

All that was proven false. America failed to find any evidence to support those allegations even after years of extensive search operations all over Iraq after its invasion. 

Colin Powell was lying intentionally. He was not “mistaken”, he knew exactly what he was doing. His boss, Bush, tasked him with the dirty work of presenting a convincing “war case” to the world even if he needs to use lies, misleading information, and false evidence, and Powell accepted to do it. It’s as simple as that. It’s typical soldier behavior: obey the commander. He’s part of the crime and cannot distance himself from it as he tried to do at a later stage in his life. 

After he left office, Powell tried to blame others for what he said in the UN Security Council, portraying himself as “deceived” not as a liar. On Feb 16, 2011, The Guardian newspaper of the UK published an article titled “Former US secretary of state asks why CIA failed to warn him over Iraqi defector who has admitted fabricating WMD evidence”. Also in 2011, Powell told Al Jazeera News Channel that “I deeply regret some of the information I presented was wrong. It has blotted my record, but you know, there’s nothing I can do to change that blot”. And in 2017 Powell said in an interview on Bloomberg “I was more than embarrassed. I was mortified”.

Well, that can hardly be an apology. Talking about the CIA not informing him, his embarrassment, and the blot on his record is no more than an excuse and justification. 

Colin Powell died after he actively participated in destroying another country without any legal or moral basis. His name will remain in history’s list of invaders and barbarians.The opinions mentioned in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Al mayadeen, but rather express the opinion of its writer exclusively.

Colin Powell’s Own Staff Had Warned Him Against His War Lies

October 18th, 2021

Colin Powell holds up a vial he said could contain anthrax as he presents evidence of Iraq's alleged weapons programs to the United Nations Security Council in this Feb. 5, 2003 file photo. (Photo: AP/Elise Amendola)

By David Swanson

Source

In the wake of WMD-liar Curveball’s videotaped confession, Colin Powell was demanding to know why nobody warned him about Curveball’s unreliability. The trouble is, they did.

Can you imagine having an opportunity to address the United Nations Security Council about a matter of great global importance, with all the world’s media watching, and using it to… well, to make shit up – to lie with a straight face, and with a CIA director propped up behind you, I mean to spew one world-class, for-the-record-books stream of bull, to utter nary a breath without a couple of whoppers in it, and to look like you really mean it all? What gall. What an insult to the entire world that would be.

Colin Powell doesn’t have to imagine such a thing. He has to live with it. He did it on February 5, 2003. It’s on videotape.

I tried to ask him about it in the summer of 2004. He was speaking to the Unity Journalists of Color convention in Washington, D.C. The event had been advertised as including questions from the floor, but for some reason that plan was revised. Speakers from the floor were permitted to ask questions of four safe and vetted journalists of color before Powell showed up, and then those four individuals could choose to ask him something related – which of course they did not, in any instance, do.

Bush and Kerry spoke as well. The panel of journalists who asked Bush questions when he showed up had not been properly vetted. Roland Martin of the Chicago Defender had slipped onto it somehow (which won’t happen again!). Martin asked Bush whether he was opposed to preferential college admissions for the kids of alumni and whether he cared more about voting rights in Afghanistan than in Florida. Bush looked like a deer in the headlights, only without the intelligence. He stumbled so badly that the room openly laughed at him.

But the panel that had been assembled to lob softballs at Powell served its purpose well. It was moderated by Gwen Ifill. I asked Ifill (and Powell could watch it later on C-Span if he wanted to) whether Powell had any explanation for the way in which he had relied on the testimony of Saddam Hussein’s son-in-law. He had recited the claims about weapons of mass destruction but carefully left out the part where that same gentleman had testified that all of Iraq’s WMDs had been destroyed. Ifill thanked me, and said nothing. Hillary Clinton was not present and nobody beat me up.

I wonder what Powell would say if someone were to actually ask him that question, even today, or next year, or ten years from now. Someone tells you about a bunch of old weapons and at the same time tells you they’ve been destroyed, and you choose to repeat the part about the weapons and censor the part about their destruction. How would you explain that?

Well, it’s a sin of omission, so ultimately Powell could claim he forgot. “Oh yeah, I meant to say that, but it slipped my mind.”

But how would he explain this:

During his presentation at the United Nations, Powell provided this translation of an intercepted conversation between Iraqi army officers:

“They’re inspecting the ammunition you have, yes.

“Yes.

“For the possibility there are forbidden ammo.

“For the possibility there is by chance forbidden ammo?

“Yes.

“And we sent you a message yesterday to clean out all of the areas, the scrap areas, the abandoned areas. Make sure there is nothing there.”

The incriminating phrases “clean all of the areas” and “Make sure there is nothing there” do not appear in the official State Department translation of the exchange:

“Lt. Colonel: They are inspecting the ammunition you have.

“Colonel: Yes.

“Lt. Col: For the possibility there are forbidden ammo.

“Colonel: Yes?

“Lt. Colonel: For the possibility there is by chance, forbidden ammo.

“Colonel: Yes.

“Lt. Colonel: And we sent you a message to inspect the scrap areas and the abandoned areas.

“Colonel: Yes.”

Powell was writing fictional dialogue. He put those extra lines in there and pretended somebody had said them. Here’s what Bob Woodward said about this in his book “Plan of Attack.”

“[Powell] had decided to add his personal interpretation of the intercepts to rehearsed script, taking them substantially further and casting them in the most negative light. Concerning the intercept about inspecting for the possibility of ‘forbidden ammo,’ Powell took the interpretation further: ‘Clean out all of the areas. . . . Make sure there is nothing there.’ None of this was in the intercept.”

For most of his presentation, Powell wasn’t inventing dialogue, but he was presenting as facts numerous claims that his own staff had warned him were weak and indefensible.

Powell told the UN and the world: “We know that Saddam’s son, Qusay, ordered the removal of all prohibited weapons from Saddam’s numerous palace complexes.” The January 31, 2003, evaluation of Powell’s draft remarks prepared for him by the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (“INR”) flagged this claim as “WEAK”.

Regarding alleged Iraqi concealment of key files, Powell said: “key files from military and scientific establishments have been placed in cars that are being driven around the countryside by Iraqi intelligence agents to avoid detection.” The January 31, 2003 INR evaluation flagged this claim as “WEAK” and added “Plausibility open to question.” A Feb. 3, 2003, INR evaluation of a subsequent draft of Powell’s remarks noted:

“Page 4, last bullet, re key files being driven around in cars to avoid inspectors. This claim is highly questionable and promises to be targeted by critics and possibly UN inspection officials as well.” That didn’t stop Colin from stating it as fact and apparently hoping that, even if UN inspectors thought he was a brazen liar, US media outlets wouldn’t tell anyone.

On the issue of biological weapons and dispersal equipment, Powell said: “we know from sources that a missile brigade outside Baghdad was disbursing rocket launchers and warheads containing biological warfare agents to various locations, distributing them to various locations in western Iraq.”

The January 31, 2003, INR evaluation flagged this claim as “WEAK”:

“WEAK. Missiles with biological warheads reportedly dispersed. This would be somewhat true in terms of short-range missiles with conventional warheads, but is questionable in terms of longer-range missiles or biological warheads.”
This claim was again flagged in the February 3, 2003, evaluation of a subsequent draft of Powell’s presentation: “Page 5. first para, claim re missile brigade dispersing rocket launchers and BW warheads. This claim too is highly questionable and might be subjected to criticism by UN inspection officials.”

That didn’t stop Colin. In fact, he brought out visual aids to help with his lying

Powell showed a slide of a satellite photograph of an Iraqi munitions bunker, and lied:

“The two arrows indicate the presence of sure signs that the bunkers are storing chemical munitions . . . [t]he truck you […] see is a signature item. It’s a decontamination vehicle in case something goes wrong.”
The January 31, 2003, INR evaluation flagged this claim as “WEAK” and added: “We support much of this discussion, but we note that decontamination vehicles – cited several times in the text – are water trucks that can have legitimate uses… Iraq has given UNMOVIC what may be a plausible account for this activity – that this was an exercise involving the movement of conventional explosives; presence of a fire safety truck (water truck, which could also be used as a decontamination vehicle) is common in such an event.”

Powell’s own staff had told him the thing was a water truck, but he told the U.N. it was “a signature item…a decontamination vehicle.” The UN was going to need a decontamination vehicle itself by the time Powell finished spewing his lies and disgracing his country.

He just kept piling it on: “UAVs outfitted with spray tanks constitute an ideal method for launching a terrorist attack using biological weapons,” he said.

The January 31, 2003, INR evaluation flagged this statement as “WEAK” and added: “the claim that experts agree UAVs fitted with spray tanks are ‘an ideal method for launching a terrorist attack using biological weapons’ is WEAK.”

In other words, experts did NOT agree with that claim.

Powell kept going, announcing “in mid-December weapons experts at one facility were replaced by Iraqi intelligence agents who were to deceive inspectors about the work that was being done there.”

The January 31, 2003, INR evaluation flagged this claim as “WEAK” and “not credible” and “open to criticism, particularly by the UN inspectorates.”

His staff was warning him that what he planned to say would not be believed by his audience, which would include the people with actual knowledge of the matter.

To Powell that was no matter.

Powell, no doubt figuring he was in deep already, so what did he have to lose, went on to tell the UN: “On orders from Saddam Hussein, Iraqi officials issued a false death certificate for one scientist, and he was sent into hiding.”

The January 31, 2003, INR evaluation flagged this claim as “WEAK” and called it “Not implausible, but UN inspectors might question it. (Note: Draft states it as fact.)”

And Powell stated it as fact. Notice that his staff was not able to say there was any evidence for the claim, but rather that it was “not implausible.” That was the best they could come up with. In other words: “They might buy this one, Sir, but don’t count on it.”

Powell, however, wasn’t satisfied lying about one scientist. He had to have a dozen. He told the United Nations: “A dozen [WMD] experts have been placed under house arrest, not in their own houses, but as a group at one of Saddam Hussein’s guest houses.”

The January 31, 2003, INR evaluation flagged this claim as “WEAK” and “Highly questionable.” This one didn’t even merit a “Not implausible.”

Powell also said: “In the middle of January, experts at one facility that was related to weapons of mass destruction, those experts had been ordered to stay home from work to avoid the inspectors. Workers from other Iraqi military facilities not engaged in elicit weapons projects were to replace the workers who’d been sent home.”

Powell’s staff called this “WEAK,” with “Plausibility open to question.”

All of this stuff sounded plausible enough to viewers of Fox, CNN, and MSNBC. And that, we can see now, was what interested Colin. But it must have sounded highly implausible to the U.N. inspectors. Here was a guy who had not been with them on any of their inspections coming in to tell them what had happened.

We know from Scott Ritter, who led many UNSCOM inspections in Iraq, that U.S. inspectors had used the access that the inspection process afforded them to spy for, and to set up means of data collection for, the CIA. So there was some plausibility to the idea that an American could come back to the UN and inform the UN what had really happened on its inspections.

Yet, repeatedly, Powell’s staff warned him that the specific claims he wanted to make were not going to even sound plausible. They will be recorded by history more simply as blatant lies.

The examples of Powell’s lying listed above are taken from an extensive report released by Congressman John Conyers: “The Constitution in Crisis; The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, and Coverups in the Iraq War.”

سهيل عبود وطارق البيطار يشعلان الشارع وسط غليان طائفي: انفجار يهدّد الحكومة وخراب يهدد البلاد

الخميس 14 تشرين الأول 2021

ابراهيم الأمين

لا يبدو أن هناك عاقلاً يمكنه التحكم بأفعال المحقّق العدلي طارق البيطار. الرجل فقد عقله، ويتصرف وكأن وحياً نزل عليه للقيام بما يخلّص البلاد، ويتصرف بلامبالاة مطلقة، ليس إزاء الآراء المنتقدة لسلوكه القضائي فحسب، بل وأيضاً تجاه القضاء نفسه، ويبدي ثقة عمياء بأن أحداً من القضاة لن يجرؤ على المسّ بموقعه.

أكثر من ذلك، يراهن البيطار ندماءه، من إعلاميين وناشطي جمعيات، على أن ما من أحد في لبنان قادر على تنحيته أو إجباره على التنحي، وأنه سيستمر في استدعاء كل من يعتقد أنه يجب أن يخضع له، بما في ذلك أرفع السياسيين… فكيف إذا ما حظي بمباركة ممثل الإله البطريرك الماروني بشارة الراعي، وضمانة المرشح الفرنسي لرئاسة الجمهورية رئيس مجلس القضاء الأعلى سهيل عبود، وحصانة في لبنان وخارجه توفّرها له دول عدة من أميركا إلى فرنسا وبريطانيا.

(هيثم الموسوي)

المشكلة أن البيطار ليس وحده في هذا المسار غير العقلاني في إدارة ملف قد يقود البلاد ليس إلى تعطيل الحكومة، وإنما إلى حرب أهلية حقيقية. بل معه فريق يضم قضاة كباراً – بينهم من يجلس في مجلس القضاء الأعلى – ممن يلهجون بـ«حصانة القضاء»، وهم الذين يدينون للسلطة السياسية في وصولهم إلى مناصبهم. كما أن إلى جانبه كل الفريق السياسي المعارض للمقاومة، من أحزاب وشخصيات و«صيصان سفارات» منتشرين على شكل فطريات تسمي نفسها «المجتمع المدني». ومعه، أيضاً، فريق إعلامي تديره السفارات الأميركية والفرنسية والإماراتية والسعودية. وهاجس هؤلاء جميعاً هو السير في تحقيق قضائي غامض وإجراءات ملتبسة تهدف إلى واحد من أمرين:

إما القبول بوجهة البيطار التي تستهدف، عملياً، فريقاً سياسياً بعينه.
أو تجهيل الحقيقة وترك اللبنانيين رهينة حرب الإشاعات التي يريد الأميركيون وفريقهم في لبنان استثمارها في الانتخابات النيابية المقبلة.

يحصل ذلك، وسط سجال يراد أن يكون له بعده الطائفي. إذ تسود البلد مناخات تريد اعتبار المشكلة القائمة اليوم بين مسيحيين ومسلمين. ولا يقتصر الأمر على الشعارات والمواقف، بل يشمل ترهيب الجسم القضائي والسياسي والأمني، بما في ذلك إثارة مناخات طائفية بقصد إحراج قوى حليفة للمقاومة، ولا سيما التيار الوطني الحر وتيار المردة.

من جانب الثنائي الشيعي، كان قرار الطلب من الحكومة بت الأمر قبل بحث أي عنوان آخر، مدخلاً لنقاش يستهدف وقف التسييس، لا التدخل في تعيين قضاة أو تنحيتهم. حتى أن الرئيس نبيه بري أبلغ وزير العدل هنري خوري، أمس، أن المخرج المطلوب هو توفير ضمانة بأن يحترم المحقق العدلي الدستور والقوانين لا أن يتجاوزها، سائلاً إياه: «كيف يعقل إدارة ملف بهذه الحساسية، من دون أن تكون هناك هيئة قادرة على مساءلة هذا القاضي، في وقت يتجاوز أبسط القواعد الدستورية ويفرض نفسه فوق سلطة المجلس النيابي؟».

وقد زار وزير العدل أمس بري ورئيس الحكومة نجيب ميقاتي، ساعياً باسم الرئيس ميشال عون إلى إيجاد مخرج يضمن وضع ضوابط توقف مخالفات البيطار، وتحول دون تعطيل الحكومة، خصوصاً بعدما قرّر وزراء تحالف حزب الله – أمل – المردة تعليق مشاركتهم في جلسات الحكومة في حال رفضت البت بالأمر. فيما جرت على الهامش اتصالات لمعالجة مسألة شكلية تتصل بامتعاض رئيس الجمهورية من طريقة تحدث وزير الثقافة محمد مرتضى في جلسة أول من أمس، وهو أمر تمت معالجته مع استمرار تفويض الثنائي الشيعي لمرتضى التحدث باسمه في أي جلسة للحكومة تعقد لمعالجة الملف.

الفريق المتضرر من أداء البيطار مستعد للذهاب إلى أبعد الحدود ولن يقف عند خاطر أحد


المؤشرات السياسية توحي بمناخات سلبية، لكن أحداً لا يتحدث عن أبواب موصدة، لأن عدم معالجة المشكلة سيتسبّب ليس فقط بتعليق عمل الحكومة بل في تعطيلها، ما ينعكس سلباً على البلد كله، لأن عدم قدرة الحكومة على معالجة ملف متفجّر وحساس، يعني أنها لن تكون قادرة على حسم أي ملف. ويدرك رئيس الحكومة أن الاعتراض سيطيح أي توافق على قضايا شديدة الحساسية هي موضع نقاش الآن، من مشروع استجرار الغاز المصري والسؤال عما يثبت أنه ليس إسرائيلياً، إلى ملف المشكلة المالية ومصير رياض سلامة وضرورة تصفية المصارف المتسببة بسرقة ودائع الناس ومحاكمة المسؤولين عنهم، إلى ملف ترسيم الحدود البحرية الذي تريد الولايات المتحدة علاجاً سريعاً له، وصولاً إلى الملف الأكثر حساسية المتعلق بالاتفاق على التفاوض مع صندوق النقد الدولي الذي لن يمر من دون اتفاق، ولو اقتضى الأمر هزة شعبية كبيرة جداً في البلاد، مع رفض مسبق لكل أفكار ميقاتي حول رفع الضرائب وتقليص القطاع العام وإعادة فتح ملف الخصخصة وحتى التفكير في استخدام الذهب أو تسييله لسداد الدين الخارجي قبل الداخلي…
الفريق المتضرر من أداء البيطار مستعد للذهاب إلى أبعد الحدود، ولن يقف عند خاطر أحد هذه المرة. هذه هي الأجواء التي تسود ليس قياداته فقط، بل قواعده التي تعيش تعبئة غير مسبوقة. وكل المناقشات أمس انتهت إلى الاتفاق على عدم القيام بتحرك يتسبب بذعر كبير، والاقتصار على تحرك «رمزي» و«أولي» أمام قصر العدل، بمشاركة بضعة آلاف من الطلاب والنقابيين، يتقدمهم حقوقيون سيدلون بتصريحات ذات طابع قانوني يفنّد مخالفات المحقق العدلي.
في الجهة المقابلة، ووسط مخاوف من حصول مواجهات على الأرض، وبعدما تدارست قوى الفريق الآخر الأمر، وبسبب خشية المجموعات المدنية من عدم قدرتها على توفير حشد مناسب، وحصول انقسام بين أهالي الضحايا، ورفض كثيرين الدعوات إلى حراك شعبي تتزعمه القوات اللبنانية التي عملت وحداتها الحزبية على إطلاق النفير في الأشرفية وفرن الشباك وعين الرمانة… أتت «التعليمات» بالتراجع والعمل على بديل بالدعوة إلى إضراب عام، باعتبار أن تحركاً من هذا النوع قد يجد تجاوباً ولا يقود إلى مواجهة قد تأخذ البلاد إلى تطورات «ليست في حسابات السفارات»، على حد تعبير مسؤول أمني بارز أبدى خشيته من عدم قدرة القوى الأمنية والعسكرية على ضبط الأمر في حال التصعيد على خلفيات طائفية، وذلك بعدما بدأت مجموعات تابعة للقوات اللبنانية عمليات تعبئة في عدد من المناطق وحركة رفع للصلبان في مناطق عدة في بيروت وتوزيع رسائل صوتية تدعو إلى الاستعداد للمواجهة. علماً أن نائب القوات عماد واكيم نفى لاحقاً أي تحرك لعناصر القوات اللبنانية في الأشرفية.
في سياق الاتصالات، يبدو أن الأمر يحتاج إلى نقاش جدي مع الرئيسين عون وميقاتي، خصوصاً أن الأخير أظهر تفهماً لإيجاد مخرج في جلسة أول من أمس. ونُقل عنه تلقيه اتصالات «خارجية» تحذره من مغبة «الوقوع تحت ضغط حزب الله واستفزاز مشاعر الناس»، فيما سادت الأوساط الحزبية القريبة من الرئيس عون مناخات تدعو إلى التنبه من أن الأخذ بمطالب الفريق المتضرر قد تنعكس سلباً على قواعد التيار في خضم التحضير للانتخابات النيابية المقبلة.

تعليمات لداعمي البيطار بعدم الذهاب إلى مواجهة قد تأخذ البلاد إلى تطورات «ليست في حسابات السفارات»


الرئيس عون استقبل موفدين شرحوا له حقيقة موقف الثنائي الشيعي، وقيل له صراحة إن حزب الله وحركة أمل ليسا في صدد إحراجه أو الضغط عليه أو على رئيس الحكومة. لكن الأمر لا يتعلق بحسابات موضعية، بل بموقف حاسم من قضية قد تقود البلاد إلى انفجار يطيح الحكومة ويعطّل ما تبقّى من ولاية العهد بصورة نهائية، ويترك الشارع لحالات شعبوية ستصيبه قبل غيره.

وسمع الرئيس عون والنائب جبران باسيل أنه لا يمكن الامتناع عن القيام بخطوة تعالج الأزمة بحجة عدم المساس بالقضاء، كما أنه لا يمكن التعامل مع هذا الملف بازدواجية، فيكون عون هو رئيس جلسة مجلس الدفاع الأعلى الذي يمنع ملاحقة اللواء طوني صليبا، بينما يدعو باسيل إلى رفع الحصانات عن الآخرين من وزراء ونواب.

رئيس الجمهورية الذي لا يريد أن تذهب البلاد إلى مواجهة مدمرة، ويعرف جيداً حقيقة الموقف الحاسم لحزب الله على الأقل، بادر إلى ورشة اتصالات، بدأت بالاتفاق مع الرئيس ميقاتي على تأجيل جلسة أمس، والطلب إلى وزير العدل زيارة مرجعيات لمناقشتها في المخارج الممكنة، والبحث في طريقة التعامل مع مجلس القضاء الأعلى، وخصوصاً رئيسه الذي صار الجميع يتعامل معه أخيراً على أنه بوجهين: يقول للوزير شيئاً، ويقول للقاضي البيطار شيئاً آخر. ووصل الأمر بجهة سياسية مسيحية بارزة إلى مصارحة عبود بأنه قد يكون مسؤولاً عن التجييش الطائفي وحتى عن عملية ترهيب للقضاة، وسأله زواره: «ما هي الأسباب التي تجعلك تختار قضاة من طائفة معينة لتولي دراسة طلبت الرد أو كف يد المحقق العدلي، وأنت تعلم أنهم عرضة لضغط على خلفية طائفية؟». علماً أن عبود نفسه كان لجأ مرات عدة إلى البطريرك الماروني لبحث الأمر نفسه، ناهيك عن أنه ينسق خطواته مع جهات غير لبنانية يعرف مسبقاً أن لديها برنامجاً يقتصر على بند واحد: ضرب المقاومة!

عملياً، تدخل البلاد اليوم مرحلة جديدة من المواجهة السياسية على خلفية ملف تفجير مرفأ بيروت. ويبدو أن بين القوى السياسية والشخصيات المعنية بالملف من لم يفهم جيداً واقع الأمور في البلاد اليوم، ومن ضمنها القوى التي تحرص على الظهور بمظهر «الحياد»، كالحزب التقدمي الاشتراكي الذي يمضي رئيسه وليد جنبلاط إجازة في الخارج. إذ إنه أعطى الضوء الأخضر لنواب في كتلته باستخدام الملف للهجوم على الرئيس عون وحزب الله في سياق التعبئة الانتخابية. واللافت، هنا، أن جنبلاط يتجاوز للمرة الأولى حليفه الرئيس بري الذي سيكون أبرز المتضررين من كل هذا الملف.


المفتي والبطريرك والتحقيقات


وعد البطريرك الماروني بشارة الراعي وفداً من دار الفتوى، ضمّ الشيخ خلدون عريمط والباحث محمد السماك وآخرين بأن يعرض وجهة نظر المجلس الشرعي الإسلامي من ملف التحقيقات في مرفأ بيروت على مجلس المطارنة في أقرب فرصة من أجل العمل لمنع تفاقم الخلافات السياسية التي تأخذ طابعاً طائفياً.

وكان المفتي عبد اللطيف دريان قد أوفد الى الراعي من يشرح له خطورة ما يجري في ملف التحقيقات، ويسلّمه نسخة عن موقف المجلس الشرعي. ويجري الحديث عن موقف متوقع لدار الإفتاء متابعة لقرار المجلس الشرعي، وخصوصاً بعدما برزت مواقف خجولة للقيادات السياسية التي تدور في فلك الدار، وبعدما ران الصمت على موقف الرئيس سعد الحريري ونادي رؤساء الحكومات الذين يبدو أنهم يراعون متطلبات التعبئة الخاصة بالانتخابات، علماً بأن هناك احتقاناً في بعض أوساط دار الفتوى من أداء بكركي، وخصوصاً بعدما تبيّن أن إدارة الدار كانت قد طلبت من المشرفين على احتفال 4 آب الماضي التنسيق لحضور ديني مشترك، وأن لا يقتصر الأمر على قدّاس حتى لا يبدو وكأن الجريمة تستهدف طائفة دون أخرى. إلا أن الدار لم تتلقّ أي جواب من دوائر بكركي.


مجلس النواب: تحرك لاستعادة الصلاحية

وجّهت الأمانة العامة لمجلس النواب كتاباً الى وزارة الداخلية والبلديات، أشارت فيه إلى أنه «لما كان المجلس النيابي قد أبلغ النيابة العامة التمييزية بواسطة وزارة العدل ولأكثر من مرة موقفه من ملاحقة الرؤساء والوزراء يعود الى المجلس النيابي والمجلس الأعلى لمحاكمة الرؤساء والوزراء وفقاً للمواد ٧٠ – ٧١ و٨٠ من الدستور، ولما كان المجلس قد باشر السير بالإجراءات اللازمة في ما يتعلق بجريمة انفجار مرفأ بيروت، ولما كان هذا الأمر لا يعود اختصاصه للقضاء العدلي، وبالتالي فإن أي إجراء من قبله يتعلق بأحد الرؤساء والوزراء والنواب يعتبر تجاوزاً لصلاحيته».

وبحسب المعلومات، فإن «مجلس النواب بصدد التحضير لجلسة مستقلة يكون ملف المرفأ البند الوحيد على جدول أعمالها، على أن يعاد طرح كتاب المحقق العدلي السابق فادي صوان، باعتباره كتاباً قائماً».

وكان صوان قد طالب المجلس باتخاذ ما يراه مناسباً بشأن مسؤولية وزراء عن إهمال «ما» ساهم في وقوع انفجار المرفأ. ورأى صوان يومها في رسالته، أنه بعد أشهر من حصول التفجير، لم يقُم البرلمان بأي دور. وقال إنه بناءً على التحقيقات التي أُجريت، «ربما تكون هناك شبهة إهمال» من قبل مسؤولين ووزراء تعاقبوا على وزارات المالية والأشغال والعدل، وأن على مجلس النواب «القيام بما يراه مناسباً وفق مادتين من الدستور». الأولى هي المادة 70 التي تنص على أن «لمجلس النواب أن يتهم رئيس مجلس الوزراء والوزراء بارتكابهم الخيانة العظمى أو بإخلالهم بالواجبات المترتبة عليهم، ولا يجوز أن يصدر قرار الاتهام إلا بغالبية الثلثين من مجموع أعضاء المجلس»، والثانية المادة 71 التي تنص على أن «اﻟوزﯾر اﻟﻣﺗﮭم يُحاكم أﻣﺎم اﻟﻣﺟﻟس اﻷﻋﻟﯽ لمحاكمة الرؤساء والوزراء».

لكن مصادر متابعة لاحظت أن خطوة المجلس النيابي قد تحافظ على فكرة الاستنسابية في حال قررت حصر الدعوى بالأسماء الذين ادّعى القاضي البيطار عليهم، وبالتالي صار واجباً على رئيس المجلس إيجاد المخرج الذي يجعل الادّعاء أو المحاكمة تشمل كل مسؤول تعاقب على المواقع الرئيسية المعنيّة بالملف، من رؤساء للجمهورية والحكومة وجميع وزراء الوصاية المختصين من دون استثناء.


دياب عاد الى بيروت

عاد الرئيس حسان دياب إلى بيروت مساء أمس بعد زيارة عائلية للولايات المتحدة استمرت نحو شهر. ومعلوم أن هناك مذكرتي إحضار أصدرهما في حقه المحقق العدلي القاضي طارق البيطار، وقد دان الأمين العام لحزب الله السيد حسن نصرالله في كلمته الأخيرة استقواء البيطار على رئيس الحكومة السابق.


مخارج للنقاش والبيطار على موقفه

بحسب المعنيّين، فإنّ المخارج التي جرى التداول بها حتى مساء أمس لم تتجاوز فكرة التوافق على آليّة لا تحقق هدف وقف الاستنسابية، ما استدعى مزيداً من البحث وتأجيل جلسة الحكومة أمس. وكان الجميع يترقّب قرار رئيس محكمة التمييز القاضي ناجي عيد بشأن الدعوى الجديدة لرد القاضي البيطار. إلا أنه لم ينجح في عقد جلسته أمس لعدم توفر النصاب بسبب غياب العضو رنا عويدات التي يعتقد أنها ستعلن اليوم تنحّيها عن القضية. وسط أجواء توحي بأن عيد، بضغط من رئيس مجلس القضاء الأعلى سهيل عبود (المرشح الفرنسي لرئاسة الجمهورية)، يستعد لإصدار قرار برد طلب المدعى عليهم.

ومعلوم أن هناك ثلاث دعاوى مقدمة ضد البيطار أمام محكمة التمييز، ارتياب مشروع ودفوع شكلية وطلبات رد. ولذا يجب أن يكون هناك قضاة قادرون على اتخاذ موقف جريء، بدل التهرب من المسؤولية بحجة عدم الصلاحية. وفي هذا الإطار، علمت «الأخبار» أن الوزير علي حسن خليل الذي صدرت في حقه مذكرة توقيف غيابية قد يتقدم في اليومين المقبلين بطلب أمام الهيئة العامة لمحكمة التمييز لتحديد الجهة القضائية التي لها صلاحية البتّ بالدعاوى المقدّمة ضد البيطار.

الى ذلك، طُرح على وزير العدل هنري خوري الطلب الى مجلس القضاء إعادة النظر في تكليف القاضي البيطار وتسمية خليفة له، أو تقديم ضمانات لاحترام الآليات القانونية والدستورية لمنع التورط في أي استثمار سياسي للملف. ومع ضعف الثقة برغبة عبود القيام بذلك، طرح مخرج آخر قد يكون صعب التحقيق، وهو مبادرة مجلس الوزراء الى استرداد الملف من أصله من المجلس العدلي وإحالته الى محاكم أخرى تحترم أصول المحاكمات والاختصاصات.

فيديوات متعلقة

مقالات متعلقة

Hezbollah MP Blasts US Politicizing of Beirut Port Blast Investigations, Says Aim is To Hide the Truth

October 13, 2021

Hezbollah MP Blasts US Politicizing of Beirut Port Blast Investigations, Says Aim is To Hide the Truth

By Staff

Lebanese Member of Parliament from the Loyalty to Resistance bloc, Hassan Fadlallah, lambasted the US intervention in the issue of Beirut Port Blast, labelling it as intimidation.

The Hezbollah MP added that the US State Department’s rejection of claims about politicizing the judiciary aims to avert the return of investigations to their track, and to ban the Lebanese officials from getting those investigations out of the circle of politicization.

“This American stance reflects part of the direct American intervention in the investigation to change its right track and keep it inside the circle of American politicization to settle account with the Resistance,” Fadlallah warned.

The Hezbollah MP further cautioned that Lebanon is in front of a new US violation of its sovereignty and the exposure of the level of intervention to control and dominate the investigations.

He also made clear that the goal is to impose dictations to undermine justice and hide the truth in favor of this American politicization, which targets Lebanese people classes to which the US administration is hostile.

“The US administration is trying to belittle such classes through every possible mean, including the blockade, sanctions, and defamation,” Fadlallah concluded.

Focus on China: A Lie Concealing American Retreat أكذوبة التفرّغ للصين لتغطية الانكفاء الأميركي

Focus on China: A Lie Concealing American Retreat

October 10 2021

By Nasser Kandil

A commonality exists between US President Joe Biden’s policy marketing strategists and their opponents in and outside of the United States.  Both sides promote the confrontation with China as a priority for the American Administration, and its corollary that the American retreat and regression are nothing but a re-positioning named becoming unencumbered to face China. The appeal to opponents in this theory is that embedded in its context is a modicum of admission of weakness because it posits the inability of the US to face China while fighting open battles on other fronts. It also presents an acknowledgement of China’s rise and its associated challenges as a justification for singular U.S. devoted focus.  However, a scrutiny of the elements in such a slogan reveals it as a big lie.

Becoming unfettered to confront China as a headline implies affording better means for such confrontation, steering clear of any distraction, and holding onto any political, economic, or military positioning which enhances conditions associated with this confrontation, especially  that China stands as the first contender to fill any vacuum left by the United States.  Given that the confrontation with China is a composite of the political, economic, and military, an advance in one of those areas scores a point towards winning the confrontation, and any retreat reinforces the chances of defeat.

In considering the latest American steps undertaken under the Biden Presidency which have been marked by a  defeatist tendency and having a morale lowering impact, albeit softened by the cosmetic phrase of freedom to confront China, three prototypes tied to this claim appear.  The first is the withdrawal from Afghanistan to stop drain on resources. The second is the quest for return to the nuclear agreement with Iran with the justification of preventing the emergence of a nuclear power which could disturb the international scene and upset its balances.  The third is the American-British-Australian naval pact in the Pacific and Indian Oceans known as “AUKUS” which assumes geographical closeness to the line of confrontation with China.

The case of Afghanistan raises the question about whether American military withdrawal and its political and economic repercussions constitute a reinforcing factor in the US face-off with China. To begin with, Afghanistan was an American target due to its geographic location which forms a triangle between Russia, China, and Iran. The war against the USSR in Afghanistan, supported and financed by the CIA in the 1980’s, was waged under the headline of blocking the growth in Russian, Chinese, and Iranian power foreseen as challenges to American national security. When the US invaded Afghanistan in 2001, all US positions under Democrats and Republicans linked the continued presence in Afghanistan to strategies for confrontation with the rising Asian trio. After the American withdrawal, Afghanistan appears to have become an economic prize for China, a military prize for Russia, and a political prize for Iran. Consequently, how could the withdrawal be a gain for the confrontation project with China when remaining in Afghanistan afforded the ability to face China from ground zero, at a minimum providing surveillance, intelligence, and electronic warfare opportunities, if military warfare was a remote consideration?

In the case of Iran, suffice it to remind that the strategic cooperation treaty between China and Iran preceded Biden’s arrival to the White House, with Iran being the heart of Asia and   included in China’s chief international project the belt and road initiative, represents a qualitative shift in the American-Sino power balance.  China in Iran automatically puts China at the gates of the Gulf, Caspian, and Mediterranean, and in direct contact with border crossings of tens of countries. Any thought to bring China back behind her borders has to be built on preventing her positioning in Iran, or at least preventing Iran from becoming an effective partner enabling China to expand her regional and international influence. This latter goal was used by Trump advocates to justify the policy of harsh measures, and declared by Biden on his arrival as a failure, acknowledging that hindering Iran from advancement failed, and that continued confrontation implied futility and increased losses. Because this is true, it also true that acknowledging Iran’s win in this round is an intrinsic acknowledgement that China will be on the winning side in any Iranian accomplishment.

Embedded in the AUKUS pact presented by Biden advocates as an advanced step for proximity to China’s geographical surroundings is a modicum of optical illusion casting doubt on the authenticity of the cited goal. It questions whether the pact does not secure a US defense line flanked by Britain from the right and Australia from the left as the translation for the withdrawal rather than a mobilization towards China.  The answer lies in the birth of AUKUS to succeed NATO which received its first blow by the withdrawal from Afghanistan with a fracturing impact the effects of which continue to reverberate, and the knockout blow by the announcement of AUKUS, its harm and losses to France, and ensuing fallout in the Franco-American relationships resulting from the fragments of the blown-out submarine deal.

Is any discourse on becoming unencumbered for the confrontation with China possible without the priority of building a solid political and military alliance led by Washington sharing in the confrontation?  Does the destruction of NATO serve the confrontation with China, given that NATO was at the prime contender at the forefront of the international confrontation line along with the G 7, with both pillars now collapsing around Washington?

Washington is aware of what she is doing but lies about of her actions. What Washington is doing is lightening the burden of the politics of the number-one nation in the world to devote itself to her domestic situation which lies on the verge of disaster, depriving her of the luxury of defending her position of world leadership as it collapses. The slogan of becoming un-encumbered to confront China then becomes a typical lie needed to cover up this retraction.

Washington’s adversaries who repeat the American freeing up to confront China formula are called upon to carefully examine this slogan before continuing its repetition.

1 – The US who is retreating inward and abandoning confrontation posts has defined a line for the defense of her security consisting of the oceans separating her from the world, the Atlantic Ocean up to Britain on one side, and the Indian and Pacific Oceans up to Australia on the other. This explains the AUKUS pact which includes the US with Britain and Australia, instead of using NATO to spread across the oceans, to avoid entanglement in the Mediterranean or in Africa and Asia where the interests of her NATO partners lie.

أكذوبة التفرّغ للصين لتغطية الانكفاء الأميركي

 أكتوبر/ 5 تشرين الأول 2021

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is d986d8a7d8b5d8b1-d982d986d8afd98ad984-600x338-1-14.jpg

يتشارك منظرو التسويق لسياسات الرئيس الأميركي جو بايدن، مع خصومهم داخل أميركا وخارجها، بالترويج لنظرية أولوية المواجهة مع الصين بالنسبة للإدارة الأميركية، واشتقاقاً منها نظرية أخرى تقول بأنّ الانسحابات والتراجعات الأميركية ليست إلا تموضعاً جديداً عنوانه التفرّغ لمواجهة الصين، ولأن في هذا السياق قدراً من الاعتراف بالضعف يمثله العجز عن الجمع بين مواجهة الصين وخوض المعارك المفتوحة في جبهات أخرى، والاعتراف بالصعود الصيني وتصويرها كخصم تحدٍ كافٍ يستحق التفرّغ له، يحقق أصحاب النظرية شروط الإغواء لخصومهم لمشاركتهم في تسويقها، لكن أي تدقيق بعناصر هذا الزعم سيوصلنا إلى اعتباره كذبة كبيرة.

التفرغ لمواجهة الصين، كعنوان يعني توفير شروط مواجهة أفضل والانصراف عن كل إلهاء عن هذه المواجهة، والتمسك بكل تموضع سياسي أو اقتصادي أو عسكري يحسن شروط هذه المواجهة، ولأن المواجهة مركبة على المستويات السياسية والاقتصادية والعسكرية، فكل تقدم أميركي في هذه الميادين هو تسجيل نقاط تعزز فرص الفوز في المواجهة، وكل تراجع يعزز فرص الخسارة، خصوصاً عندما تكون الصين هي المرشح الأول للتموضع مكان الفراغ الأميركي، وإذا توقفنا أمام الخطوات الأميركية الأخيرة في ظل رئاسة بايدن، والتي تم تلطيف الطابع الانهزامي فيها والتخفيف من وطأته المعنوية بعبارة تجميلية اسمها التفرغ لمواجهة الصين، سنجد أمامنا ثلاثة نماذج، الأول هو الانسحاب من أفغانستان، والثاني هو السعي للعودة إلى الاتفاق النووي مع إيران، والثالث هو الحلف الأميركي البحري البريطاني- الأسترالي في المحيطين الهندي والهادئ المسمى «أوكوس»، وقد تم ربط كل منها بجملة التفرغ للمواجهة مع الصين، سواء على قاعدة وقف الاستنزاف في حالة أفغانستان، أو منع ظهور قوة نووية تربك المشهد الدولي وتوازناته كمبرر للعودة إلى الاتفاق النووي مع إيران، أو التقرب من خط المواجهة مع الصين كما يفترض بمهمة حلف أوكوس.

في حالة أفغانستان، يطرح السؤال عن صدقية الكلام حول كون الانسحاب العسكري، وتبعاته السياسية والاقتصادية يشكل عنصر تعزيز للوضعية الأميركية في المواجهة مع الصين، وأفغانستان كانت هدفاً أميركياً بالأساس لوقوفها جغرافياً على مثلث التقاطع بين روسيا والصين وإيران، وكانت الحرب التي مولتها ودعمتها الاستخبارات الأميركية منذ ثمانينيات القرن الماضي ضد الاتحاد السوفياتي في أفغانستان تتم تحت عنوان قطع الطريق على تنامي قوة روسيا والصين وإيران، كمصادر لتحديات للأمن القومي الأميركي، وعندما غزت القوات الأميركية أفغانستان عام 2001 كانت كل المواقف الأميركية في عهود جمهورية وديمقراطية تربط البقاء في أفغانستان باستراتيجيات المواجهة مع الثلاثي الآسيوي الصاعد، وما بعد الانسحاب الأميركي من أفغانستان، تبدو أفغانستان جائزة اقتصادية للصين، وجائزة عسكرية لروسيا، وجائزة سياسية لإيران، فكيف يكون الانسحاب منها مكسباً لمشروع التفرغ لمواجهة الصين، وعبرها تكون المواجهة من المسافة صفر، على الأقل لجهة فرص التنصت والحرب الاستخبارية والإلكترونية، إذا كانت الحرب العسكرية مستبعدة؟

في حالة إيران، يكفي التذكير بأن معاهدة التعاون الاستراتيجي بين الصين وإيران كانت سابقة لوصول بايدن إلى البيت الأبيض، والتذكير بأن إيران تمثل قلب آسيا الذي يشكل انضمامه إلى خطة الحزام والطريق التي تشكل عنوان المشروع الصيني الأول على الساحة الدولية، تمثل تحولاً نوعياً في ميزان القوى بين أميركا والصين، فعندما تصبح الصين في إيران فهي تلقائياً صارت على بوابة الخليج وبوابة قزوين وبوابة المتوسط وعلى تماس مباشر مع تقاطعات حدودية لعشرات الدول، وأي تفكير بإعادة الصين إلى ما وراء الحدود يبنى على منع الصين من التموضع في إيران، أو على الأقل بعدم تمكين إيران من تشكيل شريك فاعل للصين في توسيع نطاق نفوذها الدولي والإقليمي، وهذا ما كان أنصار الرئيس الأميركي السابق دونالد ترامب يبررون به ما يسمونه بالضغوط القصوى، وما جاء بايدن ليعلن فشله، مسلماً بأن إعاقة إيران عن التقدم أصيبت بالفشل، وأن مواصلة المواجهة تعني تكبد المزيد من الخسائر من دون جدوى، ولأن هذا صحيح، فالصحيح أيضاً أن التسليم بفوز إيران في جولة التحدي هو تسليم ضمني بأن الصين ستكون على ضفة الرابحين في كل إنجاز تحققه إيران.

في حلف أوكوس الذي قدمه أنصار بايدن كخطوة متقدمة للتقرب من البيئة الجغرافية المحيطة بالصين، بعض الخداع البصري، لأن السؤال هو هل هدف الحلف التقرب من الصين أم تأمين خط دفاعي عن الجغرافيا الأميركية من الميمنة البريطانية والميسرة الأسترالية كترجمة للانكفاء، أم خطة حشد نحو الصين، والجواب يكمن في ربط ولادة حلف أوكوس من رحم حلف الناتو، في وقت تلقى الناتو ضربة أولى بالانسحاب من أفغانستان وأصيب بتصدع لا تزال تردداته تتواصل، وجاء إعلان أوكوس بمثابة الضربة القاضية للناتو، بما أصاب فرنسا من خسارة وأذى بسببه، وبعدما أصابت شظايا صفقة الغواصات العلاقات الأميركية- الفرنسية، فهل يمكن الحديث عن التفرغ للمواجهة مع الصين من دون أولوية بناء حلف سياسي وعسكري متين تقوده واشنطن ويشاركها المواجهة، وهل أن تدمير الناتو يخدم المواجهة مع الصين، وقد كان الناتو مرشحاً أول لتشكيل خط المواجهة الدولية مثله مثل قمة السبعة، كركائز تتداعى من حول واشنطن، التي تعرف ما تفعل، لكنها تكذب بما تقول، فما تفعله واشنطن هو التخفف من أعباء سياسة الدولة الأولى في العالم للتفرغ لوضع داخلي على شفا كارثة، لا يملك ترف الدفاع عن موقع الزعامة في العالم وهو ينهار، ويشكل شعار التفرغ لمواجهة الصين ترجمة نموذجية للكذبة المطلوبة في تغطية هذا الانكفاء.

خصوم واشنطن الذين يكررون معادلة التفرغ الأميركي للمواجهة مع الصين مدعوون للمزيد من التدقيق بالعبارة قبل تردادها.

Iraq’s Agriculture Reaps the Despoiled Seeds of US Meddling

October 5, 2021

Source: Al Mayadeen

By Farah Hage-Hassan

The poisonous effects of American interference and failed policies are still affecting Iraq’s agricultural sector today. Here’s how.

Visual search query image
  • Decades of US interference have plagued Iraq’s agricultural sector
  • “You lied!”

    Those were the screams of former US Army veteran Mike Prysner echoing in the lecture hall during a speech by George W. Bush, and the lasting trauma still resonates in the ears of millions of Iraqis and Americans today, almost two decades later.

    From a full-scale invasion under the pretext of overthrowing Saddam Hussein to the insurgence of ISIS, Iraq has been plagued with endless wars and destruction. This invasion and endless interventions aggravated the marginalization of sectors in Iraqi society and allowed the internal state of Iraq to crumble under sectarianism and violence.

    The lasting effects of the US policies are especially present within the aftermath of the agricultural sector among others. Farmers across the country continue to be displaced and doubt remains overcast on Iraq’s environmental capabilities and the future of agricultural development.

    American invasion 

    One of the many false pretenses for the heavily documented war was the alleged harboring of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) by former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell infamously claimed that the US was aware of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and their role in terrorism. Powell’s bold statements and deceptive assertions regarding the evidence that was available have ultimately haunted the US for what has become known as the very public “campaign of lies” the US tricked global citizens into believing.  

    For over 7 years, Iraq was invaded and bombed by the US and the coalition of the willing, not to mention their use of white phosphorous munitions. Although they claimed that white phosphorus was used whilst fully considering the incidental effects on civilians, the secondary effects on Iraq’s agriculture were most definitely not taken into account.

    Deliberate destruction

    The invasion and destruction that accompanied the war did not only permanently damage arable lands with mines and cluster ammunition, but the suspension of government agricultural institutions and irrigation projects also caused disastrous results to the population.

    From 2002 to 2008, agriculture’s contribution to the country’s GDP has decreased from almost 9% to 3.6% due to challenges created by war, social instability, and institutional and economic concerns. 

    Visual search query image
  • Agriculture, forestry, and fishing, value-added, % of GDP (Source: World Bank)
  • In a final blow after causing significant damage to the agricultural sector, the US secured its monopoly over the Iraqi farming industry and the future of agriculture by issuing Order 81. The Order was described as an attempt to “rebuild” Iraq’s agriculture industry by the head of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, Paul Bremer.

    What was Order 81?

    After Coalition Provisional Authority Order 81 was implemented, farmers were forbidden from conserving, distributing, or propagating harvested seeds, resulting in a dependency on big businesses such as Monsanto, Cargill Inc., and Dow Chemical. As a consequence, Iraq has only been able to meet 4% of its seed demands since 2005. These distributors are known to patent their seeds and collect fees without considering if crops were proven to contain their proprietary genetic information.

    Monsanto, an agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901, is notorious for its contribution to the neutron initiators inside the atomic bombs dropped on Japan, as well as for producing Agent Orange. The US military used Agent Orange in Vietnam during the infamous operation Ranch Hand, destroying crops and ultimately causing half a million Vietnamese children to be born with birth defects and millions of others left with cancer and other serious health conditions. 

    Dying of thirst

    Reconstruction efforts in Iraq also targeted the distribution of safe drinking water. 

    Millions of dollars were lost in the attempt and efforts failed, with only one-third of the objectives reached in the context of providing safe drinking water. 

    Iraq’s infrastructure was heavily bombed in the 1990s after the US-led coalition conducted massive airstrikes on the region during the gulf war. Water and sewerage treatment facilities were heavily damaged. As people suffered from a lack of access to clean water, diseases multiplied.

    The US war has critically aggravated the water crisis. Water is scarcely passing through the Tigris and Euphrates as is, causing contaminated water to reach crops, and in turn poisoning much of the population. The UN Security Council described the effects of the war as returning Iraq to the “pre-industrial age”, and warned of the imminent catastrophe that would hit the Iraqi population. 

    The Tigris River is bordered by Iran, Iraq, Turkey, and Syria. Along with the Euphrates, they create a river system that encircles Mesopotamia known as the Fertile Crescent. The Tigris is an important source of transportation and irrigation, with a history dating back to the earliest known civilizations.

    Visual search query image
    Tigris River (Global Atlas)

    Scorched earth

    The catastrophic insurgence of ISIS ripped Iraq’s already suffering sectors into developmental and economic shreds. 

    The US policies created a weak state that resulted in the marginalization of considerable sectors of Iraqi society. ISIS militants, armed partially with CIA-funded weapons, developed into one of the goriest terrorist organizations of our time. 

    The world watched in horror as ISIS became globally renowned for unspeakable atrocities like beheadings, kidnapping of women and children, and numerous suicide bombings and terrorist attacks that not only affected the Middle East but many western countries, especially Europe. 

    ISIS used the burning tactic to terrorize inhabitants, laid landmines, and destroyed agricultural equipment. IEDs were frequently utilized to fortify their defense. They attempted to meticulously carry out a form of ecocide, as their “scorched earth” tactics took hold. Oil wells were set on fire and thousands of civilians came close to suffocation and others suffered respiratory complications.

    In a final effort to devastate their targets, they booby-trapped escape routes, barns, and pump stations. 

    The presence of the terrorist group forced agricultural workers and farmers to evacuate their farmlands during the bloody conflicts. Numerous families retell their experiences of being forced to abandon their farming communities when ISIS militants surrounded the area in mid-2014. The same families who evacuated their homes reported returning to their homes post-ISIS and finding them heavily booby-trapped. Numerous families have lost children and relatives after bombs inexplicably detonated on their properties. 

    A glimpse of hope

    Away from the nightmares that haunt Iraq, as one of many initiatives, Iraq’s holy shrines have begun to establish massive farms for relying on agricultural production and providing national agricultural products that are distinguished by quality, as well as meat at subsidized prices.

    Visual search query image
  • Farms administrated by the Imam Hussein Holy Shrine (Website)
  • Agricultural cities are being established to provide the cultivation of wheat, barley, yellow corn, fodder, jet, and cattle, as well as raising sheep and cows.

    Despite the seemingly irreversible effects of America’s assaults and intrusion on Iraq’s wellbeing have undoubtedly damaged the country, things can still be turned around. With Iraq’s Parliamentary elections looming, the crucial vote of the youth may have the power to carry Iraq out of decade-long darkness and into the light. 

    Who Really Runs the Middle East?

    September 25, 2021

    Who Really Runs the Middle East?

    By Cynthia Chung for the Saker Blog

    Afghanistan is on many people’s minds lately, though the sentiment is rather mixed. Some think of it as a cause for celebration, others for deep concern, and then there are those who think it an utter disaster that justifies foreign re-entry.

    Most of the western concern arises out of 9/11 and the Taliban’s supposed connection to this through Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, however, as Scott Ritter (who was the lead analyst for the 7th Marine Amphibious Brigade on the Soviet war in Afghanistan) wrote:

    The entire Afghan conflict must be examined considering this reality – everything is a lie. Every battle, every campaign, every contract written and implemented – everything was founded in a lie…

    Admiral McRaven, when speaking of the operation to kill Bin Laden, noted that there wasn’t anything fundamentally special about that mission in terms of the tactics. ‘I think that night we ran 11 or 12 [other] missions in Afghanistan,’ McRaven noted. Clearly there was a military focus beyond simply killing Bin Laden. It was secretive work, reportedly involving the assassination of Taliban members, that often resulted in innocent civilians beings killed.

    It should be noted that, as of 2019, McRaven believed that this kind of special operations activity should be continued in Afghanistan for years to come. So much for the US mission in Afghanistan being defined by the death of Bin Laden. The mission had become death, and the careers that were defined by those deaths.

    The fact is the war in Afghanistan did not need to be fought. We could have ended the threat posed by Bin Laden simply by negotiating with the Taliban in the aftermath of 9/11, providing the evidence we claimed to have linking Bin Laden to the terrorist attacks on the United States. Any student of Afghanistan worth their salt knows the fundamental importance of honor that is enshrined in the concepts of Pashtunwali, the unwritten ethical code that defines the traditional lifestyle of the Pashtun people. If, as we claimed, Bin Laden carried out an attack on women and children while he was living under the protection of Pashtunwali, then his dishonor is that of the Pashtun tribes. To clear their honor, they would seek justice – in this case, evicting Bin Laden and his followers from Afghanistan.

    In fact, the Taliban made precisely this offer.

    For America, however, this would have been an unsatisfying result. We needed blood, not justice, and we sent our troops to Afghanistan to stack bodies, which they did, in prodigious numbers. Most of these bodies were Taliban. We excused this by claiming the Taliban were providing safe haven to Bin Laden, and as such were complicit in the 9/11 attacks.

    Which was a lie.

    Scott Ritter (who was a former UN weapons inspector in Iraq from ’91-98) had also played a leading role in bringing to the public’s attention the lies told to justify the illegal war in Iraq, which was based off of cooked British intelligence.

    It was not just based on the illusion of “justice,” there was a deeper and much more disturbing agenda under the patriotic trumpet blaring.

    In this light, Afghanistan is indeed an incredible American “failure,” not only in failing to install their puppet government; it has also failed the American people, however, not in the way most are talking about.

    The 20 year, some say occupancy others say terrorizing, of Afghanistan, is estimated at $1-2 trillion. This is only for the case of Afghanistan, it does not account for the total cost thus far of the War on Terror. Such extravagant spending with really nothing to show for it but destruction, the slaughter of innocents, instability and chaos; you would think the United States must be a very rich country to afford such a budget with no clear goal or objective. Instead, what we find is that the American economy is tanking and the living standard is plummeting, while drug use and overdose rates are sky-rocketing and suicide is among the top causes of death in the United States, especially among their youth.

    What is going on here? Have the Americans gone mad? Or is there something much much more sinister afoot?

    This situation cannot just be explained away as incompetence or the money-making business of war, or even the crazed end-of-world ideologies of neo-conservatives or Zionists, although these are all major factors.

    The reason for this is because there has been something operating within the Middle East for much longer, it is even the reason why we call the Middle East and the Far East by such a name, it is the reason for why many countries in this region have the boundaries they do, and was the originator of the Palestine/Israel conflict.

    It is also found at the center of the origin and funding of Islamic terrorism as we see in its modern form today.

    Whose “Arab Awakening”?

    The renunciation will not be easy. Jewish hopes have been raised to such a pitch that the non-fulfilment of the Zionist dream of a Jewish state in Palestine will cause intense disillusionment and bitterness. The manifold proofs of public spirit and of capacity to endure hardships and face danger in the building up of the national home are there to testify to the devotion with which a large section of the Jewish people cherish the Zionist ideal. And it would be an act of further cruelty to the Jews to disappoint those hopes if there existed some way of satisfying them, that did not involve cruelty to another people. But the logic of facts is inexorable. It shows that no room can be made in Palestine for a second nation except by dislodging or exterminating the nation in possession.” [emphasis added]

    – the concluding paragraph of George Antonius’ “The Arab Awakening” (1938), graduate from Cambridge University, civil servant in the British Mandate of Palestine

    Much of what is responsible for the war and havoc in the Middle East today has the British orchestrated so-called “Arab Awakening” to thank, led by characters such as E.G. Browne, St. John Philby, T.E. Lawrence of Arabia, and Gertrude Bell. Although its origins go as far back as the 19th century, it was only until the early 20th century, that the British were able to reap significant results from its long harvest.

    The Arab Revolt of 1916-1918, had been, to the detriment of the Arab people, a British led rebellion. The British claimed that their sole interest in the affair was the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire and had given their word that these Arab territories would be freed and allowed independence if they agreed to rebel, in large part led and directed by the British.

    It is a rather predictable feature of the British to lie and double cross and thus it should be of no surprise to anyone that their intentions were quite the opposite of what they had promised and thanks to the Sykes-Picot Russian leak, were revealed in their entire shameful glory.

    Once the Arab Revolt was “won” against the Ottoman Empire, instead of the promised Arab independence, the Middle East was carved up into zones of influence under British and French colonial rule. Puppet monarchies were created in regions that were considered not under direct colonial subjugation in order to continue the illusion that Arabs remained in charge of sacred regions such as Mecca and Medina.

    https://www.strategic-culture.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/sc15062101.jpg

    In central Arabia, Hussein ibn Ali, Sharif of Mecca, the puppet leader of the Arab Revolt laid claim to the title Caliph in 1924, which his rival Wahhabite Abdul-Aziz ibn Saud rejected and declared war, defeating the Hashemites. Hussein (British Cairo Office favourite) abdicated and Ibn Saud (British India Office favourite), was proclaimed King of Hejaz and Najd in 1926, which led to the founding of the kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

    The Al Saud (House of Saud) warriors of Wahhabism were a formidable strike force that the British believed would help London gain control of the western shores of the Persian Gulf.

    Hussein ibn Ali’s son Faisal (under the heavy tutelage of T.E. Lawrence, Cairo Office) was bestowed as King of Iraq and Hussein’s other son, Abdullah I was established as the Emir of Transjordan until a negotiated legal separation of Transjordan from Britain’s Palestine mandate occurred in 1946, whereupon he was crowned King of Jordan.

    While the British were promising Arab independence they simultaneously were promising a homeland in Palestine to the Jews. The Balfour Declaration of November 2nd, 1917 states:

    “His majesty’s government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object…”

    Palestine had been seized by the British during the so-called “Arab Revolt” on December 11th, 1917 when General Allenby marched into Jerusalem through the Jaffa Gate and declared martial law over the city. Palestine has remained occupied ever since.

    https://www.strategic-culture.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/sc15062102.jpg

    Britain would receive the mandate over Palestine from the League of Nations in July 1922.

    Throughout the 1920s and 1930s violent confrontations between Jews and Arabs took place in Palestine costing thousands of lives. In 1936 a major Arab revolt occurred over 7 months, until diplomatic efforts involving other Arab countries led to a ceasefire. In 1937, a British Royal Commission of Inquiry headed by William Peel concluded that Palestine had two distinct societies with irreconcilable political demands, thus making it necessary to partition the land.

    https://www.strategic-culture.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/sc15062103.jpg

    The Arab Higher Committee refused Peel’s “prescription” and the revolt broke out again. This time, Britain responded with a devastatingly heavy hand. Roughly 5,000 Arabs were killed by the British armed forces and police.

    Following the riots, the British mandate government dissolved the Arab Higher Committee and declared it an illegal body.

    In response to the revolt, the British government issued the White Paper of 1939, which stated that Palestine should be a bi-national state, inhabited by both Arabs and Jews. Due to the international unpopularity of the mandate including within Britain itself, it was organised such that the United Nations would take responsibility for the British initiative and adopted the resolution to partition Palestine on November 29th, 1947. Britain would announce its termination of its Mandate for Palestine on May 15th, 1948 after the State of Israel declared its independence on May 14th, 1948.

    The Rise of the Muslim Brotherhood

    “We do not cut the head of religion except by sword of religion.”

    – Jamal al-Din al-Afghani

    In 1869, a man named Jamal al-Din al-Afghani, the intellectual founder of the Salafiyya movement, went to India where British led colonial authorities welcomed him with honors and graciously escorted him aboard a government owned vessel on an all-expenses paid voyage to the Suez. [1]

    In Cairo he was adopted by the Egyptian prime minister Riad Pasha, a notorious enemy of the emerging nationalist movement in Egypt. Pasha persuaded Afghani to stay in Egypt and allowed him to take up residence in Cairo’s 900 year old Al Azhar mosque considered the center of Islamic learning worldwide, where he received lodging and a monthly government stipend (paid for by the British).[2]

    While Egypt was fighting its nationalist fight from 1879-1882, Afghani and his chief disciple Muhammad Abduh travelled together first to Paris and then to Britain, it was in Britain that they would make a proposal for a pan-Islamic alliance among Egypt, Turkey, Persia and Afghanistan against Czarist Russia.[3]

    What Afghani was proposing to the British was that they provide aid and resources to support his formation of a militant Islam sect that would favour Britain’s interest in the Middle East, in other words, Afghani was offering to fight Islam with Islam to service British interests, having stated in one of his works “We do not cut the head of religion except by sword of religion.[4]

    Although it is said that the British refused this offer, this is not likely considering the support Afghani would receive in creating the intellectual foundation for a pan-Islamic movement with British patronage and the support of England’s leading orientalist E.G. Browne, the godfather of twentieth century Orientalism and teacher of St John Philby and T.E. Lawrence.

    E.G. Browne would make sure the work of Afghani would continue long beyond his death by lionising him in his 1910 “The Persian Revolution,” considered an authoritative history of the time.

    In 1888, Abduh, the chief disciple of Afghani, would return to Egypt in triumph with the full support of the representatives of her Majesty’s imperial force and took the first of several positions in Cairo, openly casting his lot with Lord Cromer, who was the symbol of British imperialism in Egypt.

    Abduh would found, with the hold of London’s Egyptian proconsul Evelyn Baring (aka Lord Cromer) who was the scion of the enormously powerful banking clan (Barings Bank) under the city of London, the Salafiyya movement.[5]

    Abduh had attached himself to the British rulers of Egypt and created the cornerstone of the Muslim Brotherhood which dominated the militant Islamic right throughout the twentieth century.

    In 1899, Abduh reached the pinnacle of his power and influence, and was named mufti of Egypt.

    ***

    In 1902, Riyadh fell to Ibn Saud and it was during this period that Ibn Saud established the fearsome Ikhwan (translated as “brotherhood”). From the 1920s onward, the new Saudi state merged its Wahhabi orthodoxy with the Salafiyya movement (which would be organised into the Muslim Brotherhood in 1928).

    William Shakespear, a famed British agent, forged the first formal treaty between England and Saudi Arabia which was signed in 1915, which bound London and Arabia for years before Saudi Arabia became a country. “It formally recognized Ibn Saud as the independent ruler of the Nejd and its Dependencies under British protection. In return, Ibn Saud undertook to follow British advice.[6]

    Harry St. John Bridger Philby, a British operative schooled by E.G. Browne and father to the legendary triple agent Kim Philby, would succeed Shakespear as Great Britain’s liaison to Ibn Saud under the British India Office, the friendly rival of the Cairo Arab Bureau office which was sponsoring T.E. Lawrence of Arabia.

    In Egypt 1928, Hassan al-Banna (a follower of Afghani and Abduh) founded the Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan al-Muslimeen), the organization that would change the course of history in the twentieth century Middle East.

    Banna’s Muslim Brotherhood was established with a grant from England’s Suez Canal Company[7] and from that point on, British diplomats and intelligence service, along with the British puppet King Farouq would use the Muslim Brotherhood as a truncheon against Egypt’s nationalists and later against Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser. (For more on this refer to my paper.)

    To get the Muslim Brotherhood off the ground, the Suez Canal Company helped Banna build the mosque in Ismailia that would serve as its headquarters and base of operation.[8] The fact that Banna created the organization in Ismailia is itself worthy of note. For England, the Suez Canal was the indispensable route to its prize possession, India, and in 1928 the town Ismailia happened to house not only the company’s offices but a major British military base built during WWI. It was also, in the 1920s a center of pro-British sentiment in Egypt.

    In the post-WWI world, England reigned supreme, the flag of the British Empire was everywhere from the Mediterranean to India. A new generation of kings and potentates ruled over British dominated colonies, mandates, vassal states, and semi-independent fiefdoms in Egypt, Arabia, Iraq, Transjordan and Persia. To varying degrees those monarchies were beholden to London.

    In the half century between 1875 and 1925 the building blocks of the militant Islamic right were cemented in place by the British Empire.

    Islamic Banking Made in Geneva/London

    Islamic banking [that is the banking system dominated presently by Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf States] was born in Egypt and financed by Saudi Arabia and then spread to the far corners of the Muslim world. Eventually the Islamic banking movement became a vehicle not only for exporting political Islam but for sponsoring violence. However, Islamic banking did not get off the ground on its own, as Ibrahim Warde (a renowned scholar of international finance) explains in his book “Islamic Finance in the Global Economy,” Islamic banking:

    operates more out of London, Geneva, or the Bahamas than it does out of Jeddah, Karachi or Cairo…Ideologically, both liberalism and economic Islam were driven by their common opposition to socialism and economic dirigisme…Even Islamic Republics have on occasion openly embraced neo-liberalism…In Sudan, between 1992 and the end of 1993, Economics Minister Abdul Rahim Hamdi – a disciple of Milton Friedman and incidentally a former Islamic banker in London – did not hesitate to implement the harshest free-market remedies dictated by the International Monetary Fund. He said he was committed to transforming the heretofore statist economy ‘according to free-market rules, because this is how an Islamic economy should function.’ ” [emphasis added]

    Perhaps the best case study to this phenomenon is the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI).

    BCCI was an international bank founded in 1972 by Agha Hasan Abedi, a Pakistani financier. The bank was registered in Luxembourg with head offices in Karachi and London. A decade after opening, BCCI had over 400 branches in 78 countries in excess of $20 billion USD, making it the seventh largest private bank in the world.

    In the 1980s investigations into BCCI led to the discovery of its involvement in massive money laundering and other financial crimes, and that the BCCI had illegally and secretly gained the control of a major American bank, First American, according to Robert Morgenthau (Manhattan DA) who had been investigating the bank for over two years.

    BCCI was also to be found guilty for illegally buying another American bank, the Independence Bank of Los Angeles, using a Saudi businessman Ghaith Paraon as the puppet owner. The American depositors lost most of their money when BCCI was forced to foreclose since it was essentially operating a Ponzi scheme to fund illegal activity of all sorts.

    According to Elizabeth Gould and Paul Fitzgerald’s book “The Valediction”:

    Afghanistan offered the opportunity for BCCI to migrate the lucrative heroin business from Southeast Asia [Laos/Cambodia/Vietnam] to the Pakistani/Afghan border under the cover of destabilization. President Carter supported Brzezinski’s provocations into Soviet territory from the minute they got into the White House. He then sanctioned Brzezinski’s plan to use Afghanistan to lure the Soviet Union into its own Vietnam and lied to the public about it when they fell into the trap on December 27, 1979.

    …The destabilization kills three birds with one stone. It weakens the Soviets…It acts as a cover for moving the heroin business out of Vietnam/Laos and Cambodia to a safe haven on the Pakistan frontier with Afghanistan – a trade that propped up the British Empire financially for over a hundred years.

    …Afghan drug dealer and CIA asset Gulbuddin Hekmatyar…[then organizes] a deal with the renegade gangster, Afghan prime minister, and possible CIA asset Hafizullah Amin…to make Kabul the center of the world heroin trade…pays for the off-the-books operation with drug money brought in by Hekmatyar and laundered through a Pakistani bank…known as BCCI. Everything goes smoothly until the new US Ambassador Adolph Dubs launches a campaign against the destabilization…

    US Ambassador Adolph Dubs was assassinated, just seven months after taking his post, under an extremely suspect situation, on February 14, 1979, to which Gould and Fitzgerald do a superb investigation of, as well as what really happened in Afghanistan in 1979, in their book “The Valediction.

    Investigators in the United States and the UK determined that BCCI had been “set up deliberately to avoid centralized regulatory review, and operated extensively in bank secrecy jurisdictions. Its affairs were extraordinarily complex. Its officers were sophisticated international bankers whose apparent objective was to keep their affairs secret, to commit fraud on a massive scale, and to avoid detection.[9]

    This is an incredibly sophisticated operation, and interestingly, uses the very same methods that the City of London has been using for centuries and presently operates to a diabolical perfection today. There is no way that a solo Pakistani financier, even if he was financed by the Sheik of Abu Dhabi, could rise in less than a decade, operating on the turf of ancient banking channels that go back several centuries, to rise to become the seventh largest bank in the netherworld of finance without a little help from the big boys.

    On July 29th, 1991, a Manhattan grand jury indicted BCCI on twelve accounts of fraud, money laundering and larceny. Robert Morgenthau (Manhattan DA), who was in charge of the investigation, has described BCCI as “the largest bank fraud in world financial history.”

    Through the Rabbit Hole and Out Again

    Today, the actions of the United States can best be understood in the context of the Anglo-American Empire, with Wall Street operating as an extension of the ancient banking channels of the City of London and Geneva.

    The disastrous foreign policy of namely Britain and the United States in the War on Terror Crusade has been exposed multiple times. That is, that the very governments who have been shouting the loudest against Islamic extremism and for stability in the Middle East, are the very ones who have been weaponising, training and funding such terrorist groupings. The Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda, ISIS (and all its viral variants) would not exist today if it were not for namely Britain’s age old strategy.

    So what is the goal?

    Well, what does any empire seek? Global domination.

    In this light, the War on Terror is exposed for what it truly is. It is meant to impoverish and destroy the national sovereignty of the people, not only of the Middle East (or more accurately Southwest Asia), but as we are seeing clearly today, it has also acted as a slow blood-letting of the western people, whose economies are much weaker today than they were 20 years ago.

    While western countries are increasingly unable to provide a proper standard of living, with mass unemployment, lack of healthcare, increased crime and suicide rates, and increased overdoses and homelessness, and pretty much everything you would expect to rise during a Dark Age straight out of a Goya painting, these “first-world” governments are applying further austerity measures on the people, even after prolonged lockdowns, while openly pumping trillions of dollars into wars that not only fund the destruction of entire nations, but funds the global drug, arms and sex-trafficking trade. All of this dirty money then circles back into the London-Geneva fondi, benefitting a select class that has existed and thrived for centuries on this sort of backdrop.

    Nobody has benefitted from this War on Terror except the global elite.

    So stop getting sucked into the same old same old lies; stop being a slave to the system and let us finally unite and stand up against the true common enemy of the people of the world.

    The author can be reached at https://cynthiachung.substack.com/

    1. Elie Kedourie, “Afghani and Abduh: An Essay on Religious Unbelief and Political Activism in Modern Islam” 
    2. Ibid. 
    3. The proposal to London from Jamal al-Din al-Afghani was reported by a British Orientalist and author W.S. Blunt, a friend of Afghani’s. It is cited in C.C. Adams, “Islam and Modernism in Egypt.” 
    4. Elie Kedourie, “Afghani and Abduh: An Essay on Religious Unbelief and Political Activism in Modern Islam.” 
    5. Ibid. 
    6. David Holden and Richard Johns, “The House of Saud.” 
    7. Richard P. Mitchell, “The Society of the Muslim Brothers.” 
    8. Ibid. 
    9. John Kerry “The BCCI Affair: A Report to the Committee on Foreign Relations.” 

    Translation of Ramzan Kadyrov’s reaction to Biden’s UNGA lecturing

    September 23, 2021

    Translation of Ramzan Kadyrov’s reaction to Biden’s UNGA lecturing 🤣🤣

    This is a translation of Ramzan Kadyrov’s reaction on this telegram channel to this clip of Biden’s lecturing in his speech to the General Assembly of the UN.Video Player

    The leader of the most problematic, aggressive country in the world, embittered by all Muslim states and plowing the Arab world with aerial bombs, Biden, who shamefully returned troops from Afghanistan, all of a sudden began to mention the Chechen Republic.
    We have not yet recovered from a number of his absurd statements and actions as President of the United States, and he is already making us happy with his new strange and contentious statements.
    Biden made such an absurd statement, in response to which I can only invite him to our republic so that he can see with his own eyes that there are no roosters in the Chechen Republic, and there is not even such a word. Instead of that, we have chicken husbands

    Thank you!

    Andrei (The Saker)

    The Booster Scam

    The Stephen Lendman Blog

    The Booster Scam

    by Stephen Lendman

    Booster jabs boost illness. They accelerate health destruction.

    The same goes for all flu/covid jabs — designed to harm, not protect.

    It’s true as well about all things flu/covid.

    Everything mandated and urged by US/Western regimes has nothing to do with protecting health and well-being.

    Diabolical aims are all about abolishing free and open societies, along with mass-elimination of what Henry Kissinger once called “useless eaters.”

    On Friday, an FDA advisory panel delivered a split decision.

    It overwhelmingly rejected the Biden regime’s scheme to booster-jab Americans aged-16 and older.

    The decision will likely be temporary.

    It won’t likely halt planned forever-jabbing — once or twice annually — on the phony pretext of waning immunity.

    At the same time, the FDA panel voted unanimously in favor of booster-jabbing Americans aged-65 and older, as well as others with weakened immune systems.

    It also said that healthcare…

    View original post 600 more words

    %d bloggers like this: