The West’s Moral Hypocrisy on Yemen

Exclusive: The West’s “humanitarian interventionists” howl over bloody conflicts when an adversary can be blamed but go silent when an ally is doing the killing, such as Saudi Arabia in Yemen, reports Jonathan Marshall.

By Jonathan Marshall

February 23, 2017 “Information Clearing House” –  “Consortium News ” -Only a few months ago, interventionists were demanding a militant response by Washington to what George Soros branded“ahumanitarian catastrophe of historic proportions” — the killing of “hundreds of people” by Russian and Syrian government bombing of rebel-held neighborhoods in the city of Aleppo.

Leon Wieseltier, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and former New Republic editor, was denouncing the Obama administration as “a bystander to the greatest atrocity of our time,” asserting that its failure to “act against evil in Aleppo” was like tolerating “the evil in Auschwitz.”

Feb 2017 The Starvation in Yemen

 How strange, then, that so many of the same “humanitarian” voices have been so quiet of late about the continued killing of many more innocent people in Yemen, where tens of thousands of civilians have died and 12 million people face famine. More than a thousand children die each week from preventable diseases related to malnutrition and systematic attacks on the country’s food infrastructure by a Saudi-led military coalition, which aims to impose a regime friendly to Riyadh over the whole country.

“The U.S. silence has been deafening,” said Philippe Bolopion, deputy director for global advocacy at Human Rights Watch, last summer. “This blatant double standard deeply undermines U.S. efforts to address human rights violations whether in Syria or elsewhere in the world.”

Official acquiescence — or worse — from Washington and other major capitals is encouraging the relentless killing of Yemen’s civilians by warplanes from Saudi Arabia and its allies. Last week, their bombs struck a funeral gathering north of Sanaa, Yemen’s capital, killing nine women and a child and injuring several dozen more people.

A day earlier, officials reported a deadly “double-tap” airstrike, first targeting women at a funeral in Sanaa, then aimed at medical responders who rushed in to save the wounded. A United Nations panel of experts condemned a similar double-tap attack by Saudi coalition forces in October, which killed or wounded hundreds of civilians, as a violation of international law.

The Tragedy of Mokha

On Feb. 12, an air strike on the Red Sea port city of Mokha killed all six members of a family headed by the director of a maternal and childhood center. Coalition ground forces had launched an attack on Mokha two weeks earlier.

Xinhua news agency reported, “the battles have since intensified and trapped thousands of civilian residents in the city, as well as hampered the humanitarian operation to import vital food and fuel supplies . . . The Geneva-based UN human rights office said that it received extremely worrying reports suggesting civilians and civilian objects have been targeted over the past two weeks in the southwestern port city . . . Reports received by UN also show that more than 200 houses have been either partially damaged or completely destroyed by air strikes in the past two weeks.”

The U.N.’s humanitarian coordinator further reported that “scores of civilians” had been killed or wounded by the bombing and shelling of Mokha, and that residents were stranded without water or other basic life-supporting services.

That could be Aleppo, minus only the tear-jerking photos of dead and wounded children on American television. However, unlike Syria, Yemen’s rebels don’t have well-financed public relations offices in Western capitals. They pay no lip service to the United States, democracy, or international human rights. Their foe Saudi Arabia is a friend of Washington, not a long-time adversary. In consequence, few American pundits summon any moral outrage at the Saudi-led coalition, despite findings by a United National Panel of Experts that many of its airstrikes violate international law and, in some cases, represent “war crimes.”

Aiding and Abetting

The United States hasn’t simply turned a blind eye to such crimes; it has aided them by selling Saudi Arabia the warplanes it flies and the munitions it drops on Yemeni civilians. It has also siphoned 54 million pounds of jet fuel from U.S. tanker planes to refuel coalition aircraft on bombing runs. The pace of U.S. refueling operations has reportedly increased sharply in the last year.

The Obama administration initially supported the Saudi coalition in order to buy Riyadh’s reluctant support for the Iran nuclear deal. Over time, Saudi Arabia joined with anti-Iran hawks to portray Yemen’s rebels as pawns of Tehran to justify continued support for the war. Most experts — including U.S. intelligence officials — insist to the contrary that the rebels are a genuinely indigenous force that enjoys limited Iranian support at best.

As I have documented previously, all of the fighting in Yemen has damaged U.S. interests by creating anarchy conducive to the growth of Al Qaeda extremists. They have planned or inspired major acts of terrorism against the West, including an attempt to blow up a U.S. passenger plane in 2009 and a deadly attack on the Parisian newspaper Charlie Hebdo in January 2015. The Saudis tolerate them as Sunni allies against the rebels, in the name of curbing Iran.

Though the Obama administration is gone, the Trump administration is flush with ideologues who are eager to take a stand against Tehran through Yemen and look tough on “terrorism.” Within days of taking office, President Trump approved a commando raid targeting an alleged Al Qaeda compound in central Yemen that went awry, killing an estimated 10 women and children. The administration has also diverted a U.S. destroyer to patrol Yemen’s coast.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, to his credit, has cited “the urgent need for the unfettered delivery of humanitarian assistance throughout Yemen,” according to a department spokesman. But no amount of humanitarian aid will save Yemen’s tormented people from the bombs made in America and dropped from U.S.-made warplanes, with little protest from Washington’s so-called “humanitarian interventionists.”

Jonathan Marshall is author of many recent articles on arms issues, including “Obama’s Unkept Promise on Nuclear War,” “How World War III Could Start,” “NATO’s Provocative Anti-Russian Moves,” “Escalations in a New Cold War,” and “Ticking Closer to Midnight.”

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.

Click for Spanish, German, Dutch, Danish, French, translation- Note- Translation may take a moment to load.

Gilad Atzmon on Brexit, Trump and New Left duplicity

February 22, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

Hello, World!

Trump’s Futile Efforts to Appease the Jews

Posted on February 8, 2017

 photo jewsagainsttrump_zps5p6q3gom.jpg

‘Israel accepts Jews only; and American Jews do not object to it; they do not compare Israeli leaders with Hitler or Trump…’

[ Ed. note – Israel Shamir is a noted author and commentator on Middle East issues. His books include Galilee Flowers, and Cabbala of Power. He is also a former Israeli and a Jewish convert to Christianity. In the article below he argues that the attacks on Trump we are seeing today, and particularly the strident protests over the president’s immigration ban from seven Muslim countries, are in reality a continuation of the war against Christianity, though under a different guise.

“The war on Christ and the Church is the most important element of Judaism,” he says. “Wherever Jews succeed, the Church suffers, and vice versa.”

In other words, the deep divisions we are witnessing now in American society are symptomatic of far more than simply political differences over how the country should be run. It is something much more primal and deep–and I’m not sure Trump fully understands this, if at all.

For these reasons, Shamir says, Trump’s efforts to win favor with Jews (by moving the US embassy, appointing hardcore Zionists to top positions in his administration, etc.) are likely to prove futile. He also notes something I noted in a post I put up a week ago–namely that the Jewish fundamentalists who hold power in Israel have different priorities from American Jews, and that appeasing one group does not necessarily gain Trump any ground with the other–and this also is not something the new occupant of the White House appears to comprehend fully.

Trump’s best hope of succeeding in his new job is to try and fathom the root source of the hostility now being directed against him. There are Bible verses that provide clues were he to take the time to read them–such as this one from the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:20):  For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.” As I have said elsewhere, “Christian anti-Semitism” was not the cause of the split between Christianity and Judaism. The antipathy to Jesus’ teachings was present right from the start. ]

***

By Israel Shamir

President Trump had paid a hefty advance to the Jews. He did (almost) all they wanted for their Jewish state: he promised to move the US embassy to the occupied Jerusalem thus legalising their annexation of the holy city; he condoned their illegal settlements, he gave them starred positions in his administration; he told the Palestinians to drop their case in the ICC or else, he even threatened Iran with war. All that in vain. Jewish organisations and Jewish media attack Trump without slightest hesitation and consideration. His first step in curbing the soft invasion wave had been met with uniform Jewish vehemence.

He was called a new Hitler and accused of hatred of Muslims: what else could cause the President to arrest, even for a few months, the brave new migration wave from seven Middle Eastern states? Today he singles out Muslims, tomorrow he will single out Jews, said Jewish newspapers. Migration is the lifeblood of America, and the Muslim refugees are welcome to bring more diversity to the US.

Massive demonstrations, generously paid for by this notable Jewish philanthropist Mr George Soros, shook the States, while judges promptly banned the banning order. They insisted the orders are anti-Muslim, and therefore they are anti-constitutional. Somehow the constitution, they said, promises full equality of immigrants and does not allow to discriminate between a Muslim and a Christian.

This sounds an unlikely interpretation of the US Constitution. The US, and every other state, normally discriminates, or using a less loaded word, selects its potential citizens. The choice of seven states hasn’t been made by Donald Trump but by his saintly predecessor: President Barack Obama, this great friend of Muslims, made the choice personally some years earlier. So Trump had made a most moderate and modest step in the direction of blocking immigration by picking states already selected by the Democratic President.

One could reasonably claim that people of the seven states have a very good reason to hate America, and the reasons were supplied by previous US Presidents.

Libya, the most prosperous North African state until recently, had been ruined by President Obama: NATO invasion had brought Libya down; instead of stopping migration wave Libya had been turned into a jumping board for the Africans on their way North.

Syria is another Obama’s victim: by his insistence that ‘Assad must go’, by massive transfer of weaponry, money and equipment (remember white Toyota pickups?) to the Islamic extremists, he ruined this country.

Iraq has been ruined by President Bush Jr: he invaded the most advanced Sunni state, broke it to pieces and gave the centre of the country to the Isis.

Somalia has been ruined by President Bush Sr: he invaded this unfortunate country in the early nineties, when the USSR collapse allowed him to do so under the UN flag. Since then Somalia has become the supplier of choice of migrants and refugees for Sweden (there they formed the biggest community in Malmo and elsewhere), the US is also keen on getting them.

Yemen has been destroyed by Obama with Mme Clinton playing an important role: she facilitated delivery of weapons to Saudi Arabia in real time as they bombed Yemenis.

Sudan was bombed by President Clinton; afterwards this country had been dismembered and separate South Sudan had been created. Both halves became dysfunctional.

Iran is the odd one in the Magnificent Seven. It has not been invaded, has not been bombed, just threatened with invasion and bombardment for many years since President Carter. This country has no terrorists, it did not fail, its citizens are not running seeking for asylum. It was placed on the list by President Obama, who planned to bomb it, but never got to do it.

While Bush, Clinton and Obama bombed and invaded these countries, the Democratic humanitarians including their Jewish leaders just applauded and asked for more bombs. But they became appalled when Trump promised: no more regime change, end of “invade the world/invite the world” mode. Wikileaks put it well: bomb the Muslims, and you are fine; ban the Muslims, and you are the enemy.

Apparently, the people who instigated the Middle Eastern wars wanted to create a wave of refugees into Europe and North America in order to bring more colour and diversity to these poor monochrome lands. Welfare state, national cohesion, local labour and traditions will disappear, and these countries will undergo a process of homogenisation. Never again the natives will be able to single out Jews, for there will be no natives, just so many persons from all over the world, celebrating Kumbaya.

The Jews will be able to get and keep their privileged positions in Europe as they do in the US. They won’t be alone: by their success, they will establish a pattern to copycat for whoever wants to succeed in the new world, and masses of imitation-Jews will support the policies of real Jews.

Still, Jewish insistence on the Syrian refugees’ acceptance and on Muslim immigration in general is a strange and baffling phenomenon. Hypocrisy is too mild a word to describe that. We may exclude compassion as a cause for it. There are many thousands of natives of Haifa in Israel who suffer in Syria and dream to come back to their towns and villages, but the state of Israel does not allow these Syrian refugees to return for one crime: they aren’t Jews.

Israel accepts Jews only; and American Jews do not object to it; they do not compare Israeli leaders with Hitler or Trump. Israel had build a wall on its border with Sinai, and this wall stopped the black wave of African migrants. American Jews did not shout “No wall, no ban” in front of Israeli Embassy. Mystery, eh?

Kevin MacDonald wrote a thoughtful piece trying to unravel the mystery, Why Do Jewish Organizations Want Anti-Israel Refugees? and published it on January 17, a few days before Trump’s inauguration and full three weeks before the subject moved to the front burner. KMD correctly predicted that Donald Trump won’t appeal for “national unity” in his Inaugural Address, though this was the guess of mass media. Moreover, KMD correctly predicted that “Trump will announce an immediate pause in “refugee” admissions, currently surging, to be followed by a zero quota for the next fiscal year. There would be hysteria, in which the major Jewish organizations would, almost certainly, join. My (KMD’s) question: why would they do that?”

KMD provides a few possible answers, but none answers his own question. The world is full of troubles, and the US can get as many refugees as they wish from the Ukraine or Brazil, from China and Central Africa, without an anti-Israeli angle.

I’d suggest a simple explanation. Jews want to import Muslims to fight Christ and the Church.

Muslims of the Middle East are not, or weren’t, anti-Christian; they co-existed for millennia with their Christian neighbours. In Palestine, Christians and Muslims lived together and suffered together under the Jewish yoke.

But recently a new wind has blown in the Muslim faith, the wind of a very strong rejection of whatever is not strict Sunni Islam of the ISIS brand. Their first enemy is Shia Islam, but Christians follow Shias as a second-best object of persecution…

Continued here

No Ban! No Wall! No War?

As I watched the corporate news on demonstrations against Trump’s travel ban, I was struck by the fact that on-going wars in the Middle East were not mentioned. It was as if these refugees were fleeing Nazi Germany. No, they are fleeing the wars that we the American people have been waging against them for many years

It is a good thing to show compassion, declare our solidarity with Muslims, or to talk about our own immigrant histories, but we will fail to oppose Trump and make a real difference if we do not act against war and empire.

The corporate media avoids connecting our wars to Trump’s ban because war and empire is a matter of agreement among the political elites, an elite that the corporate media is very much a part of.  In a remarkable reversal of the Russian hacking story — which was broadcast constantly for weeks without evidence — the connection between war and refugees is patently obvious and glaringly absent.  What are they trying to hide?

If a new anti-war movement emerged from the resistance to Trump it would have the potential to shake the entire system. So the Democrats try to focus as narrowly as they can on Trump’s social and psychological pathologies while waiting to make up for their loses in the 2018 mid-term elections as the default party. The corporate media follows suit.

The anti-war movement of the Vietnam era was so powerful not just because of its compassion for others and moral condemnation of evil, but because it was a real political resistance movement that led people beyond the “liberal consensus.” The liberal consensus was a set of interlocking cultural norms and beliefs. It basic assumption was that  America was the supreme and exceptional leader of the free world.   The passage beyond conventional ways of thinking and acting occurred because being anti-war demanded a deep criticism of the established order both liberal and conservative.

Remember that the Vietnam war was fought by liberals like John F. Kennedy  Kennedy’s war advisors became known as the “Best and the Brightest,” a high powered  team of academic and industrial superstars that could, it turned out, calculate everything but understand nothing. Lyndon Baines Johnson escalated the conflict but was also the president that passed civil rights legislation on a scale that no other modern president has even dared. Liberal leaders like Hubert Humphrey and Edward Kennedy pursued the war as well.

Nixon won in 1968 largely because he ran to Humphrey’s left, as an anti-war candidate of sorts.  He returned the war to conservative leadership but, it was a conservatism  that would fit comfortably within the corporate wing of the today’s Democratic Party. Both Nixon and Hillary Clinton embraced Henry Kissinger who, seeking power like a missile seeks heat, has now gone over to Trump’s side.

It was the anti-war movement, against this basket of political icons, that crossed the threshold to a meaningful, principled opposition.  Two example will suffice to show just how deep it all went.

In April 1967 Martin Luther King rocked the civil rights movement and the nation with his first major speech opposing the war in Vietnam and linking war to racism and poverty. King crossed into revolutionary territory, stepped outside the liberal consensus, and became the leader of a movement for peace, racial equality and economic democracy. Let’s not forget that King was not a Democrat or a Republican. Leading up to the 1968 election, King supported dissenting candidates and even considered an independent run for president.

We must also recall the other truly revolutionary frontier crossed by American soldiers and veterans. In an unprecedented political movement, thousands of American soldiers and veterans opposed the very war they had fought in.

The leadership of the GI and Veteran anti-war movement were not reluctant draftees but rather gung-ho volunteers who were willing to risk life and limb to do the right thing. When the reality of combat in Vietnam dashed their high hopes they turned against war and empire. The military peace movement made history in ways no other peace movement could: soldier resistance slowed the war effort through direct action while the political resistance of the veterans challenged the symbolic and cultural foundations of the war.

The Iraq Veterans Against the War and the Veterans for Standing Rock continue this tradition.  The Vietnam Veterans Against the War took the same smears and attacks Tulsi Gabbard does today for her courageous acts against war.

Endless wars have been fought by Republicans and Democrats to secure oil and produce huge profits for major corporations. No wonder the media is silent on just where all these refugees are coming from.

Nothing captures the deception better than Madeline Albright’s claim that she will register as a Muslim given her bloody record of killing Muslims in Iraq.  Albright agreed with New Mexican Bill Richardson, that “the price was worth it.”  That “price,” according to former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark and other observers, was the devastation of Iraq including the deaths of up to 500,000 people.

For us protestors, maybe its that war has been normalized. We started this cycle of conflict in the Greater Middle East in 1978 when we organized the Mujahideen in Afghanistan — the same rebels that would later become Al Qaeda and fight alongside of the “moderate rebels” we currently fund in Syria. We started bombing Iraq as far back as the First Gulf War in 1990. For many Americans these wars have been fought for their entire lives.

Trump’s war talk may or may not escalate beyond Obama’s rush to expand US military operations in Eastern Europe and Africa and invest a trillion dollars into nuclear weapons.  Trump is nonetheless challenging us to restart an anti-war movement that wages peace on many fronts: the Middle East, Iran, China, Mexico and the growing dangers of nuclear war.

Trump’s reckless provocations can only be answered by the renewal of a peace movement large enough to disrupt business as usual; by a peace movement that looks to soldiers and veterans for leadership; by a peace movement that understands, as Dr. King did, the deep connections between racism, war, economic exploitation, and now we must add, climate change.

Trump’s war plans, climate denial and support for big oil are a dangerous formula as it becomes increasingly clear that war and climate change are intimately connected. We will fail to oppose Trump and everything he stands for if we do not oppose war and empire.

No Ban! No Wall! No War!

US Court: Jewish baby is worth US$178.5 million

Rehmat

Posted on

On Tuesday, Washington DC District Court ruled that Tehran and Damascus have to pay US$178.5 million compensation to parents of Chaya Zissel Braun, the 3-month old Jewish baby killed in a car accident in occupied Jerusalem in a 2014 vehicular accident.

The vehicle was driven by Abdelrahman al-Shaludi from East Jerusalem who happened to be released from Israeli prison after 14 months on charges of being sympathizer of Gaza-ruling Hamas.

Braun’s parents hold the US-Israel dual citizenship. Such Americans become a national threat once they hold some higher administration or media position in United States such as Michael Chertoff, former head of DHS, Michael Mukasey, former attorney-general, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Larry Franklin, Douglas Feith, and The Atlantic magazine’s new editor, Jeffrey Goldberg, a former Israel’s army prison guard.

Since Hamas government in Gaza has no assets, frozen or otherwise, in United States – Israeli government founded law firm Shurat HaDin sued anti-Israel regimes in Damascus and Tehran to pay the compensation.

How much you think a US court demand Israeli government to pay compensation to the family of Abdel Fateh al-Sharif, an unarmed wounded Palestinian youth shot to death by Israeli soldier Elor Azaria (see cartoon above) in March 2016?

If you think that’s is ridiculous – in March 2016, a lawsuit initiated by Shurat HaDin, a Manhattan federal court ruled that Tehran must pay $10.5 billion to the families of the disputed victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, which has been proven to be work of the Zionist regime.

In February 2015, a lawsuit initiated by the Israeli lawfare firm Shurat HaDin led to the conviction of the Palestinian Authority and the Palestine Liberation Organization of liability for terrorist attacks in Israel between 2000 and 2004. The New York Federal jury awarded damages of $218.5 million, but under a special feature of the Anti-Terrorism Act the award was automatically tripled to $655.5 million.

Now you know how the Holocaust Industry has succeeded in sucking trillions of dollars from the US, Germany, Switzerland, Poland, and other western taxpayers.

American Jewish writer, author and radio-talk host, Stephen Lendman commented on this Jewish highway robbery, saying: “Israel calls wars of aggression, lethal shootings of Palestinians, and other barbarous acts self-defense. It considers legitimate resistance against brutal occupation harshness terrorism – a knee-jerk response to all incidents, Palestinians automatically guilty by accusation. The family in question has dual Israeli-American citizenship. Their three-month-old infant was killed  when Palestinian Abdel Rahman Shaludi’s vehicle struck people at Jerusalem’s Ammunition Hill light-rail station in October 2014. Israel accused him of ties with Hamas, illegally called a terrorist organization. It’s Palestine’s legally elected government. Parents of the deceased child sued in the US district court, awarded a default judgment, the entire procedure a sham, a scheme to denigrate and punish Iran and Syria illegally (here).”

PURE HYPOCRISY: SOROS-FUNDED ANTI-TRUMP PROTESTERS NEVER MOBILIZED ONCE FOR THE VICTIMS OF OBAMA-HILLARY CRIMES

by Jonathan Azaziah

I wasn’t going to write any rage-filled, profanity-laced tirades about these idiotic protests against Donald Trump… But then I came across a teensy-weensy lil’ bit of information about who exactly is organizing the majority of these demonstrations across the United Snakes of IsraHELL and like clockwork, my blood began to boil and I decided that a rage-filled, profanity-laced tirade against these crybaby liberals is exactly what’s needed. Thus, since none other than Yahoudling puppetmasters George Soros and Peter Lewis’s MoveOn.org is stirring up a shitstorm again, and in the spirit of hatred for anything and everything even remotely related to Zio-Killary Clinton and that two-faced trickster kibbutznik Bernie Sanders, allow me to offer the following message of intellectual and social clarity: FUCK YOU CLOWN-ASS, BITCH-ASS MOTHERFUCKERS AND THE CLOWN-ASS, BITCH-ASS DEGENERATES WHO BIRTHED YOU.

You “progressives” took a trip to LaLaLand when “the first Black president” and Hillary The Hag razed Libya to the ground, including the historically Black African Misurata town of Tawergha which was ransacked and ethnically cleansed by a NATO-backed Takfiri rebel gang called “The Brigade for Purging Slaves and Black Skin”. O’ the “anti-racist” glory! You “progressives” took a powder on Syria and have been, for the most apart, silent on Uncle O’Tom-a and Clinton The Pythoness rendering this gorgeous ancient land, which was the fourth-safest country in the world prior to the conspiracy, to a chaotic, kinetic warzone via Wahhabi terrorist proxies.

In fact, if we’re keeping it 100% on-point, you atrocious excuses for “progressives” have failed to meet an Obama-Clinton crime that you didn’t salivate over and subsequently make excuses for or run away from like pitiful yellowbelly sissies when confronted. From the economic destabilization of Venezuela to the soft “democratic” coups in Argentina and Chile; to the Russophobic, Zionist-financed putsch in Ukraine and sanctions on Russia; to the propping up of bloody military dictatorships in Egypt and Honduras; to massive arms deals worth over $115 billion with the most repressive, most mysogynistic regime on Earth, Saudi Arabia; to the biggest aid package to the Zionist enemy ever at $38 billion over 10 years; to drone strikes on Pakistan, the occupation of Afghanistan and the backing of the barbaric ‘Israeli’ wars on besieged Gaza in ’12 and ’14; to the ungodly crime committed against the Nigerian Shi’a of Zaria, including their leader Sheikh Zakzaky; to the genocidal monstrosity that is the aggression against Yemen, you “progressives” voluntarily sewed your mouths shut or got on board with all of it. Even though each of these horrors brings us to the water’s edge of WW3.

But Donald Trump attains the White House and prevails over your beloved “revolutionary” forces–i.e. the Democratic Party, the NYT, CNN, MSNBC, especially that obnoxious man-thing Rachel Maddow, and others cut from the same cloth–vociferously opposing him, and THIS is what gets you gutless pieces of shit to cry hysterically across social media, contemplate leaving the country, abandon your universities, frantically call for “unity”–unity with what and/or whom by the way? ‘Cause you certainly don’t want any unity with the Libyans, Syrians, Palestinians, Lebanese, Yemenis, Pakistanis, Afghanis, Iraqis and Ukranians Baruch Obama and Hadassah Clinton have slaughtered–quit your jobs, demand “healing” and basically rethink your entire existence? This?

Man. You people really are fucked fifty ways to Sunday, ain’t you? Is it hypocrisy? Duplicity? Selective humanity and solidarity? Word, all of the above. But additionally… INSANITY. Pure, unadulterated madness mixed with toxic, Jewish-funded identity politics. I would advocate you cowards being castrated but clearly you lost your balls a long, LONG time ago. Shaytanic Jewish money can have that kind of effect on you. So just shut the fuck up and go the fuck home, you corny cookie-cutter Sorosites. And for the sake of good manners, do send me a postcard when you detach your brains from your bowels and come to the realization that the planet is still somehow going to manage spinning on its axis in spite of your pathetic hurt feelings.

Related

CrossTalk: Bullhorns Fact-checking

 

US Sponsored “Moderates” “Have Sown Terror Everywhere”: Testimony of the Archbishop of Aleppo

Global Research, October 29, 2016
Fort Russ 28 October 2016
Aleppo

The whole world is terrified at the sight of the images from Aleppo that the mass media have been presenting in recent days. Many of our friends abroad are concerned and want to hear from us. We are living tragic moments in our history and what’s happening here continues to make Aleppo and its people suffer, people that for more than five years have been unable to have peace, so harassed and massacred by armed groups that have come from all over the world, to conduct a self-styled holy war, in a country governed (according to them) by atheists and infidels!

For five years now the terrorists here have been calling the shots, where the civil authorities of the country have not managed to be present. They have sown terror everywhere, killed tens of thousands of innocent people, destroyed thousands of factories, businesses and institutions of public services, looted houses and stolen, without any concern, assets of the country and the citizens. They have have made victims of many innocent people, kidnapping and brutally murdering countless peaceful people, including nuns, priests and even bishops.

This still going on today: this morning a dozen shells fell in two of our residential areas, causing further destruction and in one neighborhood, numerous deaths and injuries.

Battles are raging on the outskirts of the city: the rebels from the “Al-Nusra Front” are attempting to take positions in areas considered strategic, almost completely depopulated and almost entirely destroyed, that they seized and held until last June at the city’e edge. Images of these places of utter desolation are spread widely by the TV networks.

And it is there that the great battles now going on are taking place. Three weeks ago we put high hopes on the ceasefire, hoping it would enable peace-making followed by national reconciliation and a resumption of normal life in the country! Unfortunately this truce, weakened by continued violations by the radical opponents, was officially broken in recent days, by the unexpected raid by the coalition allied to the rebels in Deir-El-Zor.

These raids were on a Syrian army military base and killed more than 90 soldiers in their barracks, not to mention the number of undeclared injured. Is that the way to stop the fighting?

Therefore we hope and we are counting on the grace of God, the only one able to arouse the conscience of the great decision-makers. The terrifying spectacle of what happens has to shake every man that respects the sanctity of human life. So if Mr. Staffan de Mistura can manage to revive the peace process, we can hope for a bright spell and perhaps even for the concrete results of peace, the sine qua non for the foundation of the long-awaited dialogue.

The hardest thing for Christians who are currently present in Aleppo would be the prospect of having to live, morning and evening, in anxiety in this situation of insecurity: destabilizing disconcerting uncertainty. They are afraid for the next day, and the future of their children troubles them greatly. Imagine that one day a Muslim fundamentalist state would be imposed on them — for them this is an unbearable nightmare.

This is why we turn to our brothers in France and throughout the West, and we beg you to help us ensure that this does not happen. We are not asking you to make war for us, but only to end the unjust claims of your allies that want to impose antiquated laws, laws that are unbearable for the people of the twenty-first century who want to be free to choose their culture, their style life and, finally, their faith. We call on our brothers in France to pray for us and all women and all men concerned about human dignity and love of freedom, to come to our rescue to save our dear country from the depth of the fundamentalist regime they are trying to put us in. Please help us to continue to live in dignity on this blessed land of our birth!

Aleppo, 28 settembre 2016 (translated from Italian)

Jean-Clément Jeanbart,  Archbishop of Aleppo 

America’s Ironic “Two-Faced” War on Terror

October 23, 2016 (Joseph Thomas – NEO) – Rarely ever does hypocrisy align so succinctly as it does within the pages of American policy and media coverage. US policy think tank, the Brookings Institution, recently provided an extreme example of this in a paper titled, “A convenient terrorism threat,” penned by Daniel Byman.

The paper starts by claiming:

Not all countries that suffer from terrorism are innocent victims doing their best to fight back. Many governments, including several important U.S. allies, simultaneously fight and encourage the terrorist groups on their soil. President George W. Bush famously asked governments world-wide after 9/11 whether they were with us or with the terrorists; these rulers answer, “Yes.”

Some governments—including at times Russia, Egypt, Turkey, and Pakistan among others—hope to have it both ways. They use the presence of terrorists to win sympathy abroad and discredit peaceful foes at home, even while fighting back vigorously enough to look plausible but not forcefully enough to solve the problem. This two-faced approach holds considerable appeal for some governments, but it hugely complicates U.S. counterterrorism efforts—and the U.S. shouldn’t just live with it.

Byman then begins labelling various nations; Somalia as a “basket-case,” Iran as a “straightforward state sponsors of terrorism” and attempts to frame Russia’s struggle against terrorism in Chechnya as somehow disingenuous or politically motivated.

Byman also attempts to claim Syrian President Bashar Al Assad intentionally released terrorists from prison to help escalate violence around the country and justify a violent crackdown, this despite reports from Western journalists as early as 2007 revealing US intentions to use these very terrorists to overthrow the governments of Syria and Iran specifically, the New Yorker would reveal.

The US is as Much a Sponsor of Terrorism in Reality as Byman Claims Others are in Fiction

 But worse than Byman’s intentional mischaracterisations and lies of omission regarding US allies like Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Israel’s overt, global-spanning sponsorship of terrorism, is the fact that not only is the US itself engaged in sponsoring terrorism as it poses as fighting against it globally, the Brookings Institution and Byman have specifically and publicly called for the funding, training and arming of designated foreign terrorist groups in pursuit of self-serving geopolitical objectives.

(Daniel Byman of the Brookings Institution.)

Indeed, Daniel Byman is one of several signatories of the 2009 Brookings Institution report, “Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy toward Iran.”

The report not only reveals the blueprints of using supposedly “peaceful” and “democratic” protests as cover for violent, US sponsored subversion (as was precisely done in Syria beginning in 2011), it specifically lists a US State Department-designated foreign terrorist organisation as a potential US proxy in violently rising up against, and eventually overthrowing the government in Tehran.

The report would explicitly state (our emphasis):

Perhaps the most prominent (and certainly the most controversial) opposition group that has attracted attention as a potential U.S. proxy is the NCRI (National Council of Resistance of Iran), the political movement established by the MEK (Mujahedin-e Khalq). Critics believe the group to be undemocratic and unpopular, and indeed anti-American. 

In contrast, the group’s champions contend that the movement’s long-standing opposition to the Iranian regime and record of successful attacks on and intelligence-gathering operations against the regime make it worthy of U.S. support. They also argue that the group is no longer anti-American and question the merit of earlier accusations. Raymond Tanter, one of the group’s supporters in the United States, contends that the MEK and the NCRI are allies for regime change in Tehran and also act as a useful proxy for gathering intelligence. The MEK’s greatest intelligence coup was the provision of intelligence in 2002 that led to the discovery of a secret site in Iran for enriching uranium.

The report then admits MEK’s status as a designated foreign terrorist organisation and that it has targeted and killed both American officers and civilians in the past (our emphasis):

Despite its defenders’ claims, the MEK remains on the U.S. government list of foreign terrorist organizations. In the 1970s, the group killed three U.S. officers and three civilian contractors in Iran. During the 1979-1980 hostage crisis, the group praised the decision to take America hostages and Elaine Sciolino reported that while group leaders publicly condemned the 9/11 attacks, within the group celebrations were widespread.

The Brookings Institution also admits in its report that undoubtedly MEK continues to carry out undeniable terrorist activity against political and civilian targets within Iran, and notes that if MEK is to be successfully used as a US proxy against Iran, it would need to be delisted as a foreign terrorist organisation (our emphasis):

Undeniably, the group has conducted terrorist attacks—often excused by the MEK’s advocates because they are directed against the Iranian government. For example, in 1981, the group bombed the headquarters of the Islamic Republic Party, which was then the clerical leadership’s main political organization, killing an estimated 70 senior officials. More recently, the group has claimed credit for over a dozen mortar attacks, assassinations, and other assaults on Iranian civilian and military targets between 1998 and 2001. At the very least, to work more closely with the group (at least in an overt manner), Washington would need to remove it from the list of foreign terrorist organizations.

And eventually, that is precisely what was done. MEK would be delisted by the US State Department in 2012, announced in a US State Department statement titled, “Delisting of the Mujahedin-e Khalq,” which noted:

With today’s actions, the Department does not overlook or forget the MEK’s past acts of terrorism, including its involvement in the killing of U.S. citizens in Iran in the 1970s and an attack on U.S. soil in 1992. 

The Department also has serious concerns about the MEK as an organization, particularly with regard to allegations of abuse committed against its own members. The Secretary’s decision today took into account the MEK’s public renunciation of violence, the absence of confirmed acts of terrorism by the MEK for more than a decade, and their cooperation in the peaceful closure of Camp Ashraf, their historic paramilitary base.

MEK’s inability to conduct violence in the decade preceding the US State Department’s decision was not because of an ideological commitment to nonviolence, but a matter of strategic limitations placed on the terrorist organisation by Iraqi and Iranian security forces who were determined to liquidate it and who forcibly disarmed the group.

(Members of the MEK terrorist organisation in Camp Ashraf, Iraq)

And even if the 2012 US State Department decision was based on an alleged decade of nonviolence, the policymakers at the Brookings Institution who signed their names to “Which Path to Persia?” including Daniel Byman, certainly did not apply the same criteria in suggesting its use as an armed proxy.

In all likelihood, had Iraq and Iran not successfully cornered and disarmed the group, it would be fighting America’s proxy war against Tehran on both sides of the Iran-Iraq border. MEK fighters would be carrying out US-backed armed violence against Iran and Iraq side-by-side other US-backed terrorist groups operating across the region as part of America’s current proxy war against Syria, Russia and Iran.

Daniel Byman of the Brookings Institution’s latest paper even at face value is disingenuous, full of intentional mischaracterisations meant to direct attention away from the US and its closest allies’ own sponsorship of terrorism amid a very much feigned “War on Terror.” Understanding that Byman quite literally signed his name to a policy paper promoting the arming and backing of a US State Department designated foreign terrorist organisation makes his recent paper all that more outrageous.

What is also as troubling as it is ironic, is that Byman not only signed his name to calls for arming a listed terrorist organisation, he was also a staff member of the 9/11 Commission, according to his Georgetown University biography. A man involved in sorting out a terrorist attack who is also advocating closer cooperation with listed terrorist organisations is truly disturbing.

The political and ethical bankruptcy of American foreign policy can be traced back to its policy establishment, populated by unprincipled hypocrites like Byman and co-signatories of Brookings’ “Which Path to Persia?” The US certainly cannot convince other nations to abandon an alleged “two-faced” policy of promoting and fighting terrorism simultaneously when it stands as a global leader in this very practise.

Joseph Thomas is chief editor of Thailand-based geopolitical journal, The New Atlas and contributor to the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

US’s Two Faces

US terrorism

Pentagon Says Clashes between Turkey, US-Led Kurds in Syria Unacceptable

Source

Clashes between Turkish forces and units affiliated with a US-backed Kurdish-led alliance in Syria are “unacceptable”, the Pentagon said Monday, calling on all sides to “stand down”.

In a statement sent to AFP, Pentagon spokesman Peter Cook condemned the fighting south of the Syrian town of Jarabulus.

“We are closely monitoring reports of clashes south of Jarabulus — where ISIL is no longer located — between the Turkish armed forces, some opposition groups, and units that are affiliated with the SDF (Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces),” he said.

“We want to make clear that we find these clashes unacceptable and they are a source of deep concern.”

The United States “was not involved in these activities, they were not coordinated with US forces, and we do not support them,” he said.

“This is an already crowded battle space. Accordingly, we are calling on all armed actors to stand down immediately and take appropriate measures to de-conflict.”

The comments come after Turkish forces began a two-pronged operation against ISIL and Kurdish fighters from the People’s Protection Units (YPG) inside Syria on Wednesday.

The YPG is the main component of the US-backed SDF alliance, which has been fighting ISIL in northern Syria.

Turkey considers the YPG a “terrorist” group and said Monday it would continue to target the group if it failed to retreat east of the Euphrates River.

Turkish forces backed by pro-Ankara rebels seized the town of Jarabulus from ISIL on the first day of the operation, but have since then clashed with local fighters affiliated with the SDF.

Source: AFP

29-08-2016 – 15:28 Last updated 29-08-2016 – 15:28

Related Articles

“I thought you should know”: A disturbing mini-docu about Hillary Clinton’s hypocrisy:

Turkish Parliament Approves Deal with Zionist Entity

The Turkish parliament on Saturday approved a deal to normalize ties with the Zionist entity after a delay caused by last month’s attempted coup, state-run media reported.

Lawmakers ratified the agreement to restore relations after a six-year rift before parliament was due to go into summer recess.

Under the deal, Tel Aviv will pay Ankara $20 million (17.7 million euros) in compensation for the 2010 raid by Israeli commandos on a Gaza-bound Turkish aid ship that left 10 Turks dead, state-run Anadolu news agency said.

The Israeli government will hand Turkey a “lump sum” within 25 working days of the agreement coming into force, the agency said.

Under the terms of the deal, both sides agreed individual Israeli citizens would not be held liable — either criminally or financially — for the raid, Anadolu said.

Israeli cabinet ministers approved the deal with Turkey in June but Ankara did not send it to parliament because of time pressure after the July 15 attempted putsch by a rogue military faction.

Now the deal has been approved, the two countries are expected to begin the process of exchanging ambassadors to fully restore diplomatic ties.

 

Source: AFP

20-08-2016 – 10:58 Last updated 20-08-2016 – 10:58

Related Articles

The Battle for Aleppo and the Hypocrisy of US War Propaganda

Global Research, August 11, 2016
obama

This week marks two years since President Barack Obama initiated the latest US war against Iraq and Syria, launched in the name of combating the Islamic State militia. The American president cast the new military intervention as not only a continuation of the “global war on terrorism,” but also a crusade for human rights, invoking the threat to Iraq’s Yazidi population and insisting that he could not “turn a blind eye” when religious minorities were threatened.

The toll of this supposed humanitarian intervention has grown ever bloodier. According to a report released this week by the monitoring group Airwars to mark the anniversary, more than 4,700 civilian non-combatant fatalities have been reported as a result of the “US-led Coalition’s” air strikes (95 percent of which have been carried out by US warplanes). More innocent Iraqi and Syrian men, women and children have been slaughtered by American bombs in the course of two years than the total number of US soldiers who lost their lives during the eight years of the Iraq war launched by President George W. Bush in 2003.

All of Washington’s lies and pretexts about its latest war in the Middle East—as well as the decade-and-a-half of wars waged since 9/11—have been exploded in the course of the past several days as the US government and media celebrated purported victories by “rebel” forces in the battle for control of Aleppo, Syria’s former commercial capital.

That the “rebel” offensive has been organized and led by an organization that for years constituted Al Qaeda’s designated Syrian branch, and the operation was named in honor of a Sunni sectarian extremist who carried out a massacre of captured Syrian Alawite soldiers, gave none of them pause. So much for the hogwash about terrorism and human rights!

The scale of the military gains made by the Al Qaeda-led forces in Aleppo are by no means clear. They have, however, apparently succeeded in placing under siege the western part of the city, which is under the government’s control and where the overwhelming majority of the population lives. The “rebels” have killed and maimed hundreds of people with mortar and artillery rounds.

Washington and its allies, the Western media and the human rights groups that accused the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad of crimes against humanity for bombing the jihadists in eastern Aleppo are now indifferent when these imperialist-backed terrorists are killing civilians in the western part of the city.

Sections of the Western media have gone so far as to celebrate the exploits of “rebel” suicide bombers for providing a strategic “advantage” for the Western-backed militias. Among the most dishonest and duplicitous accounts of the recent fighting are those that have appeared in the pages of the New York Times, whose news coverage and editorial line are carefully tailored to serve the predatory aims of US imperialism.

In a Monday article on Aleppo, the Times wrote that the challenge to government control had been mounted by “rebels and their jihadist allies.” The article continued: “A vital factor in the rebel advance over the weekend was cooperation between mainstream rebel groups, some of which have received covert arms support from the United States, and the jihadist organization formerly known as the Nusra Front, which was affiliated with Al Qaeda.”

The newspaper reports this as casually as if it were publishing a report on the late artist formerly known as Prince. The Nusra Front changed its name to the Fatah al-Sham Front and announced its formal disaffiliation from Al Qaeda—with the latter’s blessing—just one week before it launched the offensive in Aleppo.

There is every reason to believe that this rebranding was carried out in consultation with the CIA in an attempt to politically sanitize direct US support for an offensive led by a group that has long been denounced by Washington as a terrorist organization.

The Times never names any of the “mainstream rebel groups” it says are fighting alongside the Al Qaeda militia, suggesting that they constitute some liberal progressive force. In point of fact, one of these groups recently released a video showing its fighters beheading a wounded 12-year-old child, and virtually all of them share the essential ideological outlook of Al Qaeda.

The Financial Times of London carried one of the frankest reports on the Aleppo “rebel” offensive, noting that it “may have had more foreign help than it appears: activists and rebels say opposition forces were replenished with new weapons, cash and other supplies before and during the fighting.” It cites reports of daily columns of trucks pouring across the Turkish border for weeks with arms and ammunition, including artillery and other heavy weapons.

The newspaper quotes one unnamed Western diplomat who said that US officials backed the Al Qaeda-led offensive “to put some pressure back on Russia and Iran,” which have both provided key military support to the Assad government.

The Financial Times also quotes an unnamed “military analyst” as stating that the character of the fighting indicated the Al Qaeda forces had received not only massive amounts of weapons, but also professional military training.

Significantly, even as the fighting in Aleppo was underway, photographs surfaced of heavily armed British commandos operating long-range patrol vehicles in northern Syria. Similar US units are also on the ground. These are among the most likely suspects in terms of who is training Al Qaeda’s Syrian forces.

They would only be reprising the essential features of the imperialist operation that gave rise to Al Qaeda 30 years ago, when the CIA—working in close alliance with Osama bin Laden—supplied similar support to the mujahedeen fighting to overthrow the Soviet-backed regime in Afghanistan.

While the blowback from that episode ultimately gave us September 11, the present operation in Syria holds far greater dangers. In what is now openly described by the corporate media as a “proxy war” in which Al Qaeda serves as US imperialism’s ground force, Washington is attempting to overthrow Russia’s key Middle East ally as part of the preparations for a war aimed at dismembering and subjugating Russia itself.

The frontrunner in the US presidential contest, Democrat Hillary Clinton, has repeatedly signaled that she intends to pursue a far more aggressive policy in Syria and against Russia, making neo-McCarthyite charges of Vladimir Putin’s supposed subversion of the US election process a central part of her campaign.

Whether Washington can wait till inauguration day next January to escalate its aggression is far from clear. The “rebel” gains in Aleppo may be quickly reversed and the fighting could end with the US-backed Al Qaeda militias deprived of their last urban stronghold.

US imperialism is not about to accept the re-consolidation of a Syrian government aligned with Moscow. Pressure will inevitably mount for a more direct and more massive US intervention, threatening a direct clash between American and Russian forces.

Fifteen years after launching its “war on terror,” Washington is not only directly allied with the supposed target of that war—Al Qaeda—but is preparing to unleash upon humanity the greatest act of terror imaginable, a third world war.

British Policy Governed by Zionism, Says UK Analyst Iran Says UN Betrayed Yemeni children by De-listing Saudi Arabia

 

 photo rodshakesp_zpsxekrezfl.jpg

 

The UK government’s unlimited support for Saudi Arabia, as the source of Daesh, shows that British foreign policy is controlled by Zionists who ultimately seek to expand the Israeli entity through war and instability, a British scholar and political analyst says.

Dr. Rodney Shakespeare made the remarks while discussing the UK’s recent contributions to the international military efforts against Daesh.

The UK Ministry of Defense said on Wednesday that two Tornado warplanes from the Royal Air Force have recently attacked one of Iraq’s former dictator Saddam Hussein’s palaces in the country’s northern city of Mosul, as part of a multinational squadron tasked with destroying the Daesh-controlled mansion.

“The sly deception, the slimy deceits of the British government are revealed by their actions in bombing Saddam’s palace,” Shakespeare told Press TV on Wednesday.

The academic went on to lay out in detail the British government’s hypocritical fight against Daesh while supporting Saudi Arabia, as the “source” of Daesh radicalism.

Britain “is doing that in particular by backing the source of Daesh or ISIL, which is Takfiri Wahhabism that is heart of evil pouring out of Saudi Arabia.”

He further explained his points by saying the London government’s policy in dealing with Daesh ultimately ensures the terror group’s existence and serves its Zionist leaders in Israel.

“British policy is governed by the Zionism and so is American policy and the object of the policy is to smash up Syria into parts, to smash up Iraq into parts,” Shakespeare argued.

“Biblical Israel extended into a large part of Syria and right across the river Euphrates in Iraq and the Zionists… remember Israel is not a state, it is an expanding entity with no borders,” the analyst said, adding that more chaos would allow the Tel Aviv regime expand.

Saudi Arabia’s ongoing war against Yemeni people which is made possible by British weaponry was another example of the UK’s double-standards in fighting terrorism, according to Shakespeare.

About 10,000 people have been killed in the military months-long aggression, according to Yemeni sources.

The kingdom is also assisting Bahrain’s ruling monarchs with a heavy-handed crackdown on a popular uprising; a move that Shakespeare said was part of a Saudi-Israeli mutual agreement to suppress democracy in the Middle East.

Full story with video here

 

Iran Says UN Betrayed Yemeni children by De-listing Saudi Arabia 

Iran said the United Nations (UN)’s decision to temporarily reverse the blacklisting of Saudi Arabia for killing Yemeni children amounts to a betrayal of the defenseless minors.

children in Yemen killed by Saudi Arabia strikesGholam-Ali Khoshroo, Iran’s ambassador and permanent representative to the UN, made the remark at a UN Security Council meeting to discuss children and armed conflict on Tuesday.

Back in June, the UN blacklisted Saudi Arabia after concluding in a report that Riyadh had been responsible for 60 percent of the 785 deaths of children in the Saudi war on Yemen last year. A few days later, however, the world body announced that Saudi Arabia would be taken off the list pending a joint review with Saudi Arabia.

Khoshroo told the Security Council meeting that the about-face took place under “financial and political pressure.”

The reversal equaled the “betrayal of the rights of the most vulnerable portion of the [Yemeni] civilian population, namely children, for whose very protection the international mechanism has been designed,” he said, referring to the UN.

“Have the airstrikes in Yemen, which have so far killed hundreds of Yemeni children, led to anything other than [prompting] the growth of al-Qaeda and the Daesh?” the Iranian envoy asked.

Yemen has been under relentless military attacks by Saudi Arabia since late March 2015, with internal sources putting the death toll from the aggression at about 10,000.

Khoshroo adduced to the latest report by the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, saying attacks on Yemeni children had, over the last year, reached 1,953 instances, which reflected a six-fold increase.

After deciding to remove Saudi Arabia from the blacklist of countries that kill and maim children, Ban himself admitted that the decision had been made under “undue pressure.”

Speaking at the same Security Council meeting on Tuesday, Ban said he still had “very strong concerns about the protection of Yemeni children” despite a series of measures Saudi Arabia has purported to take to protect children in Yemen.

Riyadh reportedly outlined the measures in a 13-page confidential letter to the UN chief last week.

Ban said the Saudi measures had fallen short of safeguarding the lives of Yemeni children.

Source: Press TV

03-08-2016 – 12:07 Last updated 03-08-2016 – 12:07

 

Related Videos

Related Articles

“Here at our convention there will be no lies. We will honor the American People with the Truth”

 photo trumpconvspeech_zpsjcuxjm0b.jpg

By Richard Edmondson

Immediately after Donald Trump spoke those words at the Republican national convention last night, the massive crowd erupted into chants of “USA…USA…USA!”

Whenever I hear crowds yelling “USA” like that it always gives me a queasy feeling, for what it suggests is blind patriotism. Trump’s speech came three days after 20 civilians died in US airstrikes on the Syrian city of Manbij; two days after the French airstrikes that killed 120 more civilians in the village of Toukhan al-Kubra, just to the north of Manbij; and also two days after the emergence of a horrendously graphic video showing US-backed “moderate rebels” of the Nour al-Din al-Zenki movement beheading a young boy from Aleppo.

abdullahissa

While plenty of people have expressed shock over the video and made note of the fact that the boy’s murderers were backed by the US, few have bothered to report the youngster’s name. According to Al Manar, his name was Abdullah Issa. He was 12 years old. The report also mentions that he suffered from Thalassemia, a blood disorder, and was abducted from a hospital after a brother of Omar Salkho, Nour al-Din al-Zenki’s Aleppo commander, was killed. Apparently this was sufficient cause for beheading a child.

A heartbreaking exchange is said to have taken place when Salkho reportedly asked the terrified young boy if he had a last wish.

“I wish to be shot dead,” Abdullah reportedly replied.

“You will not be shot dead,” the terrorist leader is said to have answered. “We are worse than ISIL.”

In the video below, Salkho is presumably the man in the green cap.

I hope that these killers are brought to justice–though not through random shelling upon the battlefield. I hope instead that they are captured alive and placed on trial, and during their trial, I would hope they would be questioned not only about beheadings and other crimes committed, but also as to what contacts they may have had with US or possibly Israeli officials. Did they, for instance, undergo training at a US training camp in Jordan or Turkey? According toWikipedia, Nour al-Din al-Zenki has received BGM-71 Tow anti-tank missiles from the US, and quite possibly they have received other assistance as well.

Perhaps the most unseemly performance of all was not so much the shouts of “USA” at the Republican convention but a comment given at the State Department by spokesperson Mark Toner, who, when told about Abdullah Issa’s beheading, remarked offhandedly,

“If we can prove that this was indeed what happened and this group was involved… it would give us pause about any assistance or, frankly, any further involvement with this group.”

The words “it would give us pause” raise serious questions about what value Toner places upon the lives of children living in countries torn and ripped apart by US regime change operations. Had the victim in this case been a 12-year-old Israeli boy, rather than Syrian, can we for a moment imagine Toner responding “it would give us pause” when told that such a child had been decapitated?

***

“But here at our convention, there will be no lies,” Trump orated in last night’s speech. “We will honor the American people with the truth and nothing else.”

“USA…USA…USA…USA…USA…”

So did Trump honor the American people with the truth about the beheading of Abdulla Issa or US support for terrorists who carry out war crime atrocities? No, he didn’t, sad to say. Well what exactly is the truth, according to Donald Trump? What “truths” came from the presidential contender’s lips during his acceptance speech?

Some of his truths are self-evident on their face. For instance:

  • that 4 in 10 African-American children live in poverty while 58% of African-American youth are unemployed
  • that the national debt has almost doubled under Obama, now standing at more than $19 trillion
  • that Hillary Clinton pushed a “failed policy of nation building and regime change”–in Iraq, Libya, Egypt, and Syria–that should now be abandoned;

Other of his “truths” are a bit more subjective:

  • the Iran deal will go down in history as one of the worst deals ever negotiated
  • the Chinese are the greatest currency manipulators ever
  • law enforcement (as it pertains to street crime) has been too lax under the Obama administration

And some are blatantly false:

  • businesses are overregulated, particularly in the energy sector (presumably an endorsement for fracking, given the candidate’s reported choice forEnergy Secretary)
  • our military is “depleted” and needs to be rebuilt
  • Israel is our “greatest ally” in the Middle East

So yes, Trump spoke a few truths, mixed in with some partial truths, along with some outright untruths. Isn’t that what we have come to expect from the US political system? But the greatest truths, the truths most direly in need of being spoken–about the influence of the Israeli lobby, the control of virtually the entire mainstream media by just six corporations, the need to totally rearrange the system to eliminate the influence of money–these and other truths that direly need to be expressed were missing from the speech.

Some might take a little bit of heart from Trump’s criticism of Clinton for her regime change efforts in the Middle East, but it should be noted that in the very same speech the New York billionaire chastised Obama apparently over his refusal to launch an all-out war against the Syrian government in the wake of the Ghouta chemical attacks in 2013:

“Another humiliation came when president Obama drew a red line in Syria – and the whole world knew it meant absolutely nothing,” the candidate asserted.

Trump obviously believes that the Syrian Army carried out the chemical attack–a claim that has been thoroughly discredited but which the mainstream media continue to propagate nonetheless.

Controlled as it is by money, the US political system is a snake pit. The chances of a person of genuine integrity rising from such a system to become president are probably something like a million to one. Of course many people are naturally hopeful, and there is always a tendency to believe that this or that candidate is the one in a million exception to the rule. This is human nature. But the reality is that the snake pit is what produced the government we have now, a government that pursues a policy of arming terrorist head choppers, as well as State Department spokespeople capable of uttering, without barely a blink of an eye, that the beheading of a 12-year-old child might “give us pause.”

Trump or Hillary? Would Trump end up becoming the new “worst president ever”? Would Hillary be just as bad–maybe worse (maybe a hundred times worse)?  Should you vote for the Green Party or the Libertarian candidate? Maybe write in the name of your favorite poet, clown, or mathematician? It’s hard to say, and I’m not here to tell anybody how to vote, or whether to even vote at all or simply boycott the snake pit and stay home on election day. The decision is yours.

I’m only here to say that the choices aren’t good–but then you already knew that.

Hypocrisy or Democracy!: Turkey Blocks Access to WikiLeaks after Ruling Party email Dump

Wednesday, 20 July 2016 12:23

Turkey has blocked access to the WikiLeaks website, the telecoms watchdog said on Wednesday, hours after it leaked thousands of ruling party emails just as Ankara grapples with the aftermath of a failed military coup, according to Reuters.

Turkey’s Telecommunications Communications Board said on Wednesday that an “administrative measure” had been taken against the website – the term it commonly uses when blocking access to sites.

Around 50,000 soldiers, police, judges and teachers have been suspended or  detained since the attempted coup on the weekend, and Turkey’s Western allies have expressed concern over the crackdown’s reach.

Despite a massive cyberattack on its website, WikiLeaks on Tuesday released nearly 300,000 emails from the AK Party dating from 2010 to July 6 this year. Obtained before the attempted coup, the date of their publication was brought forward “in response to the government’s post-coup purges”, WikiLeaks said on its website.

The source of the emails was not connected to the coup plotters or to a rival political party or state, WikiLeaks said.

Founded by Julian Assange, WikiLeaks publishes leaked material, mostly from governments. In 2010, the organization published classified U.S. military and diplomatic documents in one of the largest information leaks in U.S. history.

Turkey routinely uses Internet shutdowns in response to political events, which critics and human rights advocates see as part of a broader attack on the media and freedom of expression.

H.M

Hypocrisy or Democracy!

Sunday, 17 July 2016 17:45

The recent failing coup attempt in the neighboring Turkey has carried many implications and lessons. Syria, the country paying heavy prices of its citizens’ blood, belongings, hopes and aspirations, because of Mr. Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his AK Party policies,  followed as the whole world did the events and closely. The Syrians did express pleasure and joy, not out of hatred for their neighbors, who occupied them for centuries, but as a natural national human reflection of their sadness, agony and sufferings.

The Syrian national foreign policy was strongly founded by the Late President Hafez Al-Assad decades ago: no interference in other countries’ domestic affairs. Thus, many Syrians were sad and happy at one time. Many felt happy because we have suffered a great deal at the hands of Erdogan-affiliated cannibals and terrorists of all colors and nationalities, not to mention the tragedy and poverty inflicted at Aleppo at the hands of Aleppo’s burglar. The Syrians’ feelings of sadness were mainly caused by the non-human daesh-like torture, humiliations and slaughtering of some Turkish soldiers at the hands of their co-nationals, which was done before by some extremist Turks against the Syrians for decades, if not for centuries!

The Syrians are not interested in the unfolding and whereabouts of events in their neighboring Turkey. It is not our cup of tea whether there is a whats-up coup there or not! The Syrians are in dire need for stability, peace and security, which would never be attained unless the anti-Syrians on top of them stands Mr. Erdogan, refrain from backing, arming, dispatching and financing the Wahabbi Al- Qaeda affiliates. Erdgan has further to offer apology, condolences and retributions to the Syrians.

Another implication is a good lesson for those who claim to be opposition. Opposition Parties in Turkey all rallied and supported the democratically elected AK Party and as to safeguard Turkey. Apart from their sharp and at times contradictory stances, the opposition in Turkey has indeed given a lesson to how opposition should behave. Hopefully some of the foreign opposition groups in Syria, mainly those affiliated to Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, US, France or even to any devil worldwide, could have learned as how to behave and act when it comes to the national higher and upper interests of their Syria!

Among the implications of the failing coup was also the hypocrite multi-standards response of some so-called guardians of human rights and democrac! They turned blind eyes to the ongoing crimes perpetrated on the ground against Turkish Army soldiers, and called for safeguarding the democratically-elected president and government in Turkey. US outgoing President, Mr. Obama, said that Erdogan should be dealt with as the legally elected president; in reflection of the deep rooted US intransigency, complexity and multi-standards. Mr. Obama and other world officials who said so have been plotting, calling and working for the downing of the most popular and democratically elected president on earth and for years!

Dr.Mohammad Abdo Al-Ibrahim

alibrahim56@hotmail.com

When Her Lips Are Moving…

 photo hillaclin_zpse57jsnyr.jpg

[ Ed. note – the old saying–“How do you know when so-and-so is lying?” (answer: “when his lips are moving”)–seems to apply to Hillary Clinton. Mainstream media are reporting today that Bernie Sanders plans to formally endorse Clinton at an event on Tuesday of next week–that is if he can squeeze a few more concessions out of her supporters on the Democratic Party Platform Committee, including opposition to the TPP.

I wish him luck on that, but of course the party platform is not a legally-binding document, and I’m not sure a pledge of support for it issued from the moving lips of Hillary Clinton is worth much.

The Wall Street Journal is reporting on Clinton’s recently-announced support for free college tuition.

In a bid to win over rival Bernie Sanders and his supporters, Democrat Hillary Clinton is expanding her plan to offer free college tuition to millions of families, a modified version of what Mr. Sanders pushed in his presidential campaign.

The new Clinton proposal would offer free tuition at public schools to students in families earning $85,000 a year or less, at first, with that threshold increasing to $125,000 by 2021.

Sounds wonderful! Too good to be true?

Clinton has also pledged her opposition to the BDS movement, which presumably means she will support legislation at the federal level similar to that already passed by a number of states–basically penalizing those who call for a boycott of Israel. Out of the two campaign promises–support for free tuition and opposition to BDS–which do you think Clinton is more likely to keep?

I suspect a day is coming when Americans are likely to have far more to worry about than who becomes the next the president.

Obama Says “Big Nations Should Not Bully Small Ones” As U.S. Bullies Small Nations Across The World

MAY 31, 2016

obama_drone

By Brandon Turbeville

 Ever since World War II, the United States has prided itself on being number 1. This classification of superiority has generally been reserved for things at least perceived as being positive attributes, e.g. the biggest economy, the most upward mobility, the most effective military, etc.

However, if the United States were trying to achieve the number 1 position in hypocrisy, then President Barack Obama has made a two-week jaunt the crossing of the finish line for a country racing to be labeled as the most hypocritical nation on the face of the earth.

Step 1 was his appearance and speech in Hanoi, Vietnam on May 24. In the course of delivering a speech calling for the peaceful resolution of maritime disputes, particularly in the South China Sea, Obama uttered perhaps one of the most glaringly hypocritical statements to come from the mouth of a U.S. President. Indeed, his statement was even more hypocritical than the general “America represents freedom and democracy” claptrap. “Big nations should not bully smaller ones. Disputes should be resolved peacefully,” Obama said.

Of course, it must be noted that Obama made his statement in small country that was bullied by a big one decades earlier for over ten years with devastating results for the Vietnamese people and a nasty culture war back at home in the United States. The irony of traveling to Vietnam and telling the world that big countries shouldn’t bully small ones may have been lost on Americans but, to many people across the world, history was not so easily forgotten.

Indeed, it may be irony for an American President to stand in Hanoi and criticize “bullying” small countries but it is absolute hypocrisy for him to do so at a time when the United States is known the world over for being the biggest bully on the planet. As Libya continues to burn in absolute chaos, Syria fights valiantly against proxy imperialism, Iraq continues to have its legs cut out from underneath it at every turn, and a trail of war and destruction is left all across the world, the fruit of the United States has been borne for all to see.

If the world operated according to reason and rationality, it would not be the United States lecturing other countries on the dangers of bullying, it would be Vietnam, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Pakistan, Libya, Nicaragua, and much of the Third World lecturing the United States. Unfortunately for Americans, however, empire does always tend to come home eventually. When it does, an apathetic public will no doubt regret their lack of opposition to the war machine.

Brandon Turbeville – article archive here – is the author of seven books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom7 Real ConspiraciesFive Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 andvolume 2The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria, and The Difference it Makes: 36 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Should Never Be President. Turbeville has published over 650 articles on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville’s radio show Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV. His website is BrandonTurbeville.com He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com.

This article may be freely shared in part or in full with author attribution and source link.

Obama’s ‘Moderate’ Syrian Deception

Global Research, February 18, 2016
Consortium News 16 February 2016
Syria_Obama

President Obama, who once called the idea of “moderate” Syrian rebels a “fantasy,” has maintained the fiction to conceal the fact that many “moderates” are fighting alongside Al Qaeda’s jihadists, an inconvenient truth that is complicating an end to Syria’s civil war, explains Gareth Porter.

Secretary of State John Kerry insisted at the Munich Security Conference on Saturday that the agreement with Russia on a temporary halt in the war in Syria can only be carried out if Russia stops its airstrikes against what Kerry is now calling “legitimate opposition groups.”

But what Kerry did not say is that the ceasefire agreement would not apply to operations against Al Qaeda’s Syrian franchise, the Nusra Front, which both the United States and Russia have recognized as a terrorist organization. That fact is crucial to understand why the Obama administration’s reference to “legitimate opposition groups” is a deception intended to mislead public opinion.

President Barack Obama talks with Ambassador Samantha Power, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, following a Cabinet meeting in the Cabinet Room of the White House, Sept. 12, 2013. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

President Barack Obama talks with Ambassador Samantha Power, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, following a Cabinet meeting in the Cabinet Room of the White House, Sept. 12, 2013. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

The Russian airstrikes in question are aimed at cutting off Aleppo city, which is now the primary center of Nusra’s power in Syria, from the Turkish border. To succeed in that aim, Russian, Syrian and Iranian forces are attacking rebel troops deployed in towns all along the routes from Aleppo to the border.Those rebels include units belonging to Nusra, their close ally Ahrar al-Sham, and other armed opposition groups – some of whom have gotten weapons from the CIA in the past.

Kerry’s language suggests that those other “legitimate opposition groups” are not part of Nusra’s military structure but are separate from it both organizationally and physically. But in fact, there is no such separation in either of the crucial provinces of Idlib and Aleppo.

Information from a wide range of sources, including some of those the United States has been explicitly supporting, makes it clear that every armed anti-Assad organization unit in those provinces is engaged in a military structure controlled by Nusra militants. All of these rebel groups fight alongside the Nusra Front and coordinate their military activities with it.

This reality even slips into mainstream U.S. news accounts on occasion, such as Anne Barnard’s New York Times article last Saturday about the proposed Syrian cease-fire in which she reported, “With the proviso that the Nusra Front, Al Qaeda’s branch in Syria, can still be bombed, Russia puts the United States in a difficult position; the insurgent groups it supports cooperate in some places with the well-armed, well-financed Nusra in what they say is a tactical alliance of necessity against government forces.”

At least since 2014 the Obama administration has armed a number of Syrian rebel groups even though it knew the groups were coordinating closely with the Nusra Front, which was simultaneously getting arms from Turkey and Qatar. The strategy called for supplying TOW anti-tank missiles to the “Syrian Revolutionaries Front” (SRF) as the core of a client Syrian army that would be independent of the Nusra Front.

However, when a combined force of Nusra and non-jihadist brigades including the SRF captured the Syrian army base at Wadi al-Deif in December 2014, the truth began to emerge. The SRF and other groups to which the United States had supplied TOW missiles had fought under Nusra’s command to capture the base.

And as one of the SRF fighters who participated in the operation, Abu Kumayt, recalled to The New York Times, after the victory only Nusra and its very close ally Ahrar al-Sham were allowed to enter the base. Nusra had allowed the groups supported by the United States to maintain the appearance of independence from Nusra, according to Abu Kumyt, in order to induce the United States to continue the supply of U.S. weapons.

Playing Washington

In other words, Nusra was playing Washington, exploiting the Obama administration’s desire to have its own Syrian Army as an instrument for influencing the course of the war. The administration was evidently a willing dupe.

Former U.S. Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford, who had been supporting an aggressive program of arming opposition brigades that had been approved by the CIA, told a January 2015 seminar in Washington, “For a long time we have looked the other way while the Nusra Front and armed groups on the ground, some of which are getting help from us, have coordinated in military operations against the regime.”

Reflecting the views of some well-placed administration officials, he added, “I think the days of us looking the other way are finished.” But instead of breaking with the deception that the CIA’s hand-picked clients were independent of Nusra, the Obama administration continued to cling to it.

Nusra and its allies were poised to strike the biggest blow against the Assad regime up to the time – the capture of Idlib province. Although some U.S.-supported groups participated in the campaign in March and April 2015, the “operations room” planning the campaign was run by Al Qaeda and its close ally Ahrar al Sham.

And before the campaign was launched, Nusra had forced another U.S.-supported group, Harakat Hazm, to disband and took all of its TOW anti-tank missiles.

Furthermore, Saudi Arabia and Qatar were financing the “Army of Conquest,” commanded by Nusra, and were lobbying the administration to support it. U.S. strategy on Syria was then shifting toward a tacit reliance on the jihadists to achieve the U.S. objective of putting sufficient pressure on the Assad regime to force some concessions on Damascus.

But the idea that an independent “moderate” armed opposition still existed – and that the United States was basing its policy on those “moderates” – was necessary to provide a political fig leaf for the covert and indirect U.S. reliance on Al Qaeda’s Syrian franchise’s military success.

When the fall of Idlib led to the Russian intervention last September, the U.S. immediately resorted to its propaganda line about Russian targeting of the “moderate” armed opposition. It had become a necessary shield for the United States to continue playing a political-diplomatic game in Syria.

As the current Russian-Syrian-Iranian offensive between Aleppo and the Turkish border unfolds, the Obama administration’s stance has been contradicted by fresh evidence of the subordination of non-jihadist forces to the Nusra Front. In late January, Nusra consolidated its role as the primary opposition military force in the eastern part of Aleppo City by sending a huge convoy of 200 vehicles loaded with fighters, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights in London.

BBC reported that “thousands of troops” had just arrived in Aleppo for the coming battle. Ahrar al-Sham confirmed on Feb. 2 that its ally, the Nusra Front, had deployed a large convoy of “reinforcements” to Aleppo. The pro-Assad Beirut daily As-Safir reported that the convoys also included artillery, tanks and armored vehicles, and that Nusra had taken over a number of buildings to serve as its headquarters and offices.

How Al Qaeda Controls

An assessment published on Saturday by the Institute for the Study of War, which has long advocated more U.S. military assistance to Syrian anti-Assad groups, provides further insights into the Nusra Front’s system of control over U.S.-supported groups. One way the jihadist organization maintains that control, according to the study, is Ahrar al Sham’s control of the Bab al Hawa border crossing with Turkey, which gives Nusra and Ahrar power over the distribution of supplies from Turkey into Aleppo City and surrounding areas.

ISW points out that another instrument of control is the use of “military operations rooms” in which Nusra and Ahrar al Sham play the dominant role while allocating resources and military roles to lesser military units.

Although the Nusra Front is not listed as part of the “Army of Aleppo” formally announced to combat the Russian offensive, it is hardly credible that it does not hold the primary positions in the operations room for the Aleppo campaign, given the large infusion of Nusra troops into the theater from Idlib and its history in other such operations rooms in the Idlib and Aleppo regions.

Yet another facet of Nusra’s power in Aleppo is its control over the main water and power plants in the opposition-controlled districts of the city. But the ultimate source of Nusra’s power over U.S.-supported groups is the threat to attack them as agents of the United States and take over their assets. Al Qaeda’s franchise “successfully destroyed two U.S.-backed groups in Northern Syria in 2014 and early 2015,” ISW recalls, and initiated a campaign last October against one of the remaining U.S.-supported groups, Nour al Din al Zenki.

The official U.S. posture on the current offensive in the Aleppo theater and the proposed ceasefire obscures the fact that a successful Russian-Syrian operation would make it impossible for the external states, such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia, to resupply the Nusra Front and Ahrar al Sham and thus end the military threat to the Syrian government as well as the possibility of Al Qaeda’s seizure of power in Damascus.

Russian-Syrian success offers the most realistic prospect for an end to the bloodletting in Syria and would also reduce the likelihood of an eventual Al Qaeda seizure of power in Syria.

The Obama administration certainly understands that fact and has already privately adjusted its diplomatic strategy to take into account the likelihood that the Nusra Front will now be substantially weakened. But it cannot acknowledge any of that publicly because such a recognition would infuriate many hardliners in Washington who still demand “regime change” in Damascus whatever the risks.

President Obama is under pressure from these domestic critics as well as from Turkey, Saudi Arabia and other GCC allies to oppose any gains by the Russians and the Assad regime as a loss for the United States. And Obama administration must continue to hide the reality that it was complicit in a strategy of arming Nusra – in part through the mechanism of arming Washington’s “moderate” clients – to achieve leverage on the Syrian regime.

Thus the game of diplomacy and deceptions continues.

Gareth Porter is an independent investigative journalist and winner of the 2012 Gellhorn Prize for journalism. He is the author of the newly published Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare.

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: