Archive | June 9th, 2014

Traitors on a Plane

NOVANEWS

Traitors on a Plane

Traitors on a Plane

1. I’ve had it being Mr. Nice Mantiq al-Tayr. These United States are permeated with traitors who pretend to be part of our society but whose loyalties lie elsewhere; said fact being a cause of tremendous damage to this country. No, I’m not talking about the likes of the absolute fraud bull-shitter lying pretend and extremely bigoted Zionist war-mongering fake orientalist David Gaubatz who claims he knows Arabic because he attended classes at the Foreign Service Institute. More on this paranoid loon in a later post.

I’m talking instead about the likes of traitor  Tsvi Mark who recently completed his first year at West Point. He then got on a plane with 237 other traitors from North American countries and flew off to Israel. He did so in order to join an “elite” unit (the Hebrew word for “elite” means “really good at murdering Palestinians”) in the Israeli military. On that very same plane, over 50 others, at least, were going right into the Israeli military.  It appears that almost all of the  passengers were on the plane in order to “make aliya” (Hebrew for “to betray your country”) to Israel and thus become Israeli citizens. And you get to help pay for it. Keep reading.

This story is just so rich it really had the tuyuur here at Mantiq al-Tayr scratching their feathers trying to figure out which nuggets about these traitors to bring to your attention and which ones to just let you read about on the links included in this article.

Screw it.  Let’s have some fun as we go board the Ship of Israeli Traitors (SHIT). Go get  your favorite beverage and come back and have a seat. It should be a great ride.

First, let’s see who else was on this Star (of David) Trek ship. Red highlights are mine.

Also on board was a large contingent of 35 olim from Cleveland, Ohio. The CEO of American Greetings Corporation, Zev Weiss, joined them to accompany his dear friend, andCEO of Intellectual Property Joseph Mandelbaum, who made aliyah on the flight.

Please make sure to boycott all products by American Greetings Corporation as well as those of Intellectual Property.No doubt the citizens of Cleveland are most distressed that the Cleveland Indians players were not among the 35 traitors from Cleveland on the plane. But I digress. [Hell, may as well send the Cleveland Browns too.]

As for Joseph Mandelbaum, it turns out that “Intellectual Property” is part of American Greetings Corporation and works to market their worthless products to you goyim out there. Please see this link and boycott the goods mentioned there too.

No doubt all you home schoolers out there will be thrilled to know that young children also were brainwashed given an opportunity to participate in betraying the United States. This will be good practice for when they grow up and can finish the job that’s already well under way.

This charter plane featured the winning logo of the Nefesh B’Nefesh and BabagaNewz.com, an educational website for Jewish middle-schoolers and teachers, ‘Destination Israel’ logo design contest, which encouraged students in Grades 4–7 to create an aliyah plane logo. The winning entry, . . ., was painted on the side of this flight.

The “winning entry” is here:

Where's Walid?

What the fuck happened to Palestine? Yes indeed, little Jewish children are being taught that there is no Palestine while at the same time they are being taught to be traitors to the United States. Go look at the photo of the plane at the top of this post and you’ll see the picture on it.

And maybe that is why Tsvi Mark had this to say about his betrayal of the United States:

“I had always wanted to join the U.S. army and train at West Point, but once I was there I realized that what I really wanted was to go home, to our land, our people, and our army.”

Yes, this future child killer might also even get a chance to kill some of his fellow West Pointers. Israel likes to kill graduates of America’s service academies. Just ask any of the USS Liberty Survivors.

But it gets worse. Much worse. Let’s learn a little more about Tsvi Mark and about an on-going large scale operation whose goal is to create traitors.

Tsvi Mark, 20, spent last year as a student at West Point. The Silver Spring resident, a former student at the Melvin J. Berman Hebrew Academy, says he decided in his senior year to attend either the Army service academy or its Navy equivalent at Annapolis. (His father had been a career U.S. Air Force officer, retiring as a lieutenant colonel.)

Before little Tsvi went to West Point he went to a terrorist training camp – oops, I meant to say he went to traitor recruitment program in Israel. If you say “What’s the difference?” you’ll get no argument here.

However, he decided to spend a year in Israel before entering college and spent 2007-08 in a mechina (religious military preparation) program on Moshav Avne Etan, a cooperative agricultural community in the Golan Heights. While there, he “began to think of the IDF as an option,” Mark says.

So before he goes off to West Point he spends a year in a “religious military preparation” program in a foreign country – Syria. That’s right. The Golan Heights are Syrian territory occupied and settled (illegally) by Israel. That’s how he spent his time in Israel, occupying Syrian territory. Could you imagine if he’d been Muslim and did something like this?  But it gets worse.

“During the second semester, I decided that if I was not at West Point, I wanted to be in Israel,” says Mark, who took the Aug. 3 NBN flight. Like others interviewed, Mark praised NBN — which assists new immigrants to Israel from North American and Great Britain with paperwork, offers grants, serves as a liaison with government agencies once they arrive and provides career counseling — for easing the process.

NBN is short for the Nefesh B’Nefesh organization that exists solely for the purpose of creating traitors. More on them further down. How nice of them to help with money and jobs for well-to-do American Jews who want to go kill Palestinians. Donations to Nefesh B’Nefesh are also tax-deductible even though it is indistinguishable from being an outright Israeli intelligence operation. It is even “deputized to utilize a portable passport control scanner for the Israel Border Police.

But it gets worse.

Let’s finish up with Tsvi Traitor Mark. It looks like he’s just going to be fine.

Mark is slated to spend the next several months on Kibbutz Tiryat Tzvi in the Garin Tsabar program, which helps prepare soldiers without families in Israel for the IDF.

He hopes to be accepted into the Golani Brigade, an elite infantry unit, when he begins his service in November and to be selected for the officer training program.

Afterward, he plans to study business or international relations at an Israeli university.

The Garin Tsabar program is “a programme that recruits foreign Jews for the Israel Defence Forces.”

Are you starting to notice that there seems to be a hell of a lot of Israeli programs aimed at getting people to betray the United States? Garin Tsabar even reaches down into cute little camps for Jewish kids in Texas. Goys and girls, let’s a take a side trip just for a second to Camp Young Judea in Wimberly,  Texas.

Here’s a few fun quotes from various parts of their website. (Yes, I know I’m digressing, but bear with me. It’s  not like you have a plane to Israel to catch. So sit down and keep drinking. You’ll need to.)

Here’s an interesting reference from the Camp’s March, 2005 newsletter which just happens to mention Garin Tsabar.

“Several times a year a group gets together to organize and send letters and packages to these young men and women. The project currently serves about 150 English speaking soldiers who are either Young Judaea graduates, part of Garin Tsabar (American/Israeli Scouts who come to serve in the army) and others who have found the warmth of Merkaz Hamagshimim.”

Nice to see that Camp graduates go off to join the Israeli military. Such a nice little camp.

They have a lovely scholarship fund and, of course, all donations are tax-deductible.

“Each year the Young Judaea Scholarship Fund allows youth of all ages to learn about Israel and their Jewish identity by helping families to finance summer and year-round YJ activities. In 2004, through the generosity of many families, TOL Young Judaea distributed $45,100.00!”

Wanna go to Israel?

“Young Judaea has more than 55 years of experience as one of the world’s leaders in sending Jewish youth to Israel. Through our Year Course & Summer Programs, hundreds of chanichim have safely traveled to Israel and enjoyed experiences that enriched their lives.”

That way they can all be recruited to be traitors while they are there.

Question: How many people in the US government and military have gone on trips like this and have been recruited by Israel and have remained in the US government or military?

Hey FBI guys, I know you read this blog (in fact it was a former FBI guy who first informed Mantiq al-Tayr of the Tsvi Mark story). Why don’t you guys find the answer to this question?

Man, it gets even worse. And I am still on my digression. Just wait for when I get back to the Traitors on the Plane. But let’s get back to Camp Young Judea for just a little more quality time with some camp counselors.

Not only does Camp Young Judea export little Jews to Israel for in-country indoctrination and recruitment, it also works as a avenue to import Israeli spiesinto the United States.

Then, using the same criteria, we ensure a strong Zionist influence by hiring a contingent of Israeli shlichim (emissaries) with the help of the Israeli Government. The Jewish Agency places approximately 2,000 young Israeli adults with American summer camps. They carry out all of the background checks and initial interviews (as extensive as the in-depth assessments carried out by CYJ for all of our other staff members) and then present us with a selection of candidates that meet our stringent CYJ-Texas requirements.

And now we come full circle (of hell):

Camper News

NATIONWIDE ART CONTEST FOR 6th-8th GRADERS 
Free trip to Israel for Student Artist, Parent, & School Rep

Nefesh B’Nefesh, an organization dedicated to revitalizing North American Aliyah, is inviting all 6th-8th graders to participate in a competition entitled“Homeward Bound.” The object of the contest is to create and design a logo for Nefesh B’Nefesh’s Summer 2005 Aliyah flights. The winning logo design, capturing and depicting the essence of “Aliyah and Homecoming,” will be painted on the body of one or more of the places bringing hundreds of Olim from North America to Israel. The winning artist will be invited to accompany this special flight, joined by his/her parent and/or school representative.

This initiative will be supported by a nationwide public relations campaign and be photographed and written about by major publications worldwide.

And that little article was in the 2005 newsletter. So Nefesh B’Nefesh has been at it for a while. (About 7 years as it turns out.)

Well, let’s leave little Wimberly, Texas which is very close to Austin. Hmmm, it is said that Alex Jones’ wife is Jewish. I wonder if he has ever sent his kids to Camp Young Judea?

But I digress. Oh, one other thing. There’s more than one Camp Young Judea. Have fun reading their websites.

It’s time to go back to Silver Spring, Maryland near where Tsvi Mark went to high school. Let’s learn a little more about the traitors on that plane.

Jakob Gakner, 21, was also on that plane. He too is from Silver Spring. He has a interesting family background since his parents took him to Israel to live when he was a small child so he has been a dual national ever since. No doubt his parents are too, though they came back to the US for some reason. Let’s learn more about Jakob.

Jakob served in the IDF in Gaza during Israel’s murderous invasion in December 2008-January 20009 and was allowed to return to the United States without being arrested. I’m sure if a Palestinian went to Gaza to defend his family and friends from the Israeli onslaught he’d a been locked up in a Jew Jersey minute if he came back to the US. But not Jakob. About his serving in the murder of over 1300 defenseless people he had this to say:

I felt that it was my duty to go and fight for the country,” he says of his military service, “especially because I have many relatives living in the South in Beersheva.”

Think it will get worse? You get only one guess.

A graduate of the Melvin J. Berman Hebrew Academy and a member of the Silver Spring Jewish Center, he says he decided to make his life in Israel during his time at the Israeli yeshiva.

A pattern is emerging that is so clear that even David Gaubatz could recognize it. I mean, even a member of the Shas Party (“Shas” is Hebrew for “complete fucking idiot” or cfi for short) could see it.

Jakob confirms that the brainwashing he has received all his life was very effective. Living in Silver Spring Maryland, an area very close to Washington, District of the Cabbalah, and a virtual text-book example of multi-culturalism, wasn’t good enough for him.

“Personally, I felt a lot more connected to the people [in Israel],” Gakner says. “In the U.S., I was one of many ethnicities, but while there [in Israel], you feel like you are part of one people, one nation that cares for each other.”

No, I am not quoting David Duke. I’m quoting a traitor to the United States. David Duke remains loyal to the United States.

Another traitor from guess where, the Maryland suburbs, was also on the plane.

Avraham Bieler, 22, son of Rabbi Jack Bieler of Kemp Mill Synagogue, also may shortly be haunted by the Hebrew cadence of smol, yamin, smol (left, right, left) so familiar to IDF recruits. (A medical problem may keep him out of the army, but he hopes to serve in a media relations or intelligence unit.)

Also a graduate of the Berman Academy, Bieler was a student at Yeshivat Lev Hatorah in 2004-05 when the idea of making aliyah began taking hold.

What’s with this Berman Academy and what is up with its graduates?

Anyway, Bieler went to Brandeis – a Zionist bastion and learned so much:

Bieler graduated from Brandeis this year with a degree in Islamic and Middle Eastern studies and last summer worked for the Interreligious Coordinating Council, a nonprofit in Jerusalem that seeks to increase understanding between various religions in Israel.

Isn’t that sweet?

Also say good riddance to Rabbi Ezra Starr and his wife Devorah. Guess where they live?

Rabbi Ezra Starr, 32, and his wife, Devorah, 30, of Silver Spring, say they had always wanted to make aliyah.

“We had talked about it when we were dating,” he says, “but we both wanted to become teachers and teach in Jewish schools before we did.”

Both have a Berman academy connection — he as a student when a youngster (Ezra also has a bachelor’s in history and s’micha from Yeshiva University and a master’s in special education from Hunter College in 2004) and as a special education and Judaics teacher and as rav beit sefer (school rabbi) for the lower school; she (bachelor’s from Stern College for Women in education and a master’s from New York University in educational theater in 2003) as teacher, director of the MJBHA Dramatic Arts Society, student activities coordinator and a counselor helping students find a place in Israel to study for a year.

Rabbi Ezra Starr and Devorah Get Off

It turns out that 98 people from the Washington area had gone to Israel to become Israelis by the end of July this year and 160 more are expected to do so. How lovely.

What is this Melvin J. Berman Hebrew Academy? And why does it seem to have such a connection to people who become the citizens of a foreign country?

Maybe the slogan on their homepage gives us a clue:

Instilling love of Torah, mitzvot, the Jewish people and Israel.Inspiring intellectual curiosity, derech eretz and a sense of responsibility for our world

This page on their site is also interesting. From it we learn about the importance of:

the unity of the Jewish people, the responsibility of one Jew for another andthe centrality of the land of Israel as fundamental components of Jewish observance and continuity.

The Torah Mitzion Kollel of the Melvin J. Berman Hebrew Academy enriches the lives of our student body as well as the broader Jewish community through classes, programs and celebrations which are designed to bring Zionism to life.

Doesn’t this quote give you the warm and fuzzies?

ישראלYisrael: We cultivate an enduring love of the people of Israel, the land of Israel, and the state of Israel.

Okay, okay, I know you all are sitting there at your keyboards all asking the same question. “Mantiq, can we make tax-deductible donations to the Berman Academy”?

Yes you can. The are even in the Combined Federal Campaign so you FBI guys can donate at work. 🙂

A short perusal of the website of Nefesh B’Nefesh reveals that it is nothing more than a foreign intelligence operation that is allowed to operate in the open and receive tax-deductable donations. You may as well send your money – if you have any – right to Mossad. Their sole stated purpose for existing is to get Jews from the United States and the UK to move to Israel.

They are headquarted in New York (42 East 69th St • New York, NY 10021 • Tel: 1-866-4-ALIYAH) the UK and in Israel.

From the Nefesh B'Nefesh Home Page

From the Nefesh B’Nefesh Home Page

The vice-chairman of the organization is an outright Israeli who still serves in the Israeli military reserves and who has a pretty damn interesting job:

Erez Halfon has been serving as Vice Chairman of Nefesh B’Nefesh since September, 2009, and is responsible for enhancing the organization’s strategic partnerships with Israeli government bodies and agencies and furthering its ties within the Jewish World. Prior to joining Nefesh B’Nefesh, Halfon served as Director General of the Ministry of Immigrant Absorption from 2006 to 2008. During this time, he instituted various reforms which vastly improved the absorption process for Olim and returning citizens, including the introduction of new tax breaks for Olim and returning residents and the implementation of an extensive international campaign to attract returning residents back to Israel. In addition, Halfon acted as Chairman of the committee responsible for assessing and bettering the State of Israel’s conversion process as well asChairman of the committee for repatriating Israeli scientists.

Tony Gelbart is the founder of this outfit. He a major businessman with business interests in Israel. Speaking of his own organization, which by January of 2008  had flown ove 13000 people to live in Israel in a six-year period, Tony says:

NBN has a goal, says Gelbart: “It is that any Jewish person who wants to come to Israel will get here, be absorbed, and become a crucial part of helping the Jewish people in their homeland. These people are all across the board – they are doctors, engineers, and lawyers. Hundreds have entered the army. We have Rabbis and people who are learning. Some are traditional and some are religious. We have a microcosm of what the Jewish people are…. What we care about is that if you’re a Jew, we want to help you move to Israel.”

This is nothing short of legalized human-trafficking which is subsidized by your tax dollars.

Hey goys and girls, need a job? Become a Jew and fly to Israel. You can become an Israeli while on the airplane crossing the Atlantic and good old Tony will be there with you. What an experience. Of course you’ll have to serve in the IDF and kill Palestinian children, but you’ll get tax-payer subsidized housing and benefits you could never dream of as a shitty worthless US citizen:

Gelbart, who flies with each Nefesh B’Nefesh flight, never gets tired of going on the plane: “The Nefesh B’Nefesh flight is the most uplifting, enjoyable, and emotional experience ever. All of them probably have never met, but they all have one thing in common: they’re all moving to Israel. Nobody sleeps.People are walking up and down the aisle. The minute the plane takes off, the Ministry of the Interior people begin to process your paperwork. You can become a citizen on the flight over. You can also fill out the paperwork to begin going by your Jewish name. We have had sheva brachot (post-wedding festive meal) on the plane. We have even had marriages as a result of Nefesh B’Nefesh. At least six couples to date have met on the Nefesh B’Nefesh flights.”

Here is Tony’s ultimate goal:

“I believe that is probably one of the most major aspects of Nefesh B’Nefesh. Everyone who works for us genuinely wants to return all the Jews to Israel.”

Why are Jews allowed to have security clearances then?  Just asking.

Oh, I almost forgot. Israel loves Nefesh B’Nefesh. The traitors pictured at the start of this post had quite a nice greeting at the aiport:

Hundreds of families and friends, as well as Israeli dignitaries, gathered at Ben Gurion airport to welcome the country’s newest olim at the Nefesh B’Nefesh arrival ceremony. Those present included: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu; Director General of the Ministry of Immigrant Absorption Dmitry Apartsev; Chairman of the Jewish Agency Natan Sharansky; Head of the Education Department in the IDF’s Education and Youth Corps Colonel Roni Sulimani; CEO of El Al Israel Airlines Haim Romano; and Co-Founders of Nefesh B’Nefesh Rabbi Yehoshua Fass and Tony Gelbart.

The IDF loves these flights because so many of them are filled with people eligible for military service. One flight in 2007 was met by 150 members of the IDF.

Maybe worthless assholes like David Gaubatz and Paul Sperry better start checking out Jewish schools, camps and non-profits. They are ever so much more effective in recruiting traitors.

Again, for some reason, I just keep going back to this link to cheer myself up.

Posted in ZIO-NAZI1 Comment

The Normandy Landing and World War II: The Lies Grow More Audacious

NOVANEWS
Global Research

 

If there were any doubts that Western “leaders” live in a fantasy make-believe world constructed out of their own lies, the G-7 meeting and 70th anniversary celebration of the Normandy landing dispelled the doubts. 

The howlers issuing from these occasions are enough to split your sides. Obama and his lap dog Cameron described the Normandy landing on June 6, 1944, as “the greatest liberation force that the world has ever known” and took all the credit for the US and Britain for the defeat of Hitler. No mention was made of the Soviet Union and the Red Army, which for three years prior to the Normandy landing had been fighting and defeating the Wehrmacht.

Author Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

The Germans lost World War II at the Battle of Stalingrad, which was fought from August 23, 1942 until February 2, 1943, when most of the remnants of the powerful German Sixth Army surrendered, including 22 generals.

Nineteen months previously the largest invasion force ever assembled on planet earth invaded Russia across a one thousand mile front. Three million crack German troops; 7,500 artillery units, 19 panzer divisions with 3,000 tanks, and 2,500 aircraft rolled across Russia for 14 months.

By June 1944, three years later, very little of this force was left. The Red Army had chewed it up. When the so-called “allies” (a term which apparently excludes Russia) landed in France, there was little to resist them. The best forces remaining to Hitler were on the Russian front, which collapsed day by day as the Red Army approached Berlin.

The Red Army won the war with Germany. The Americans and the British showed up after the Wehrmacht was exhausted and in tatters and could offer little resistance. Joseph Stalin believed that Washington and London stayed out of the war until the last minute and left Russia with the burden of defeating Germany.

Hollywood and popular writers have, of course, buried the facts. Americans have all sorts of movies, such as “A Bridge Too Far,” that portray insignificant events, however heroic, as turning points in the war. Nevertheless, the facts are clear. The war was won on the Eastern front by Russia. Hollywood’s movies are fun, but they are nonsense.

Russia is again on the outs with “the world community,” because Obama’s plan to seize Ukraine and to evict Russia from its Black Sea base in Crimea has come a cropper. Crimea has been a part of Russia for as long as the US has existed. Khrushchev, a Ukrainian, stuck Crimea into the Ukrainian Socialist Republic in 1954 when Russia and Ukraine were part of the same country.

When the Washington-imposed stooge government in Kiev recently declared that it was abolishing the use of the Russian language and arresting Ukrainians who had dual Russian citizenship and began tearing down Russian war memorials consecrated to the liberation of Ukraine from the Nazis, the people in Crimea used the ballot box to disassociate from Washington’s stooge government in Kiev, first voting their independence and then voting for reunification with their mother country.

Washington, and the other G-7 countries following Washington’s orders, described this Crimean act of self-determination, which is exactly comparable to the act of self-determination declared by Britain’s American colonies, to be a case of “Russian invasion and annexation.” Similar efforts to disassociate from Kiev are underway in other former Russian territories that today comprise eastern and southern Ukraine.

Washington has equated self-determination in eastern and southern Ukraine with “terrorism” and has encouraged its stooge in Kiev to use military violence against protesting civilians. The reason for branding separatists “terrorists” is to make it OK to kill them.

It is extraordinary to any learned person that the President of the United States and the titular heads of state of the Western European countries would publicly declare such blatant lies to the world. The world has historians. The world has peoples whose knowledge vastly exceeds that of the “mainstream media,” a.k.a., the Ministry of Propaganda, or, as Gerald Celente brands them, “the presstitutes.” Whatever name we use, the Western media is a collection of well paid whores.They lie for money, dinner party invitations, and speaking invitations with large honorariums and book contracts with large advances.

I know. They tried to recruit me.

Notice how narrowly Washington defines “the world community.” The “world community” consists of the Group of 7. That’s it. Seven countries make up the “world community.” The “world community” consists of six white countries and Washington’s puppet state of Japan. The “world community” is the US, Canada, Britain, Germany, France, Italy, and Japan. The other 190 countries are not part of Washington’s “world community.” In the neocon doctrine, they are not even part of humanity.

The “world community” doesn’t have the population of single excluded countries, such as China or India. I haven’t done the calculation, but probably the land mass of Russia itself exceeds the land mass of the “world community.”

So, what is this “world community?”

The “world community” is the assemblage of US vassal states. Britain, France, and Germany were important on the 20th century scene. Their histories are studied in universities. The populations had a decent standard of living, although not for all citizens. Their past is the reason for their present importance.

In effect, these countries were propelled forward by history, or by the history important to the West. Japan, being an appendage of Washington, has tried to become “western.” It is extraordinary how such a proud, war-like people became nothing.

As I have finally stopped laughing at the presumed non-role of Russia in the defeat of Hitler, let’s return to the G-7 meeting. The Big Happening of this meeting was Russia’s exclusion and the shrinkage of the G-8 to the G-7.

This was the first time in 17 years that Russia was not allowed to participate in the meeting of which Russia is a member. Why?

Russia is being punished. Russia is being isolated from the 7 countries that the White House Fool thinks constitute “the world community.”

Obama is angry that his National Security Council and the morons he appointed to the State Department and UN were so poorly educated that they did not know that much of the Ukraine consists of former Russian provinces inhabited by Russians. These ignorant Obama-appointed morons thought that they could grab Crimea, evict Russia, and leave Russia without access to the Mediterranean, thus unable to hold on to its naval base in Tartus, Syria, the easier for Washington to invade Syria.

Crimea has been part of Russia since Russia completed the reconquest from the Tartars. I remember the Tarter, or Tater, ethnics from my visit to Tamerlane the Great’s (Timur as he was also known) tomb in Samarkand 53 years ago. Today Tamerlane’s city is refurbished as a tourist site. 53 years ago it was a desolate place in ruins, overgrown with trees growing out of the tops of the minarets.

As Obama’s plan to seize Ukraine failed, like every one of his other plans has failed, Washington’s spokesmen for the vested private interests have seized on the opportunity to demonize Putin and Russia and to restart the Cold War. Obama and his Group of 7 puppets or vassals used the occasion to threaten Russia with real sanctions, in place of the present propaganda sanctions that have no effect. According to Obama and his British lap dog, Putin must somehow prevent the Russian populations of eastern and southern Ukraine from protesting their subservience to a neo-fascist government in Kiev backed by Washington, or else.

Putin is supposed to embrace the Oligarch, a former minister of the government that Washington overthrew, put in office by a fake vote in which turnout was a small percent of the population. Putin is supposed to kiss this corrupt Oligarch on both cheeks, pay Ukraine’s natural gas bills and forgive its debts. In addition, Russia is supposed to repudiate the Crimean people, evict them from their re-unity with Russia and hand them over to the neo-Nazi Right Sector to be eliminated as retribution for Russia’s victory over Nazi Germany, for whom some Western Ukrainians fought. In exchange, Washington and NATO will put anti-ballistic missile bases on Ukraine’s border with Russia in order to protect Europe from nonexistent Iranian nuclear ICBMs.

This is supposed to be a win-win deal for Russia.

The Obama regime used its well-paid NGOs in Ukraine to overthrow an elected, democratic government, a government no more corrupt than those in Western or Eastern Europe or Washington.

The political morons who have England, France, Germany, and Italy in their hands are wagging their fists at Russia, warning of more, this time real, sanctions. Do these morons really want their energy supplies cut off? There is no prospect, despite the propagandistic claims, of Washington supplying the energy on which Germany industry depends and on which Europeans depend so that they do not freeze in the winter.

Sanctions on Russia will wreck Europe and have little, if any, effect on Russia. Russia is already moving, with China and the BRICS, outside the dollar payments mechanism.

As the demand for dollars drops, the dollar’s exchange value will drop. Initially, Washington will be able to force its vassals to support the dollar, but eventually this will become impossible.

What the White House Fool, the neoconized National Security Council, the presstitute media, and subservient Congress are doing is to support and uphold the policies based on hubris and arrogance that are leading the US into the abyss.

An abyss is like a black hole. You don’t get out.

Washington’s lies are so blatant and transparent that Washington is destroying its own credibility. Consider the NSA spying. Documents released by Snowden and Greenwald make it completely clear that Washington spies not only on government leaders and ordinary people but also on foreign businesses in order to advance US commercial and financial interests. That the US steals Chinese business secrets is not in doubt. So what does Washington do? Washington not only denies what the documents prove but turns the charge around and indicts five Chinese generals for spying on US corporations.

The only purpose of these indictments hyped by the US attorney general is propaganda.

The indictments are otherwise totally meaningless, not merely false. China is not about to turn over five Chinese generals to the liars in Washington. For the presstitute media the story is a way to move the NSA’s spying out of the spotlight. China is substituted for the NSA as the guilty party.

Why doesn’t China, Brazil, Germany and every other country issue arrest warrants for NSA’s top officials, for Obama, and for the members of the congressional oversight committee? Why do other countries always allow Washington to control the explanation with propaganda first strikes?

Americans are very susceptible to propaganda. They seem to have a special taste for it. Consider the hate whipped up against Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, a US soldier just released by the Taliban in a prisoner exchange with the US. The hatred and bloodlust that the presstitute media have whipped up against Bergdahl has caused his hometown to cancel the celebration of his release. The press engineered hatred of Bergdahl has spilled over into threats against Hailey, Idaho.

What is the basis for the attacks on Bergdahl? Apparently, the answer is that Bergdahl, like pro-football star Pat Tillman who turned down a $3.6 million contract to join the Army Rangers and go to defend freedom in Afghanistan, came down with a case of doubts about the war. Originally Pat Tillman’s death was attributed to his heroic action and enemy fire. Then it emerged that Tillman was a victim of “friendly fire.” Many concluded that he was murdered, because the government did not want a sports hero speaking out about the war. As Bergdahl is off the battlefield, he has to be murdered in the press–like Russia, China, Iran, Putin, Assad, Crimeans, and the Russian-speaking population in Ukraine.

In America hate and the cultivation of hate is alive and well. But not a single moral virtue is.

Posted in Europe, WorldComments Off on The Normandy Landing and World War II: The Lies Grow More Audacious

Do We Really Need to Re-Start the Cold War?

NOVANEWS
Global Research

Preface by Washington’s Blog: In the book To Win a Nuclear War: The Pentagon’s Secret War Plans, one of the world’s leading physicists – Michio Kaku – reveals declassified plans for the U.S. to launch a first-strike nuclear war against Russia. The forward was written by former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clarke.

In Towards a World War III Scenario, Michel Chossudovsky documents that the U.S. is so enamored with nuclear weapons that it has authorized low-level field commanders to use them in the heat of battle in their sole discretion … without any approval from civilian leaders.

So – as crazy as this topic may sound at first glance – it deserves our attention.

By Eric Zuesse:

recent CNN Poll found that 29% of Americans think that Russia is a “Very serious threat” to the United States, and that 40% consider it a “Moderately serious threat.” That’s 69% who consider it a “serious threat.”

In 2012, only 11% considered it a “Very serious threat,” and 33% considered it a “Moderately serious threat.” 44% then considered Russia a “serious threat.” The huge surge in fear of Russia — from 44% to 69% — seems to be due entirely to Ukraine. 81% of poll-respondents said that “Russia’s actions in Ukraine are … a violation of international law.” Only 12% said that it’s not. Asked whether “there was any justification for Russia’s actions in Ukraine,” 72% said “No,” and only 17% said “Yes.”

When asked “Do you think it is likely or not that there will be a new cold war,” 48% said “Likely,” and 49% said “Not likely.”

And when asked “Do you worry about the possibility of nuclear war with Russia,” 40% said “Yes,” and 59% said “No.”

The threat feared from Russia is mainly of their troops, who are manning bases for Russian Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs), all of which are located inside Russia.

By contrast, the U.S. has troops in many countries, which include the following nations where our soldiers are stationed (and this includes ones with missile bases located near Russia): Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Kazakhstan.

We also have some soldiers in other former parts of the U.S.S.R.: Moldova, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan.

We also have nearly 35,000 troops stationed in Japan, a nation near Russia and that claims ownership of four small Sakhalin Islands and two small Kuril Islands, from Russia.

The United States is, of course, not surrounded by any Russian soldiers at all — not in Mexico, nor in Canada, nor anywhere near this country, except Russia itself near Alaska.

Steven Starr has written about the decades-long view within the U.S. military-strategy establishment, that the Cold War is not, and actually never really was, about ideology, not about capitalism versus communism, but is instead simply about which nation will control the world: basically about national political and economic dominance of our planet. If what Starr says is true, then the end of communism in the U.S.S.R. didn’t terminate the U.S. military’s “Cold War” mission, which is instead actually about global dominance. Starr cites, among other sources, an article, “The Rise of US Nuclear Primacy,” from the highly influential journal of the organization of U.S. aristocrats and their agents, the Council on Foreign Relations, their authoritativeForeign Affairs, in March 2006. It discusses obliquely the Star Wars Missile-Defense program that was first proposed by President Ronald Reagan, and that has been developed during the decades since. The article says (and I shall italicize the admission since it otherwise rarely appears in print):

“For 50 years, the Pentagon’s war planners have structured the U.S. nuclear arsenal according to the goal of deterring a nuclear attack on the United States and, if necessary, winning a nuclear war by launching a preemptive strike that would destroy an enemy’s nuclear forces.

That article, which basically asserts that the publicly stated U.S. nuclear strategy, of maintaining on both sides the capacity for “Mutually Assured Destruction,” or “MAD,” is just a peaceful-sounding cover-story for the actual U.S. strategy of militarily dominating the entire world, then says: “The ability to destroy all of an adversary’s nuclear forces [via Anti-Ballistic Missiles or ‘ABMs’], eliminating the possibility of a retaliatory strike, is known as a first-strike capability, or nuclear primacy.” It alleges that the actual objective of these supposedly defensive ABM weapons (which are still only in the development stage) is to knock out incoming retaliatory ICBMs from Russia, so that the U.S. will be able to launch a first strike that destroys almost all of Russia’s missiles on the ground, even before they can be launched. The ABMs will then take care of any straggling Russian ICBMs, which might have been missed in our first strike and been fired from Russia, by using our ABMs (which, since they haven’t yet been fully deployed, are still as yet only hypothetical) as a missile-shield to protect the U.S. from any retaliation by Russia for our having nuked Russia out of existence.

This article in Foreign Affairs says, pointedly:

“Even as the United States’ nuclear forces have grown stronger since the end of the Cold War, Russia’s strategic nuclear arsenal has sharply deteriorated. Russia has 39 percent fewer long-range bombers, 58 percent fewer ICBMs, and 80 percent fewer SSBNs than the Soviet Union fielded during its last days. The true extent of the Russian arsenal’s decay, however, is much greater than these cuts suggest. What nuclear forces Russia retains are hardly ready for use. Russia’s strategic bombers, now located at only two bases and thus vulnerable to a surprise attack, rarely conduct training exercises, and their warheads are stored off-base. Over 80 percent of Russia’s silo-based ICBMs have exceeded their original service lives, and plans to replace them with new missiles have been stymied by failed tests and low rates of production.”

Moreover, “Compounding these problems, Russia’s early warning system is a mess.” Furthermore,

“Outside experts predict that the actual cuts [in Russia’s missiles] will slice 50 to 75 percent off the current force, possibly leaving Russia with as few as 150 ICBMs by the end of the decade, down from its 1990 level of almost 1,300 missiles. The more Russia’s nuclear arsenal shrinks, the easier it will become for the United States to carry out a first strike.”

The authors report:

“According to our model, such a simplified surprise attack would have a good chance of destroying every Russian bomber base, submarine, and ICBM. [See Footnote #1] This finding is not based on best-case assumptions or an unrealistic scenario in which U.S. missiles perform perfectly and the warheads hit their targets without fail.”

According to the authors, the assumption by U.S. military planners is that, though there might be a nuclear bomb or two that might hit the U.S. from Russia, the U.S. would emerge stronger after the nuclear conflict than before, and that the only issue left to be resolved is when would be the appropriate time to do this (presumably some time when the ABMs have been installed in as many countries neighboring Russia as possible, countries such as Ukraine). (After all: being located so near, the Russians would have only a few minutes to fire off their missiles in response — they’d be done for.)

The authors then discuss:

“Is the United States intentionally pursuing nuclear primacy? Or is primacy an unintended byproduct of intra-Pentagon competition for budget share or of programs designed to counter new threats from terrorists and so-called rogue states [assuming that Al Qaeda would have nuclear-armed missiles]? Motivations are always hard to pin down, but the weight of the evidence suggests that Washington is, in fact, deliberately seeking nuclear primacy. For one thing, U.S. leaders have always aspired to this goal [i.e.: the goal of winning a nuclear war]. And the nature of the changes to the current arsenal and official rhetoric and policies support this conclusion.”

They assert:

“Washington’s pursuit of nuclear primacy helps explain its missile-defense strategy, for example,” because ABMs “would be valuable primarily in an offensive context, not a defensive one — as an adjunct to a U.S. first-strike capability.” The authors approve of George W. Bush’s continuation of Bill Clinton’s continuation of G.H.W. Bush’s continuation of Ronald Reagan’s program to develop ABMs, by their saying: “The most logical conclusions to make are that a nuclear-war-fighting capability remains a key component of the United States’ military doctrine and that nuclear primacy [winning a nuclear war] remains a goal of the United States.”

They support this strategic goal, by concluding that domination of the world by the U.S. can be attained but only if it’s boldly and not merely halfheartedly pursued:

“Ultimately, the wisdom of pursuing nuclear primacy must be evaluated in the context of the United States’ foreign policy goals. The United States is now seeking to maintain its global preeminence, which the Bush administration defines as the ability to stave off the emergence of a peer competitor and prevent weaker countries from being able to challenge the United States in critical regions such as the Persian Gulf. If Washington continues to believe such preeminence is necessary for its security, then the benefits of nuclear primacy might exceed the risks. But if the United States adopts a more restrained foreign policy — for example, one premised on greater skepticism of the wisdom of forcibly exporting democracy, launching military strikes to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and aggressively checking rising challengers — then the benefits of nuclear primacy will be trumped by the dangers.”

The Republican-Party-oriented Project for a New American Century, which mustered American public opinion in 2002 and 2003 to favor invading Iraq, was prominently in accord with the view that was expressed in this article in Foreign Affairs. PNAC opposed “a more restrained foreign policy.” (Thus, they favored invading Iraq.) Victoria Nuland, Obama’s appointee to run Ukraine in 2013, had supported PNAC, and had served as Vice President Dick Cheney’s advisor on foreign policy, and then she was President G.W. Bush’s U.S. Ambassador to NATO.

However, there also were some actual Democrats who likewise favored the viewpoint that was stated in thisForeign Affairs article. On 15 March 2014, Chris Ernesto headlined “Brzezinski Mapped Out the Battle for Ukraine in 1997: It’s all about maintaining the US position as the world’s sole superpower.” He quoted from Brzezinski in 1997, who said: “Ukraine, a new and important space on the Eurasian chessboard, is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire.” Ernesto also noted that Brzezinski was the first person to compare Russia’s leader Putin to Hitler. And yet Brzezinski is a “Democrat.” So, this supremacist view dominates on both sides of the aristocracy, both Republican and “Democratic.”

President Obama’s speech at West Point, on 28 May 2014, said: “Here’s my bottom line: America must always lead on the world stage. If we don’t, no one else will.” Obama alleged: “Russia’s aggression toward former Soviet states unnerves capitals in Europe, while China’s economic rise and military reach worries its neighbors. From Brazil to India, rising middle classes compete with us.” Our President said:

“In Ukraine, Russia’s recent actions recall the days when Soviet tanks rolled into Eastern Europe. But this isn’t the Cold War [he said this after signaling his listeners that it really is but that he’s a ‘liberal’ and so he doesn’t say such hate-mongering things, but they naturally can come to the conclusion themselves]. Our ability to shape world opinion helped isolate Russia right away. Because of American leadership, the world immediately condemned Russian actions; Europe and the G7 joined us to impose sanctions; NATO reinforced our commitment to Eastern European allies; the IMF is helping to stabilize Ukraine’s economy; OSCE monitors brought the eyes of the world to unstable parts of Ukraine.”

(He said this after having spent over five billion dollars of U.S. taxpayer funds to destabilize Ukraine and bring about the civil war there.)

The U.S. does not yet have missiles — either ICBMs or ABMs — in Ukraine, but Obama is clearly trying to firm-up the anti-Russian government that (via Nuland) he has succeeded at placing in Kiev to control this country that borders Russia.

Despite the hostile rhetoric from our President and from the stenographic “reporters” who transmit “news” to us, Russia is no actual military competitor to the United States; but, under Putin, it has become an economic competitor (which intensifies Obama’s desire to cripple Russia).

The statements that Russia is a military competitor are pure propaganda, not news (except about the sources that transmit such propaganda to us).

As of the year 2013, the U.S. spent $640 billion per year on the military, whereas Russia spent $87.8 billion per year on its military. The U.S. spent 36.6% of the planet’s military budget, and Russia spent 5.0%. There is no reason for the American public to fear Russia, though (because of the constant propaganda) they do.

For the people of the United States to fear Russia is a violation of basic logic, especially considering that the U.S. is actually pursuing military dominance of the world, whereas no other country in the world is, or evencan. The U.S. percentage of 36.6% of the world’s military budget dwarfs #2 China’s percentage of 10.8%, and especially dwarfs #3 Russia’s 5.0%. #4 Furthermore, Saudi Arabia’s 3.8%, is allied with the U.S. So is #5 France’s 3.5%. So is #6 U.K.’s 3.3%. So is #7 Germany’s 2.8%. So is #8 Japan’s 2.8%. So is #9 India’s 2.7%. So is #10 South Korea’s 1.9%. “We” spend collectively 57.6% of the world’s total, whereas Russia spends only 5%.

If we assume that we are driving Russia to ally itself with China (a reasonable assumption to make, for Russia’s protection), then both of those countries together are spending 15.8% on “their side,” while the U.S. and its allies are spending 57.4% — and that’s just including the world’s top ten spenders. “We” are then spending 3.6 times as much as “they” are. On a worldwide basis, including all nations, the U.S. and its allies are spending more than 80% of all of this planet’s military expenditures. And yet “we” fear “them” (Russia and China). If our military planners are looking forward to a day when the U.S. can nuclear-destroy Russia with impunity, then creating this fear of Russia will help, not only in order to make America’s public support destroying Russia, but in order to get us to accept some U.S. casualties in a nuclear war from a few Russian missiles that might slip through the ABM net.

The current conflict inside (the former) Ukraine has spiked this fear by the U.S. public, which can help prepare the U.S. public to support a nuclear invasion of Russia.

Although U.S. media have maintained that Russia’s Vladimir Putin precipitated the Ukraine conflict when he backed the overwhelmingly popular movement in Crimea to separate itself from Ukraine, that view is likewise irrational. The actual situation is far more complex. A much stronger argument can be made that President Obama’s actions caused this conflict. Paul Craig Roberts well summarized the actual history behind the Crimean matter recently, when he said (and this history should be publicized widely to the U.S. public, but is instead not publicized in our “news” media):

“Areas of southern and eastern Ukraine are former Russian territories added to Ukraine by Soviet leaders. Lenin added Russian areas to Ukraine in early years of the Soviet Union, and Khrushchev added Crimea in 1954. The people in these Russian areas, alarmed by the destruction of Soviet war memorials commemorating the Red Army’s liberation of Ukraine from Hitler, by the banning of Russian as an official language, and by physical assaults on Russian-speaking people in Ukraine, broke out in protests. Crimea voted its independence and requested reunification with Russia, and so have the Donetsk and Luhansk regions. Washington, its EU puppets, and the Western media have denied that the votes in Crimea, Donetsk, and Luhansk are sincere and spontaneous. Instead, Washington alleges that the protests leading to the votes and the votes themselves were orchestrated by the Russian government with the use of bribes, threats, and coercion. Crimea was said to be a case of Russian invasion and annexation. These are blatant lies, and the foreign observers of the elections know it, but they have no voice in the Western media, which is a Ministry of Propaganda for Washington. Even the once proud BBC lies for Washington.”

Furthermore, Russia’s Black Sea fleet had been established in Crimea in 1783 and continued being based there till the present day, so that to allege, as Obama and his minions do, that kicking Russia’s Black Sea fleet out of Crimea wouldn’t constitute a highly aggressive move against Russia, is a lie that befits only a Hitler or a Stalin, not a leader of any democracy, such as Obama claims to be.

The counter-argument to this undeniable history has been the equally undeniable corruption of the democratically elected, pro-Russian, President of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, who had used his political position in order to skim billions of dollars off government contracts, for himself and his son. That corruption is alleged to have justified the violation of the Ukrainian Constitution, by means of the violent February 2014 overthrow of him. This “justification” of the February 2014 coup is especially held to have been the case because Yanukovych’s troops themselves had started the violence. However, they actually did not start the violence: that too was a lie. (Moreover all of the post-Soviet leaders of Ukraine have been corrupt. Yanukovych was like his predecessors in that regard.)

An excellent video presentation about that event (the violence that led to Yanukovych’s violent overthrow) opens with a discussion between Urmas Paet and Cathy Ashton. Ashton is the EU’s Foreign Policy chief. She had appointed Paet to investigate to determine how the violence at the Maidan demonstration on February 18th had started, which ended in Yanukovych’s overthrow. Paet reported to her, in this phone conversation, what he found; and he concluded: “So … there is now stronger and stronger understanding [among everyone who has examined the evidence] that behind the snipers, it was not Yanukovich, but it was somebody from the new coalition” (in other words, it was by the group overthrowing Yanukovych). The video then shows the Obama Administration’s Victoria Nuland telling the U.S. Ambassador in Ukraine to get the far-right Arseniy Yatsenyuk appointed to lead the new interim post-Yanukovych government. That government then placed Hitler-admirers (followers of Stephan Bandera) into the country’s leading positions. Yatsenyuk himself was a banker who had a clearly nationalist anti-Russian background, and was allied with neo-Nazi forces in Western Europe.

On May 1st, Christine Lagarde, head of the IMF, told Ukraine that if they didn’t crush the coup’s opponents and force them into being controlled by the new Kiev central government, then the IMF would pull the plug on any further loans to Ukraine. The next day, in the Trade Unions Building in Odessa in the south, occurred the event that sparked Ukraine’s civil war, the massacre of 272 opponents to the coup-regime; most of them were incinerated to death after the regime’s supporters, who had been bussed in from the norththrew Molotov cocktails into the building, and then firebombed it with larger incendiary bombs; and, when the building’s occupants jumped from the burning building’s windows, the people below immediately beat them to death and dragged the corpses off to waiting vans, from whence some reports allege they were taken to Odessa’s outskirts for mass-burial. The official body-count of corpses that were incinerated and that still remained inside the building on the night of May 2nd was 46. Despite claims by the pro-Obama forces, that the people inside the building had been Russians and not Ukrainians, none of the 36 corpses who could be identified were: all of them had been local Odessans, with Ukrainian IDs in their wallets, etc.

This massacre, which was the first massacre in world history to be voluminously recorded by independent videos taken of it by cellphones, exposed to all the residents in the southeastern half of Ukraine, which are the regions where Yanukovych had won overwhelmingly the election that had made him President, that the regime that was now installed in Kiev wanted them dead if they wouldn’t accept being ruled by this new, Obama-IMF-installed, government. Consequently, Ukraine’s civil war started with this massacre, which was like an announcement to the southeast: either support us, or else die — your choice.

It did not start with Putin. U.S. media are being dishonest about that. The people in Ukraine’s southeast simply do not want to be ruled by the coalition of the two neo-Nazi parties, Pravy Sektor and Svoboda, and by the two conservative nationalist “Fatherland” and “UDAR” Parties, which four-party coalition, all-far-right-wing, now rules in Kiev. They seek protection against that U.S.-installed far-right coalition government, because the people who live in the southeast are the targets in their gun-sights and bombsights.

The U.S. Government controls the IMF; and, together, they caused the civil war that now ravages Ukraine.

While President Obama has never spoken about his having caused this civil war, much less about why he did it, he unquestionably did.

His operating assumption, that a nuclear war can be won, might be true for the West’s aristocracy in the short term, but it is definitely false for the world-at-large over the long term. In a separate article, Steven Starr headlined in 2014 “Deadly Climate Change from Nuclear War: a threat to human existence.” He closed by saying that,

“The scientific studies summarized in this paper make it clear that the environmental consequences of a ‘regional’ nuclear conflict could kill hundreds of millions of people far from the war zone. Deadly climate change caused by a war fought with the strategic nuclear arsenals of the U.S. and Russia would threaten the continued survival of the human species. Yet neither the U.S., nor Russia, nor any other nuclear weapons state has ever officially evaluated what effects a war fought with their nuclear arsenals would have upon the Earth’s climate and ecosystems.”

An article, “Environmental Consequences of Nuclear War” was published in the December 2008 Physics Today, and it concluded that, “the indirect effects [‘nuclear winter’] would likely eliminate the majority of the human population.” (It would be even worse, and far faster, than the expected harms from global warming.) President Obama might think that, as the Foreign Affairs article asserted, “the wisdom of pursuing nuclear primacy must be evaluated in the context of the United States’ foreign policy goals,” but others, both in the U.S. and especially elsewhere, might think that that’s a false, parochially nationalistic, view of what democracy is about or is supposed to support, or even of what should be tolerated from an American President. Yet it’s his policy, regarding Ukraine, if one is to judge by his actions, instead of by his words.

Posted in USA, RussiaComments Off on Do We Really Need to Re-Start the Cold War?

USS Liberty Attacked by I$raHell 47 Years Ago: The U.S. Left Soldiers Behind

NOVANEWS
Global Research
Freedom Flotilla Gaza: Memorial Service for USS Liberty Sailors Killed by Israel in 1967

Justifying the swap of Taliban prisoners for Sgt. Bergdahl, President Obama cited a principle of never leaving U.S. soldiers behind, but that rule was violated in the shabby treatment of the USS Liberty crew, attacked 47 years ago by Israeli warplanes.

On June 8, 1967, Israeli leaders learned they could deliberately attack a U.S. Navy ship and try to send it, together with its entire crew, to the bottom of the Mediterranean – with impunity. Israeli aircraft and torpedo boats attacked the USS Liberty, a state-of-the-art intelligence collection platform sailing in international waters off the Sinai, killing 34 of the 294 crew members and wounding more than 170.

On the 47th anniversary of that unprovoked attack let’s be clear about what happened: Israeli messages intercepted on June 8, 1967, leave no doubt that sinking the USS Liberty was the mission assigned to the attacking Israeli warplanes and torpedo boats as the Six-Day War raged in the Middle East. Let me repeat: there is no doubt – none – that the mission of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) was to destroy the USS Liberty and kill its entire crew.

USS Liberty (AGTR-5) receives assistance from units of the Sixth Fleet, after she was attacked and seriously damaged by Israeli forces off the Sinai Peninsula on June 8, 1967.  (US Navy photo)

USS Liberty (AGTR-5) receives assistance from units of the Sixth Fleet, after she was attacked and seriously damaged by Israeli forces off the Sinai Peninsula on June 8, 1967. (US Navy photo)

Referring last week to the controversy of the swap of five Taliban prisoners for Sgt. Bode Bergdahl, President Barack Obama claimed, “The U.S. has always had a pretty sacred rule: We don’t leave our men or women in uniform behind.” The only exception, he might have added, is when Israeli forces shoot them up; then mum’s the word.

Mr. President, try explaining that “pretty sacred rule” to the USS Liberty survivors. I know them well enough to sense the hollow echo that Obama’s claim will leave in their ears – and in the ears of the families of those who did not survive.

The crew of the USS Liberty has been “left behind,” in a figurative as well as a physical sense. There is no way to retrieve the bodies of those washed out to sea through the large hole made by the Israeli torpedo that hit the Liberty amidships, killing 26 of the crew.

There is a way, however, to stop throwing salt in the survivors’ wounds, as every U.S. president since Lyndon Johnson has done in acquiescing to the false narrative that it was all a terrible case of mistaken identity and confusion by Israeli command and control. That salt burns – especially on anniversaries of the tragedy, raising troubling questions about the power of the Israel Lobby and the Israeli government over U.S. politicians.

In apparent fear of the Israel Lobby and not wanting to offend the Israeli government, U.S. officials including the Navy have refused to come clean on what happened 47 years ago. The mainstream U.S. media has been a willing partner in this failure to face the facts and demand accountability.

No Accident

Here, for example, is the text of an intercepted Israeli conversation, just one of many pieces of hard, unambiguous evidence that the Israeli attack was not a mistake:

Israeli pilot to ground control: “This is an American ship. Do you still want us to attack?”

Ground control: “Yes, follow orders.” …

Israeli pilot: “But, sir, it’s an American ship – I can see the flag!”

Ground control: “Never mind; hit it!”

The Israelis would have been able to glory in reporting “mission accomplished, ship sunk, all crew killed” save for the bravery and surefootedness of then-23 year-old Navy seaman Terry Halbardier, whose actions spelled the difference between the murder of 34 of the crew and the intended massacre of all 294.

Halbardier skated across the Liberty’s slippery deck while it was being strafed in order to connect a communications cable and enable the Liberty to send out an SOS. The Israelis intercepted that message and, out of fear of how the U.S. Sixth Fleet would respond, immediately broke off the attack, returned to their bases, and sent an “oops” message to Washington confessing to their unfortunate “mistake.”

As things turned out, the Israelis didn’t need to be so concerned. When President Johnson learned that the USS America and USS Saratoga had launched warplanes to do battle with the forces attacking the Liberty, he told Defense Secretary Robert McNamara to call Sixth Fleet commander Rear Admiral Lawrence Geiss and tell him to order the warplanes to return immediately to their carriers.

According to J.Q. “Tony” Hart, a chief petty officer who monitored these conversations from a U.S. Navy communications relay station in Morocco, Geiss shot back that one of his ships was under attack. Tellingly, McNamara responded: “President Johnson is not going to go to war or embarrass an American ally over a few sailors.”

Getting Away With Murder

For the Israelis, the tight U-turn by the U.S. warplanes over the Mediterranean was proof positive that the Israeli government can literally get away with murder, including killing U.S. servicemen, and that Official Washington and its servile media could be counted upon to cover up the deliberate nature of the attack.

John Crewdson, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist for the Chicago Tribune, asked McNamara about this many years later. McNamara’s answer is worth reading carefully; he said he had “absolutely no recollection of what I did that day,” except that “I have a memory that I didn’t know at the time what was going on.”

Crewsdon has written the most detailed and accurate account of the Israeli attack on the Liberty; it appeared in the Chicago Tribune, and also in the Baltimore Sun, on Oct. 2, 2007. Read it and you’ll understand why Crewdson got no Pulitzer for his investigative reporting on the Liberty. Instead, the Tribune laid him off in November 2008 after 24 years.

Several of the Liberty survivors have become friends of mine. I have listened to their stories, as Crewdson did. When June 8 comes around each year I remember them. And on special occasions, as when Terry Halbardier was finally awarded the Silver Star for his bravery, I write about them.

The mainstream U.S. media has avoided the USS Liberty case like the plague. I just checked the Washington Post and – surprise, surprise – it has missed the opportunity for the 46thconsecutive year, to mention the Liberty anniversary.

On the few occasions when the mainstream U.S. media outlets are forced to address what happened, they blithely ignore the incredibly rich array of hard evidence and still put out the false narrative of the “mistaken” Israeli attack on the Liberty.

And they attempt to conflate fact with speculation, asking why Israel would deliberately attack a ship of the U.S. Navy. Why Tel Aviv wanted the Liberty and its entire crew on the bottom of the Mediterranean remains a matter of speculation, but there are plausible theories including Israel’s determination to keep the details of its war plans secret from everyone, including the U.S. government.

But there is no doubt that destroying the Liberty and its crew was the mission assigned to Israel’s warplanes and torpedo boats. One Navy Admiral with a conscience, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (and before that Chief of Naval Operations) Thomas Moorer, has “broken ranks,” so to speak. Moorer helped lead an independent, blue-ribbon commission to investigate what happened to the Liberty.

The following are among the commission’s findings made public in October 2003:

-That the attack, by a U.S. ally, was a “deliberate attempt to destroy an American ship and kill its entire crew”

-That the attack included the machine-gunning of stretcher-bearers and life rafts

-That “the White House deliberately prevented the U.S. Navy from coming to the defense of the [ship] … never before in naval history has a rescue mission been cancelled when an American ship was under attack”

-That surviving crew members were later threatened with “court-martial, imprisonment, or worse” if they talked to anyone about what had happened to them; and were “abandoned by their own government.”

Doing Justice

Will the USS Liberty survivors ever enjoy the opportunity to know and to tell the real story with all its evil cruelties? Or will silence continue to reign? In a different context, Russian dissident author Alexandr Solzhenitzyn wrote this warning about what silence about evil does to the foundations of justice:

“In keeping silent about evil, in burying it so deep within us that no sign of it appears on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousand fold in the future. When we neither punish nor reproach evildoers, we are not simply protecting their trivial old age, we are thereby ripping the foundations of justice from beneath new generations.” Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago

President Obama, the crew of the USS Liberty has been “left behind” for way too many years. Do the right thing by them. Face down those who warn that you cannot risk Israel’s displeasure. And add more substance to your rhetoric about our “pretty sacred rule” that we do not leave anybody wearing the American uniform behind.

Posted in USAComments Off on USS Liberty Attacked by I$raHell 47 Years Ago: The U.S. Left Soldiers Behind

The New York Time’s Ukraine Kremlinology: When Lack of Direct Evidence is Probably Proof of Russian Implication

NOVANEWS
Global Research
nyt-ukraine-fingerprints-300x184

There is a tendency to believe that Russian president Vladimir Putin is orchestrating the unrest in eastern Ukraine, sending in irregular Russian forces to stir up pro-Russian separatist sentiment.

As guesses go, this might not be a bad one–but journalism is supposed to be about presenting evidence to confirm such speculation. The New York Times clearly has a hunch about deep Russian involvement in Ukraine. The ways it tries to confirm this hunch are curious.

Back in April, the Times got into some trouble (FAIR Blog, 4/23/14) with a  “scoop” showing photos of people they claimed were Russian special forces and intelligence forces. A few days later, the Times was conveying skepticism about its own story–skepticism noticeably lacking in the original report.

But before long, the paper (5/4/14) was back on the case, reporting that “one persistent mystery has been the identity and affiliations of the militiamen, who have pressed the confrontation between Russia and the West into its latest bitter phase.”

The piece offered close look at one group of fighters associated with the People’s Militia of the Donetsk People’s Republic.  “Moscow says they are Ukrainians and not part of the Russian armed forces,” the Times reported, while “Western officials and the Ukrainian government insist that Russians have led, organized and equipped the fighters.”

So what does reality say? The Times says that “neither portrayal captures the full story.” Then it goes on:

The rebels of the 12th Company appear to be Ukrainians but, like many in the region, have deep ties to and affinity for Russia. They are veterans of the Soviet, Ukrainian or Russian Armies, and some have families on the other side of the border. Theirs is a tangled mix of identities and loyalties.

If these fighters are Ukrainian, and veterans of–not active duty members of–the Russian armed forces, then it would certainly seem that Moscow’s explanation is closer to the truth than what “Western officials” are alleging about formal Russian control–unless there is evidence that they’re not sharing.

The Times‘ interest in this story continues. “Russians Revealed Among Ukraine Fighters” was the May 28 headline, but the story was less conclusive than that might suggest:

The scene at the hospital was new evidence that fighters from Russia are an increasingly visible part of the conflict here, a development that raises new questions about that country’s role in the unrest. Moscow has denied that its regular soldiers are part of the conflict, and there is no evidence that they are. But motley assortments of fighters from other war zones that are intimately associated with Russia would be unlikely to surface against the powerful will of the Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin, experts said.

So the fighters raise “new questions” about Russian “role”–but there’s no evidence the fighters are Russian soldiers. But Putin has such a “powerful will” that “motley assortments” of fighters wouldn’t be there if he didn’t want them to be there–so say the “experts.”

As if that wasn’t curious enough, the Times adds:

The disclosure of Russian nationals among the fighters here muddies an already murky picture of the complex connections and allegiances that are beginning to form. While their presence does not draw a straight line to the Kremlin, it raises the possibility of a more subtle Russian game that could keep Ukraine unbalanced for years.

So, to recap: There is no evidence that Russia is in control of any of this, but the lack of such evidence may be a sign of a  ”more subtle” game.

And then, one more–this past Sunday (6/1/14) brought the headline, “In Ukraine War, Kremlin Leaves No Fingerprints.” In that piece, the Timesreports that “eastern Ukraine is evolving into a subtle game in which Russian freelancers shape events and the Kremlin plausibly denies involvement.”

While “Putin may not be directing these events…he is certainly their principal beneficiary.” The Times also claims that “for now, at least, the strategy seems to be to destabilize Ukraine as much as possible without leaving conclusive evidence that would trigger more sanctions.”

Again, some–or even all–of this could be true. But the Times doesn’t seem to have the evidence to back up its claims of Russian management of the separatist movements or uprisings. The only time it presented anything that looked like such evidence, it had to retreat. Deep into the June 1 piece, theTimes notes that a Russian investigative journalist thinks “does not believe that either Mr. Borodai or Mr. Strelkov”–those are the two separatists profiled–”is acting on behalf of the Russian government.”

What you’re left with from the Times is the suggestion that the lack of direct evidence is probably proof that Russia is up to something– i.e., “leaving no fingerprints.”

During the days of the Soviet Union, Kremlinologists spent their time poring over state propaganda in an attempt to understand what was really going on in the USSR. It bears some resemblance to what one might be seeing in the New York Times now.

Posted in USA, UkraineComments Off on The New York Time’s Ukraine Kremlinology: When Lack of Direct Evidence is Probably Proof of Russian Implication

Benghazi, the CIA, and the War in Libya

NOVANEWS
Global Research
A trainee soldier from the Libyan army takes aim at a target during their graduation exam in Geminis

The unfolding violence and chaos in Libya’s second city of Benghazi should be understood as a power struggle between competing factions, each struggling to assert its own authority over the critical commercial center. However, what is purposely omitted from the Western media narrative is the fact that both groups – one a military command led by Libyan General Hifter, the other an Islamist terror group called Ansar al-Sharia – are proxies of the United States, each having received US support through a variety of channels in recent years. Seen in this way, the unrest in Libya must be understood as a continuation of the war waged against that country by the US-NATO forces.

As firefights, explosions, and air strikes become the norm in Benghazi and the surrounding areas, the nature of the conflict remains somewhat murky. On the one hand is Army General Khalifa Belqasim Haftar (also spelled Hifter), a longtime military commander under Gaddafi who fled Libya for the United States where he became a principal asset for the CIA until his return to Libya at the height of the US-NATO assault on that country. On the other hand is the Islamist Ansar al-Sharia organization, led by Ahmed Abu Khattala, which has been implicated in the September 11, 2012 attack on the US-CIA compound in Benghazi which killed US Ambassador Chris Stevens. In examining both the conflict and connections between these two individuals and the factions they lead, the fingerprints of US intelligence could not be more apparent.

However, the situation in Benghazi, and the Cyrenaica region more generally, is far more complex than simply these two factions. There are other important militias which have played a significant role in bringing the region to the brink of total war. From blockading Benghazi and Cyrenaica’s oil ports to internecine conflicts within the militia movements/coalitions, these militias have made the possibility of reconciliation almost unthinkable. And so, despite the fact that the combat phase of the US-NATO war in Libya ended nearly three years ago, the country is still undeniably a war zone.

The War for Benghazi

The news coming from Benghazi is growing steadily more troubling. On Monday June 2nd, nearly one hundred Libyans, many of them being civilians, were killed or wounded in the coastal metropolis and surrounding towns when the Islamist Ansar al-Sharia militia attacked a camp occupied by forces loyal to Army General Hifter. Hifter’s men, equipped with modest but effective air power including the use of combat helicopters, responded to the attack, driving off many of the Ansar al-Sharia militants. In the process however, residents of Benghazi were forced to flee or take refuge in their homes, with many businesses and schools remaining closed due to the sporadic gunfire and other fighting.

Though the clash was modest in scope in comparison to the horrors of the US-NATO war on Libya in 2011, it is a stark reminder of the sad reality that is modern Libya – a once proud nation reduced to a patchwork of competing militias, clans, and tribes, with no central authority ruling the country, no reliable social services, and a complete absence of the rule of law. It is within this maelstrom of political and social conflict that we must examine the nature of the conflict in Benghazi.

The city has been rocked by fighting and political posturing since the overthrow and assassination of Gaddafi in 2011. While a provisional government in Tripoli was established by the so called National Transitional Council (NTC), real power on the streets was exercised by competing militias loyal to their tribal and/or clan affiliations, and usually restricted to one major town or city. Although there are a number of Islamist militias operating in or around Benghazi, the two most powerful and well organized are the February 17 Martyrs Brigade and Ansar al-Sharia. While both organizations are nominally independent, each has outwardly expressed either a direct or indirect affiliation with the terror brand known as Al Qaeda.

Opposing both 17 February and Ansar al-Sharia is the so called Libyan National Army, a collection of militias and smaller units loyal to General Hifter. Having recently gained notoriety for declaring a quasi-coup against the Tripoli government in February 2014, the Libyan National Army has been waging a low-intensity war against the Islamist militias in hopes of gaining control over Benghazi and the Cyrenaica region. Naturally, General Hifter’s plans extend well beyond Benghazi, as he intends to use the conflict there as the pretext by which he hopes he’ll bring the country under his leadership. While there are some who see this as an unlikely scenario, it is nevertheless an important part of the strategic calculus.

Finally, there is the lingering question of other militias which have, at various times, controlled critical oil terminals and port facilities in Benghazi and the East generally. Of particular note is the militia surrounding Ibrahim al-Jathran, a young tribal leader who has called for regional autonomy for Cyrenaica from the central government in Tripoli. Jathran and his men have numerous times blockaded key oil facilities as a means of leveraging their demands. Though as yet they have succeeded only in causing a political and diplomatic problem for Tripoli, al-Jathran’s militia, and others like it, only further complicate the endlessly complex politics of the Libyan street.

Libya’s “Revolution” and US Intelligence

From the outset of the war against Libya, the United States and its NATO allies utilized a variety of terror groups and other intelligence assets to topple the Gaddafi government. While some had been directly linked to the CIA, others were pulled from the stable of terror organizations utilized at various times by the US as mujahideen in Afghanistan, Kosovo, and elsewhere. Essentially then, the US developed a loose network of proxies, some of which were ideologically opposed to the US and to one another, that it unleashed on Libya to do Washington’s dirty work.

One key group allied with US intelligence is Hifter’s Libyan National Army. The organization was founded by Hifter after his defection (or expulsion) from Libya in the early 1980s. From there, Hifter became a significant asset for the CIA in its quest to topple Gaddafi. Using Hifter’s forces in Chad during the Libya-Chad war of the early 1980s, the CIA attempted the first of many regime change efforts in Libya. As the New York Times reported in 1991:

The secret paramilitary operation, set in motion in the final months of the Reagan Administration, provided military aid and training to about 600 Libyan soldiers who were among those captured during border fighting between Libya and Chad in 1988…They were trained by American intelligence officials in sabotage and other guerrilla skills, officials said, at a base near Ndjamena, the Chadian capital. The plan to use the exiles fit neatly into the Reagan Administration’s eagerness to topple Colonel Qaddafi.

As the above cited Times article noted, the regime change efforts failed and Hifter and his associates were then given safe passage and residence in the US. A State Department spokesman at the time explained that the men would have “access to normal resettlement assistance, including English-language and vocational training and, if necessary, financial and medical assistance.” Indeed, Hifter spent nearly two decades living comfortably in a suburban Virginia home, just a short drive from CIA headquarters at Langley. He became known as the CIA’s “Libya point man,” having taken part in numerous regime change efforts, including the aborted attempt to overthrow Gaddafi in 1996.

And so, when Hifter conveniently showed back up in Libya to take part in the 2011 regime change operation, many political observers noted that this meant that the hand of the CIA was intimately involved in the uprising. Indeed, as the war evolved and more became known about the deeply rooted connection between US intelligence and the so called “rebels,” the truth about Hifter became impossible to conceal. However, Hifter was certainly not alone in being a willing puppet of NATO and the CIA.

Another critical group in this regard is the infamous Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) led by international terrorist Abdelhakim Belhadj whose credits include killing Americans in Afghanistan and beyond while being directly linked to Al Qaeda. Having been imprisoned by Gaddafi, the leadership of the LIFG immediately sought to align itself with the US in hopes of occupying the power vacuum that would emerge post-Gaddafi. Led by Belhadj, the LIFG became a critical part of the rebel movement that toppled Gaddafi, including LIFG taking the lead in the attack on Gaddafi’s compound at Bab al-Aziziya. In this regard, LIFG was provided intelligence, and likely also tactical support, from US intelligence and the US military, particularly through its AFRICOM network based out of Camp Lemonnier in Djibouti.

Once Gaddafi had fallen, Belhadj became the military commander of Tripoli, temporarily acting as dictator-in-chief. However, in order to continue to sell the “Libya as democracy” mythology, Belhadj’s US-NATO paymasters decided to put in his place the so called “transitional government” which is today regarded as ineffectual at best, and utterly irrelevant at worst.

The February 17 Martyrs Brigade is yet another terror group with close ties to both the “government” in Tripoli and, most importantly, to the CIA. Having emerged from the regime change operation as the most viable, well-trained, well-armed and organized militia, the February 17 Martyrs Brigade quickly rose to prominence within the post-war political landscape. Posturing as a trusted force to be employed by the authorities in Tripoli, February 17 quickly came to be a security detail for hire. It is here that the CIA and February 17 came into direct association. As the Los Angeles Times reported:

Over the last year, while assigned by their militia to help protect the U.S. mission in Benghazi, the pair had been drilled by American security personnel in using their weapons, securing entrances, climbing walls and waging hand-to-hand combat…The militiamen flatly deny supporting the assailants but acknowledge that their large, government-allied force, known as the Feb. 17 Martyrs Brigade, could include anti-American elements…The Feb. 17 brigade is regarded as one of the more capable militias in eastern Libya.

It is essential to note that the so-called “consulate” in Benghazi was no typical diplomatic mission. Rather, it was a CIA installation likely used by Ambassador Stevens as a headquarters from which arms and fighters could be organized for the destabilization campaign in Syria. So, in examining exactly what the arrangement in Benghazi was, it would be accurate to say that the United States acted as the patron and employer for a violent terrorist organization whose own members admit that their group “could include anti-American elements.”

Ansar al-Sharia of course fit into the September 11, 2012 attack narrative, conveniently acting as the aggressors against the CIA compound defended by their sometime rivals (and sometime allies) the February 17 Martyrs Brigade. Ansar al-Sharia, headed by a man named Ahmed Abu Khattala, is reputedly the group that carried out the attack on the CIA station in Benghazi. In fact, Khattala himself admits to having been part of the assault on the compound, though he only admits to being present, not leading it.

Despite professing radical Islam that is anti-Western and rooted in the notion of sharia law, Ansar al-Sharia, and Khattala specifically, did not seem particularly troubled with collaborating with “American infidels.” In fact, as the New York Times noted in its expose, Khattala and his organization likely played the role of executioner in one of the most significant assassination operations (aside from that of Gaddafi himself) of the entire conflict.

The abduction and assassination of Libyan General Abdul Fattah Younis, until 2011 regarded as the US handpicked successor to Gaddafi, was a major turning point. As the Times explained, “After Islamists sent a team to take the general to an impromptu judicial inquiry in July 2011, his captors held him overnight in the headquarters of Mr. Abu Khattala’s brigade. The bodies of General Younes and two of his aides were found on a roadside the next day, riddled with bullets.” So, even according to mainstream accounts, Khattala and Ansar al-Sharia are at least indirectly, if not directly, responsible for the death of Younis.

This becomes particularly important in light of the long-standing competition between Younis and Hifter for control of the post-Gaddafi “secular” forces inside Libya. It would be fair then to argue that, in the power struggle between Hifter and Younis, the CIA darling Hifter was the beneficiary of the actions of a nominal terror organization. And now, these two factions are at war with each other. So goes modern Libya.

Any analysis of the current conflict in Libya, and specifically in Benghazi, must take into account the role of the US (and other nations’) intelligence agencies that have been deeply involved from the very beginning. In particular, in examining the nature of the fighting, Benghazi must be understood as both a turf war, and an ideological struggle. On the one hand, it is a competition for control over the most important city in the country with the exception of the capital in Tripoli. On the other hand, it is an existential struggle for the future of Libya. Hifter and his faction envision a mostly secular Libya open to Western financiers, speculators, and corporations. Ansar al-Sharia and the other terror groups see in Libya the building blocks of an Islamic state to be governed by sharia. And, lurking in the background, above and behind all the principal actors in the conflict, is the CIA and the US geopolitical agenda. And so the war continues; no end in sight.

Posted in LibyaComments Off on Benghazi, the CIA, and the War in Libya

Nationalism and Fascism in Ukraine: A Historical Overview ”Part one”

NOVANEWS
Global Research
ukraine nazi emblems

The Western media is seeking to downplay the prominent role of fascists in the new Ukrainian government. Several of the regime’s ministries are headed by members of the far-right Svoboda party, and the militias of the neo-Nazi Right Sector are active in violently repressing resistance in the east of the country.

Both Svoboda and Right Sector played a crucial role in the February 22 coup in Kiev, which was strongly backed by Berlin and Washington. This is no coincidence. The close collaboration of Germany and the US with Ukrainian fascists has a long history, reaching back over the last hundred years.

The roots of Ukrainian nationalism

In contrast to many other European countries, there has never been a strong capitalist national movement in Ukraine. Ukraine has been divided between Poland and Russia since the late Middle Ages. After the carve-up of Poland at the end of the eighteenth century, Ukraine became part of the Russian Empire. Only a section of what is now western Ukraine was integrated into the Hapsburg Empire.

The weakness of the Ukrainian national movement was due on the one hand to the country’s economic backwardness and lack of a strong middle class. Significant industrialisation occurred only in the era of the Soviet Union. On the other hand, a large proportion of the urban population consisted of Russians, Germans and Jews, while the rural population was mainly Ukrainian.

When capitalist forces finally erected a Ukrainian nation-state, following the 1917 February Revolution’s overthrow of the tsar in Russia, they were immediately confronted with a revolutionary working class. The Bolsheviks, who seized power in Russia in October, received powerful support from the workers of Ukraine. Ever since then, nationalism in Ukraine has been characterised by virulent anti-communism, pogroms against revolutionary workers and Jews, and attempts to win the support of imperialist powers.

The Social Democratic-dominated Rada (parliament), which proclaimed Ukraine’s independence in January 1918, tried to reach an agreement with Germany. After the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, however, the Soviet government was forced to cede Ukraine to Germany. When German troops marched into the country, the military dispensed with the Rada and established a dictatorship under Hetman (pre-eminent military commander) Pavlo Skoropadskyi, a landowner and former tsarist general. Skoropadskyi proceeded to make Kiev a rallying point for extreme right-wing and anti-Semitic politicians and military officers from all over Russia. (See: Anti-Semitism and the Russian Revolution: Part two)

Germany’s defeat in the First World War led to its forced retreat from Ukraine. Bloody battles engulfed Ukraine during the ensuing civil war in Russia. Supported by Western powers on Ukrainian soil in its fight against the Soviet government, the volunteer army under General Denikin committed horrific crimes and organised anti-Jewish pogroms. An estimated 50,000 Jews were murdered by the Whites in the second half of 1919 alone.

Symon Petliura, one the many Social Democrats who became nationalists, headed a directorate that took power in Kiev. This body also sought the backing of the Western powers in its war against the Soviet government and was responsible for the murder of more than 30,000 Jews. Both Petliura and Stepan Bandera, who emerged later as a leading figure, are regarded as role models by present-day Ukrainian nationalists.

Lenin advocated self-determination for Ukraine, and this democratic demand played a crucial role in winning the oppressed Ukrainian workers and peasants to the side of the Bolsheviks, who eventually won the civil war in 1921. In 1922, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic officially became part of the newly formed Soviet Union. However, western Ukraine remained under Polish rule.

Genuine independence from imperialism and development of national culture were possible in Ukraine only during the early years of the Soviet Union. These advances emerged from Lenin and Trotsky’s nationalities policy, which conceded to the nations within the Soviet confederation a comprehensive right to self-determination. The oppression of nationalities, as was common in the tsarist empire, was decisively rejected by the Bolsheviks.

The cultural life and material living standards of the Ukrainian masses underwent a dramatic improvement in the 1920s. The illiteracy rate declined sharply, as educational institutions and universities were established throughout the country. The Ukrainian language and culture were widely promoted, and this greatly stimulated intellectual life. As Leon Trotsky wrote in 1939, thanks to this policy, Soviet Ukraine became extremely attractive to the workers, peasants and revolutionary intelligentsia of western Ukraine, which remained enslaved by Poland.

However, the rise of the Stalinist bureaucracy brought an end to this nationalities policy. Lenin had attacked Stalin because of his centralist and bureaucratic tendencies in relation to the Georgian and Ukrainian questions. But after Lenin’s death, Stalin became increasingly ruthless in his attacks on non-Russian nationalities.

“The bureaucracy strangled and plundered the people within Great Russia, too,” wrote Trotsky in 1939. “But in the Ukraine matters were further complicated by the massacre of national hopes. Nowhere did restrictions, purges, repressions and in general all forms of bureaucratic hooliganism assume such murderous sweep as they did in the Ukraine in the struggle against the powerful, deeply-rooted longings of the Ukrainian masses for greater freedom and independence.” [1]

The Ukrainian peasants were particularly affected by the forced collectivisation of the late 1920s and early 1930s. Approximately 3.3 million people fell victim to this policy.

The devastating consequences of the nationalist polities of the Stalinist bureaucracy strengthened “nationalist underground groups… which were led by fanatical anti-Communists, successors of Petliura’s supporters and forerunners of Bandera’s people,” writes Vadim Rogovin in his book Stalin’s War Communism. [2]

Stalin’s murderous policies of repression played into the hands of Ukrainian nationalists and fascists, who agitated in the western parts of the divided Ukraine and collaborated with Hitler when he invaded the Soviet Union in 1941. Despite the crimes of Stalinism, however, the great majority of Ukrainians fought in the Red Army to defend the Soviet Union.

The crimes of the Ukrainian fascists in World War II

Among the most significant organisations that collaborated with the Nazis was the Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN). Its members were recruited mainly from veterans of the Civil War who had fought on the side of Petliura against the Bolsheviks.

During the 1930s, the OUN carried out numerous terrorist attacks in Ukraine, Poland, Romania and Czechoslovakia. Its ideological head was Dmytro Dontsov (1883-1973), who became one of the leading ideologues of the Ukrainian extreme right-wing through his journalistic activities, among which were Ukrainian translations of Mussolini’s Dottrina del Fascismo ( The Doctrine of Fascism ) and excerpts from Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf .

Dontsov had earlier developed his thesis of “amorality.” According to historian Frank Golczewski, this asserted the obligation “to collaborate with every enemy of Great Russia, regardless of their own political goals.” It “created an ideological justification for the subsequent collaboration with the Germans” and the lineup of Ukrainian nationalists behind the United States during the Cold War. [3]

In 1940, the OUN split into the Bandera (B) and Melnyk (M) factions, which bitterly fought each other. Bandera’s more extreme group was able to attract more followers than Melnyk’s. It began by establishing Ukrainian militia (the Roland and Nightingale Legions) on German-occupied territory in Poland which, in league with the Wehrmacht (German army), invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941.

After the withdrawal of the Red Army from areas conquered by the Germans, the legions and special militias acted as auxiliary troops in countless massacres of Jews. Following the entry of the OUN-B into Lviv on June 29, 1941, the Bandera militias (Nightingale Legion) unleashed murderous pogroms against the Jews lasting several days. Ukrainian militia continued massacring Jews in Ternopil, Stanislau (today Ivano-Fankisk) and other places. Documentary evidence relating to the first few days of the Wehrmacht’s advance reveals that about 140 pogroms were perpetrated in western Ukraine, in which 13,000 to 35,000 Jews were murdered. [4]

On June 30, 1941, Bandera and his deputy head of the OUN-B, Yaroslav Stetsko, proclaimed the independence of Ukraine in Lviv. Stepan Lenkavski, the OUN-B government’s director of propaganda, openly advocated the physical extermination of Ukrainian Jewry.

The Nazis used their Ukrainian collaborators to commit murders and acts of brutality that were too disturbing even for the SS units. For example, SS task force 4a in Ukraine confined itself to “the shooting of adults while commanding its Ukrainian helpers to shoot [the] children.” [5]

Dealing with Ukrainian and other collaborators in the Soviet Union was a controversial issue in the Nazi leadership. While Alfred Rosenberg, one of the main Nazis responsible for the Holocaust, urged greater involvement of local fascist forces, Hitler opposed the nationalists’ so-called independence projects. On Hitler’s orders, the OUN-B leaders were eventually arrested and the Ukrainian legions disarmed and relocated.

From 1942, the Ukrainian militia served the Third Reich in the “anti-partisan campaign” in Belarus, in the “security service,” and as armed personnel in concentration camps. Bandera and Stetsko remained in custody in Sachsenhausen concentration camp until September 1944.

When Hitler’s armies went into retreat after their defeat at Stalingrad, members of the OUN legions returned to Ukraine and formed the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) in 1943. Immediately after his release by the German authorities, Bandera headed back to Ukraine to lead the UPA.

The UPA was supplied with German weapons and attempted to implement an extensive ethnic cleansing program in order to create the conditions for an ethnically pure Ukrainian state. In 1943 and 1944, the UPA organised massacres that claimed the lives of 90,000 Poles and thousands of Jews. It also brutally terrorised, tortured and executed Ukrainian peasants and workers who wanted to join the Soviet Union. The UPA went on to kill some 20,000 Ukrainians before the insurrection was completely crushed in 1953.

This is the first part of a two-part article.

Notes

[1] Leon Trotsky, Problem of the Ukraine,” Trotsky Internet Archive 

[2] Vadim Rogovin: Stalins Kriegskommunismus, Essen 2006, p. 377

[3] Frank Golczewski: Die ukrainische Emigration, (Hrsg.): Geschichte der Ukraine, Göttingen 1993, p. 236

[4] Per Anders Rudling: “The Return of the Ukrainian Far Right. The Case of VO Svoboda,” in: Ruth Wodak, John E. Richardson (ed.): Analyzing Fascist Discourse: European Fascism in Talk and Text, London 2013, pp. 228-255. The article is accessible online.

[5] Quoted in Christopher Simpson: Blowback. America’s Recruitment of Nazis and Its Effects on the Cold War, London 1988, p. 25

Posted in UkraineComments Off on Nationalism and Fascism in Ukraine: A Historical Overview ”Part one”

In the Wake of World War II: The European Atrocity You Never Heard About

NOVANEWS

Commonly depicted in European-history textbooks as “Justified Retribution for Nazi Germany’s Wartime Atrocities”

Global Research
In the Wake of World War II: The European Atrocity You Never Heard About

In the largest episode of forced migration in history, millions of German-speaking civilians were sent to Germany from Czechoslovakia and other European countries after World War II by order of the United States, Britain, and the Soviet Union.

The screams that rang throughout the darkened cattle car crammed with deportees, as it jolted across the icy Polish countryside five nights before Christmas, were Dr. Loch’s only means of locating his patient. The doctor, formerly chief medical officer of a large urban hospital, now found himself clambering over piles of baggage, fellow passengers, and buckets used as toilets, only to find his path blocked by an old woman who ignored his request to move aside. On closer examination, he discovered that she had frozen to death.

Finally he located the source of the screams, a pregnant woman who had gone into premature labor and was hemorrhaging profusely. When he attempted to move her from where she lay into a more comfortable position, he found that “she was frozen to the floor with her own blood.” Other than temporarily stanching the bleeding, Loch was unable to do anything to help her, and he never learned whether she had lived or died. When the train made its first stop, after more than four days in transit, 16 frost-covered corpses were pulled from the wagons before the remaining deportees were put back on board to continue their journey. A further 42 passengers would later succumb to the effects of their ordeal, among them Loch’s wife.

During the Second World War, tragic scenes like those were commonplace, as Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin moved around entire populations like pieces on a chessboard, seeking to reshape the demographic profile of Europe according to their own preferences. What was different about the deportation of Loch and his fellow passengers, however, was that it took place by order of the United States and Britain as well as the Soviet Union, nearly two years after the declaration of peace.

Between 1945 and 1950, Europe witnessed the largest episode of forced migration, and perhaps the single greatest movement of population, in human history. Between 12 million and 14 million German-speaking civilians—the overwhelming majority of whom were women, old people, and children under 16—were forcibly ejected from their places of birth in Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Yugoslavia, and what are today the western districts of Poland. As The New York Timesnoted in December 1945, the number of people the Allies proposed to transfer in just a few months was about the same as the total number of all the immigrants admitted to the United States since the beginning of the 20th century. They were deposited among the ruins of Allied-occupied Germany to fend for themselves as best they could. The number who died as a result of starvation, disease, beatings, or outright execution is unknown, but conservative estimates suggest that at least 500,000 people lost their lives in the course of the operation.

Most disturbingly of all, tens of thousands perished as a result of ill treatment while being used as slave labor (or, in the Allies’ cynical formulation, “reparations in kind”) in a vast network of camps extending across central and southeastern Europe—many of which, like Auschwitz I and Theresienstadt, were former German concentration camps kept in operation for years after the war. As Sir John Colville, formerly Winston Churchill’s private secretary, told his colleagues in the British Foreign Office in 1946, it was clear that “concentration camps and all they stand for did not come to an end with the defeat of Germany.” Ironically, no more than 100 or so miles away from the camps being put to this new use, the surviving Nazi leaders were being tried by the Allies in the courtroom at Nuremberg on a bill of indictment that listed “deportation and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population” under the heading of “crimes against humanity.”

By any measure, the postwar expulsions were a manmade disaster and one of the most significant examples of the mass violation of human rights in recent history. Yet although they occurred within living memory, in time of peace, and in the middle of the world’s most densely populated continent, they remain all but unknown outside Germany itself. On the rare occasions that they rate more than a footnote in European-history textbooks, they are commonly depicted as justified retribution for Nazi Germany’s wartime atrocities or a painful but necessary expedient to ensure the future peace of Europe. As the historian Richard J. Evans asserted in In Hitler’s Shadow (1989) the decision to purge the continent of its German-speaking minorities remains “defensible” in light of the Holocaust and has shown itself to be a successful experiment in “defusing ethnic antagonisms through the mass transfer of populations.”

Even at the time, not everyone agreed. George Orwell, an outspoken opponent of the expulsions, pointed out in his essay “Politics and the English Language” that the expression “transfer of population” was one of a number of euphemisms whose purpose was “largely the defense of the indefensible.” The philosopher Bertrand Russell acidly inquired: “Are mass deportations crimes when committed by our enemies during war and justifiable measures of social adjustment when carried out by our allies in time of peace?” A still more uncomfortable observation was made by the left-wing publisher Victor Gollancz, who reasoned that “if every German was indeed responsible for what happened at Belsen, then we, as members of a democratic country and not a fascist one with no free press or parliament, were responsible individually as well as collectively” for what was being done to noncombatants in the Allies’ name.

That the expulsions would inevitably cause death and hardship on a very large scale had been fully recognized by those who set them in motion. To a considerable extent, they were counting on it. For the expelling countries—especially Czechoslovakia and Poland—the use of terror against their German-speaking populations was intended not simply as revenge for their wartime victimization, but also as a means of triggering a mass stampede across the borders and finally achieving their governments’ prewar ambition to create ethnically homogeneous nation-states. (Before 1939, less than two-thirds of Poland’s population, and only a slightly larger proportion of Czechoslovakia’s, consisted of gentile Poles, Czechs, or Slovaks.)

For the Soviets, who had “compensated” Poland for its territorial losses to the Soviet Union in 1939 by moving its western border more than 100 miles inside German territory, the clearance of the newly “Polish” western lands and the dumping of their millions of displaced inhabitants amid the ruins of the former Reich served Stalin’s twin goals of impeding Germany’s postwar recovery and eliminating any possibility of a future Polish-German rapprochement. The British viewed the widespread suffering that would inevitably attend the expulsions as a salutary form of re-education of the German population. “Everything that brings home to the Germans the completeness and irrevocability of their defeat,” Deputy Prime Minister Clement Richard Attlee wrote in 1943, “is worthwhile in the end.” And the Americans, as Laurence Steinhardt, ambassador to Prague, recorded, hoped that by displaying an “understanding” and cooperative attitude toward the expelling countries’ desire to be rid of their German populations, the United States could demonstrate its sympathy for those countries’ national aspirations and prevent them from drifting into the Communist orbit.

The Allies, then, knowingly embarked on a course that, as the British government was warned in 1944 by its own panel of experts, was “bound to cause immense suffering and dislocation.” That the expulsions did not lead to the worst consequences that could be expected from the chaotic cattle drive of millions of impoverished, embittered, and rootless deportees into a war-devastated country that had nowhere to put them was due to three main factors.

The first was the skill with which the postwar German chancellor, Konrad Adenauer, drew the expellees into mainstream politics, defusing the threat of a potentially radical and disruptive bloc. The second was the readiness of most expellees—the occasionally crass or undiplomatic statements of their leaders notwithstanding—to renounce the use or threat of force as a means of redressing their grievances. The third, and by far the most important, was the 30-year-long “economic miracle” that made possible the housing, feeding, and employment of the largest homeless population with which any industrial country has ever had to contend. (In East Germany, on the other hand, the fact that the standard of living for the indigenous population was already so low meant that the economic gap between it and the four million arriving expellees was more easily bridged.)

The downside of “economic miracles,” though, is that, as their name suggests, they can’t be relied upon to come along where and when they are most needed. By extraordinary good fortune, the Allies avoided reaping the harvest of their own recklessness. Nonetheless, the expulsions have cast a long and baleful shadow over central and southeastern Europe, even to the present day. Their disruptive demographic, economic, and even—as Eagle Glassheim has pointed out—environmental consequences continue to be felt more than 60 years later. The overnight transformation of some of the most heterogeneous regions of the European continent into virtual ethnic monoliths changed the trajectory of domestic politics in the expelling countries in significant and unpredicted ways. Culturally, the effort to eradicate every trace of hundreds of years of German presence and to write it out of national and local histories produced among the new Polish and Czech settler communities in the cleared areas what Gregor Thum has described as a state of “amputated memory.” As Thum shows in his groundbreaking study of postwar Wroclaw—until 1945 and the removal of its entire population, the German city of Breslau—the challenge of confronting their hometown’s difficult past is one that post-Communist Wroclawites have only recently taken up. In most other parts of Central Europe, it has hardly even begun.

Still less so in the English-speaking world. It is important to note that the expulsions are in no way to be compared to the genocidal Nazi campaign that preceded them. But neither can the supreme atrocity of our time become a yardstick by which gross abuses of human rights are allowed to go unrecognized for what they are. Contradicting Allied rhetoric that asserted that World War II had been fought above all to uphold the dignity and worth of all people, the Germans included, thousands of Western officials, servicemen, and technocrats took a full part in carrying out a program that, when perpetrated by their wartime enemies, they did not hesitate to denounce as contrary to all principles of humanity.

The degree of cognitive dissonance to which this led was exemplified by the career of Colonel John Fye, chief U.S. liaison officer for expulsion affairs to the Czechoslovak government. The operation he had helped carry out, he acknowledged, drew in “innocent people who had never raised so much as a word of protest against the Czechoslovak people.” To accomplish it, women and children had been thrown into detention facilities, “many of which were little better than the ex-German concentration camps.” Yet these stirrings of unease did not prevent Fye from accepting a decoration from the Prague government for what the official citation candidly described as his valuable services “in expelling Germans from Czechoslovakia.”

Today we have come not much further than Fye did in acknowledging the pivotal role played by the Allies in conceiving and executing an operation that exceeded in both scale and lethality the violent breakup of Yugoslavia in the 1990s. It is unnecessary to attribute this to any “taboo” or “conspiracy of silence.” Rather, what is denied is not the fact of the expulsions themselves, but their significance.

Many European commentators have maintained that to draw attention to them runs the risk of diminishing the horror that ought properly to be reserved for the Holocaust and other Nazi atrocities, or giving rise to a self-pitying “victim” mentality among today’s generation of Germans, for whom the war is an increasingly distant memory. Czechs, Poles, and citizens of other expelling states fear the legal ramifications of a re-examination of the means by which millions of erstwhile citizens of those countries were deprived of their nationality, liberty, and property. To this day, the postwar decrees expropriating and denationalizing Germans remain on the statute book of the Czech Republic, and their legality has recently been reaffirmed by the Czech constitutional court.

Some notable exceptions aside, like T. David Curp, Matthew Frank, and David Gerlach, English-speaking historians—out of either understandable sympathy for Germany’s victims or reluctance to complicate the narrative of what is still justifiably considered a “good war”—have also not been overeager to delve into the history of a messy, complex, morally ambiguous, and politically sensitive episode, in which few if any of those involved appear in a creditable light.

By no means are all of these concerns unworthy ones. But neither are they valid reasons for failing to engage seriously with an episode of such obvious importance, and to integrate it within the broader narrative of modern European history. For historians to write—and, still worse, to teach—as though the expulsions had never taken place or, having occurred, are of no particular significance to the societies affected by them, is both intellectually and pedagogically unsustainable.

The fact that population transfers are currently making a comeback on the scholarly and policy agenda also suggests that we should scrutinize with particular care the most extensive experiment made with them to date. Despite the gruesome history, enthusiasts continue to chase the mirage of “humane” mass deportations as a means of resolving intractable ethnic problems. Andrew Bell-Fialkoff, in a much-cited study, has advocated population transfers as a valuable tool so long as they are “conducted in a humane, well-organized manner, like the transfer of Germans from Czechoslovakia by the Allies in 1945-47.” John Mearsheimer, Chaim Kaufmann, Michael Mann and others have done likewise.

Few wars today, whether within or between states, do not feature an attempt by one or both sides to create facts on the ground by forcibly displacing minority populations perceived as alien to the national community. And although the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court has attempted to restrain this tendency by prohibiting mass deportations, Elazar Barkan maintains that such proscriptions are far from absolute, and that “today there is no single code of international law that explicitly outlaws population transfers either in terms of group or individual rights protections.”

The expulsion of the ethnic Germans is thus of contemporary as well as historical relevance. At present, though, the study of many vital elements of this topic is still in its earliest stages. Innumerable questions—about the archipelago of camps and detention centers, the precise number and location of which are still undetermined; the sexual victimization of female expellees, which was on a scale to rival the mass rapes perpetrated by Red Army soldiers in occupied Germany; the full part played by the Soviet and U.S. governments in planning and executing the expulsions—remain to be fully answered. At a moment when the surviving expellees are passing away and many, though far from all, of the relevant archives have been opened, the time has come for this painful but pivotal chapter in Europe’s recent history to receive at last the scholarly attention it deserves.

Posted in Europe, WorldComments Off on In the Wake of World War II: The European Atrocity You Never Heard About

Syria 21: Dirty Lies and Black Deeds of Barack Obama

NOVANEWS
Global Research
syria-rubble

American President Barack Obama while delivering a speech at the West Point graduation ceremony on May 28 outlined his foreign policy agenda for the remaining years of his term. In this speech, Obama defended his decision to avoid direct military intervention in Syria and expressed his willingness to increase the aid to the opposition groups that would be willing to attempt a military overthrow of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. “As president, I made a decision that we should not put American troops into the middle of this increasingly sectarian civil war, and I believe that is the right decision. But that does not mean we shouldn’t help the Syrian people stand up against a dictator who bombs and starves his people”.

Obama affirmed that his administration will be working together with Congress to increase the assistance to the groups that “offer the best alternative to terrorists and a brutal dictator”. Additionally Obama pledged his support to Syria’s neighbours – Jordan and Lebanon; Turkey and Iraq. In addition, Obama promised to allocate up to 5 billion dollars on counter terrorism operations and training of security forces in other countries in order to combat extremism.

While listening to this speech one couldn’t help but feel amazed with this cheap demagoguery, cynicism and a bunch of lies delivered by the highest official in the United States . After all, it is a well known fact that the US initiated the creation of the “Al-Qaeda” organization and its leader Osama bin Laden had been a VIP guest of the financial department of the CIA for over three decades. It is Washington and its faithful European satellites along with the Arab monarchies that is behind the creation of numerous terrorist organizations of today. And now this terrorist scum from all over the world is butchering people in Syria, in an attempt to show “value for the money” provided by Washington and its allies .

Understandably, the US president is planning to increase its support of the Syrian rebels in order to further prolong the civil war in Syria that should result in the eventual destruction of this country, as it has happened before in Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq, Libya due to a hefty amount of the US “assistance”. Joshua Landis an Associate Professor at the University of Oklahoma believes that, should the rebels prevail, the probability of turning Syria into another Somalia and the further continuation of the conflict between the militants themselves without the involvement of government forces is extremely high. This, in the long, run can significantly increase the number of refuges leaving Syria.

According to the CIA reports there are more than 1500 different terrorist groups operating in Syria now, the better part of them is manned by Americans and Europeans. Earlier, the Syrian government issued a statement about the proportion of foreigners among terrorists and bandits waging war in the country, this proportion exceeds 80%. The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation of the United States James Komi told reporters that the flow of US and EU citizens wishing to fight on the side of the Syrian opposition had significantly increased. According to Janis Komi, dozens of Americans are joining the ranks of insurgents in Syria to participate in the conflict, however the number of EU mercenaries arriving in Syria is calculated in thousands.

Unexpectedly, it’s the mercenaries from the US and Europe, fighting in Syria in the ranks of extremist groups, that are largely responsible for the brutal executions. On top of all they’re not simply engaging the security forces of President Bashar al-Assad, but other rebels and civilians alike. This was the statement made by the Free Syrian Army General Abdullah al-Bashir to The Times newspaper. According to this commander, European extremists make up the bulk of all troops fighting in the ranks of a breakaway “Al- Qaeda ” radical group – ” Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant “, and those resort to extremely brutal methods in combat.

“The Syrian people are beaten, killed, beheaded, crucified, women are treated improperly, the command is run by archaic methods” – the newspaper quotes the General. According to Abdullah al-Bashir, the majority of those participating in these acts are British subjects. He underlined that that these extremists are kidnapping the men of the Free Syrian Army and attack civilian houses in Raqqa, instead of assaulting a nearby base of the Syrian Air Forces.

A PBS documentary on Syria depicts how Americans are training armed opposition forces on a secret base in Qatar. The future militants are taught, in particular, “how to kill soldiers who are still alive after an attack”. The US military instructors seem to be aiming at developing a particular ferocity in their cadets. The film also features numerous interviews with Syrian militants filmed by a PBS journalist, they say that they were meeting secretly with their “American supervisors” in Turkey to obtain weapons and ammunition from them.

By who is supplying these illegal formations with weapons and thus fanning the flames of the civil war? For instance, the latest reports say that Syrian rebels started receiving TOW antitank missiles systems produced in the US. By now it’s only the trial program aimed at supporting the forces fighting against the Syrian army, the USA Today newspaper reported, citing its own sources. “First they try it, and then we’ll see how it goes (before increasing supplies)” – said a former US senior official in his interview to the newspaper.

Congressman Mike Rogers, in turn, told the newspaper that there is a “limited growth” of support provided to these terrorists. However, he did not specify what was the form of this “support”. Experts interviewed by the USA Today, also refused to specify whether the United States was supplying the anti-tank weapons directly, but they hinted that the supplies of TOWs to Syria must be carried out by Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries, but “it wouldn’t happen without the consent of the United States”.

But it’s not all that easy with supplying bandits and terrorists. As it was the case with “Al-Qaeda”, Syrian extremists and terrorists have already declared their readiness to attack the British transport infrastructure and financial centers, and they have nothing against arranging terrorist attacks in the United States, for example, like bombing the White House, reports The Daily Mail. A promise to carry out such attacks has already appeared on the Internet. According to the British newspapers, the UK secret services take such threats extremely seriously. In turn, the BBC writes: “Never before has the UK citizens fighting in Syria threatened their own country with such bloody acts”.

According to The Daily Mail, the United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is in possession of reports that show that “Al-Qaeda” has organized a training camp in Syria, in which it has been training mercenaries from Western countries. According to the publication, in this camp, foreigners are studying terrorism, and then they should be returning to their respective countries to carry out terrorist attacks there.

Above facts are substantial enough for anyone to admit that Washington and President Obama personally is responsible for all the atrocities and crimes that their mercenaries are carrying out and the US administration will not wash the blood of 150,000 Syrian civilians off their hands. And now Obama is going to allocate another $ 5 billion (incidentally, the same amount that was spent in order to the trigger the bloody events in the Ukraine) on the so-called anti-terrorist activities. In fact, it all turns around, as the facts show, leading to further deterioration of the civil war and more Syrian civilians killed.

When enough is enough? Isn’t it the time to punish those contenders for world domination with their never ending war hysteria? Maybe it’s time to remember the words Lakhdar Brahimi a former UN special envoy to Syria that had unfortunately failed his mission, who said that everyone who is responsible for the situation and can influence it must remember that the question is how many more people must die, how many more buildings must be destroyed, before Syria would become a country we all knew, and at the same time – the new Syria, a country that we all love.

Posted in SyriaComments Off on Syria 21: Dirty Lies and Black Deeds of Barack Obama

Desmond Tutu: Tar Sands ‘Negligence and Greed’ Must Stop

NOVANEWS

Nobel Peace Prize Laureate urges everyone to confront “the moral struggle that will define this century”–climate change

– Andrea Germanos

Desmond Tutu speaking in 2012. (Photo: Mo Ibrahim Foundation/cc/flickr)Archbishop Desmond Tutu railed against tar sands development, which he said “reflects negligence and greed,” and urged humanity to come together to fight climate change, the “moral struggle” of our time.

The 82-year-old Nobel Peace Prize Laureate made the comments Saturday at an Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation-hosted conference in Fort McMurray, Alberta.

“The oil sands are emblematic of an era of high carbon and high-risk fuels that must end if we are committed to a safer climate,” he said.

“The fact that this filth is being created now, when the link between carbon emissions and global warming is so obvious, reflects negligence and greed.”

He also surged support for divestment of fossil fuels, saying, “We need to push [those energy corporations] to do the right thing just as Canadians reached out to help South Africans to rid themselves of the scourge of Apartheid.”

Tutu said that “climate change is the moral struggle that will define this century,” and added that “it is not only devastating our shared planet, but strips away the rights of vulnerable citizens.”

“Who can stop this? You and I can.”

“It is not just that we can stop it, we have a responsibility to do so,” he said.

Tutu has previously expressed opposition to the tar sands, being signatory to three letters to President Obama from Nobel Laureates against the Keystone XL pipeline. He also joined 20 other Laureates in 2013 in writing a letter to European Commission president José Manuel Barroso stating, “The extraction of unconventional fuels—such as oil sands and oil shale—is having a particularly devastating impact on climate change.”

Posted in USA, HealthComments Off on Desmond Tutu: Tar Sands ‘Negligence and Greed’ Must Stop

Shoah’s pages

www.shoah.org.uk

KEEP SHOAH UP AND RUNNING