Archive | June 21st, 2014

BUSH CREATES PAINTING OF WHAT HE IMAGINES IRAQ IS LIKE TODAY

NOVANEWS
POSTED BY Z
bush-painting-580.jpeg

President George W. Bush unveiled his latest offering as an artist today—a painting of what he imagines Iraq looks like now.

Talking to reporters at the George W. Bush Presidential Library and Museum in Dallas, the President said he did not read the news before composing his latest work. “I was never big on that,” he said.

Pronouncing himself pleased with his painting of Iraq, Mr. Bush said he was getting to work on a new painting entitled, “The World’s Really Nice Climate.”

Posted in USA, IraqComments Off on BUSH CREATES PAINTING OF WHAT HE IMAGINES IRAQ IS LIKE TODAY

The “Progessive” (aka, Liberal) Antiwar Movement: RIP?

NOVANEWS
Can the Left Mount a Challenge to Hillary?


by JOHN V. WALSH

Ralph Nader wrote a very perceptive essay in the wake of the edifying defeat of the despicable arch-imperialist, Israel Firster and reliable servant of Wall St. Banksters, Eric Cantor, at the capable hands of the libertarian leaning Professor David Brat.  It was titledCan Progressives Learn From Eric Cantor’s Defeat”?  Can they? Yes.  Will they?  It is highly doubtful.  It is difficult to learn anything if you think you have nothing more to learn.

But here we are interested only in the lessons of Cantor’s electoral humiliation at the hands of Brat for the progressive antiwar, anti-Empire movement.   (For the significance of the Brat victory beyond the matter of war, see this.)  And by “progressive” we do not mean “Left.”  “Progressive” for some is merely a brand change adopted by long ago to escape the abuse poured on “liberalism.”  One looks in vain for a self-described liberal these days only because they have donned a new costume which they have already badly soiled.

Here are two relevant quotes from Nader’s essay:

“(The Brat victory) has several takeaways for progressives besides envy and shame over why they do not directly take on the corporate Democrats.”

“Unfortunately the driving energy of progressives, including the dissipating Occupy Wall Street effort, is not showing up in the electoral arena. The political energy, the policy disputes and the competitive contests are among the Republicans, not the Democrats…”

In summary, why are the progressives not taking on the corporate (and hawkish) Democrats in the electoral arena?  And what does that mean for the next presidential year, 2016?   Certainly it is desirable to have antiwar candidates in primaries of both major parties – and even better to have them win the nomination.  Thus, there are two electoral tasks for the broad antiwar movement in the rapidly approaching election year of 2016:

1.  On the Democratic Side.  The progressives must field a candidate to take on the bloodthirsty Hillery to make good on Nader’s challenge.  Otherwise, she could well be “the first woman” – to start a world war.  So far there is no one – and the undependable Bernie Sanders is not that person, as even a cursory reading of the late Alexander Cockburn’s denunciations of Sanders over the years makes clear.  Nor is that great American Indian, my Senator, Elizabeth Warren who ran for Senate as a hawk on Iran, a credible peace candidate.

2. On the Republican Side.  Antiwarriors here must make sure that there is an antiwar Republican running in the primaries and hopefully winning the nomination.  That person is Rand Paul.  And Brat’s victory over the establishment’s candidate bodes well for Paul’s success.  So the forces of peace are making headway in the GOP even though they face an uphill battle.

That leaves the Democrats without any anti-Empire voice. Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) will not do the job of challenging Hillary.  From Norman Solomon to Medea Benjamin they are notorious by now for putting Party over principle.  Other progressives operating outside the Dem Party, and few in number, are well defended, claiming that elections are for naught.  But history argues against this.  Truman, the architect of the unpopular Korean War was defeated in the New Hampshire primary, paving the way for an Eisenhower victory due in part to a pledge to end the war, a pledge he kept promptly.  Lyndon Baynes Johnson, the inheritor of a very unpopular war from JFK was also undone in New Hampshire, by the principled Eugene McCarthy, not the most “liberal” Democrat and a bit of a libertarian.  From that point on despite the best efforts of both Humphrey and Nixon to prolong it, the Vietnam War was over.  Primary challenges have an effect.  Ron Paul built a very powerful movement, especially among the young, with his 2008 and 2012 runs.

Other progressives will tell you that street actions like Occupy are the way forward despite the inability of Occupy to so much as articulate a platform, program or strategy.  And they are bereft of even a shadow of ideology and consistency having long ago abandoned the more traditional left precepts.  Most notably the decade of wars went largely unmentioned in their gatherings, in great part because they are now Obama’s wars.  Nader kindly describes Occupy as “dissipating.”  Strangely, some of these Occupiers find refuge in the Green Party, which is dedicated to electoral action.  The Green Party itself is a resounding failure.  Its perennial presidential candidate is a very pleasant, organized and well meaning person but is entirely too solicitous of “progressive” Dems to make an impact.   And she has not been able to win even a State House seat in very progressive Massachusetts, although she has tried.

Picasso said he became a Communist, because the Communists were for the peasants and he was for the peasants.  Often it is as simple as that.  What are people to do if they are for peace and the only viable force for peace is the libertarians, as was true in 2012?  Then they will become libertarian Republicans.  And we see that happening with many young people.  If “progressives” cannot accomplish a challenge to Hillary, they will be finished for the foreseeable future, probably a generation at least.  And that seems to be the way things are headed.

Posted in USAComments Off on The “Progessive” (aka, Liberal) Antiwar Movement: RIP?

ED MILIBAND – A SHAMELESS ZIONIST IN OUR MIDST

NOVANEWS

Ed Miliband speech to Labour Friends of Israel

Introduction By Gilad Atzmon:

Yesterday, a poll indicated that half of the British voters figure that “Ed Miliband should be dumped as Labour leader before the next general election.”

Some 49 per cent think that Miliband should be replaced – including 43 per cent of Labour supporters.  It is hard to imagine, but Miliband is even less popular than Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg who managed to alienate just 44% of the voters.

As the Brits were expressing their disapproval of ‘Red Ed’ and his clumsy politics, the Labour leader found the time to socialise with the Jewish Lobby. The following is Ed Miliband’s speech to LFI (Labour Friends Of Israel), the same Zionist Lobby group that funded Blair’s government as it drove Britain into a criminal war in Iraq.

In his speech, Ed Miliband affirms his deep Zionist affiliation. The verdict on his reign is clear, Miliband should never have been the leader of a major British political party. He would have been better suited for a position as a local Rabbi or a part time job as an Israeli consular.

On the current events in Palestine, the Jewish Labour leader says,

“I am sure all of our thoughts today are with the 3 kidnapped Israeli teenagers, Naftali Frenkel, Gilad Shaar, and Eyal Yifrach and their families. We all profoundly hope for their speedy and safe return.”

For whatever reason, the Labour leader fails to share his sympathies with thethousands of Palestinians who have been  kidnapped by the Jewish State and have been rotting  in Israeli jails for decades. It hasn’t been clearly established that the 3 Israeli settler teenagers were abducted. As time has passed, more and more analysts believe that the recent affair may be another Israeli false flag operation. Remember that the Mossad’s motto is ‘By Way of Deception.’ As we review the available evidence, we see that the ‘kidnap’ provides Israel with an opportunity to hit hard at Palestinian civilians and leadership.

It doesn’t take long for the Labour leader’s speech to exhibit the complete panoply of Jewish tribal commitment. He reminds the Lobby that he speaks as

“a Jew, as a (Jewish) son, a (Jewish) grandson and a (Jewish) father.”

The Labour leader makes sure that his LFI supporters know that it was El Al that schlepped him to the promised land. “We travelled out on the El Al flight LY316 three days before Passover.” For some reason, I would expect the leader of a major British party to fly British Airways and support the British economy.  Could anyone imagine Miliband bragging about flying El Al in the Parliament? But in a sealed kosher environment, the rules of engagement are very different.

Soon the Labour leader starts to drip the holy water of the Holocaust and the primacy of Jewish suffering.

“First, being approach(ed) by the assistant to the President of the Hebrew University, who said to me: ‘My grandmother was in hiding in the same Belgian village as your grandmother.’”

And the Shoa goes on.

“As I left Yad Vashem I was handed a collection of documents about my family including new information, 70 years later, about what happened to my grandfather and where he perished.”

And again,

“The new Yad Vashem tells an overwhelming story of the greatest single stain on the conscience of humanity – the Holocaust.”

As many scholars have pointed out, the Holocaust is the new religion of the Jews. However, it is reasonable to expect that, whatever his religion, the British Labour leader  be a true socialist and universalist dedicated to justice for the British people and not just the concerns of his own  tribe.

Apparently, at some point the Jewish ethnic campaigner who currently fronts the Labour realises that he might have gone too far.

“But I did not simply go as a Jew returning to his family’s roots, but also as someone who wants to be the next Prime Minister of this country.”

This is exactly the crux of the problem. If the so-called ‘Red Ed’ wants to the Prime Minister of Britain, he must display genuine concern for Workless Class Brits rather than focus on his privileged Jewish brethren in Israel and their forceful Lobby in Britain. Is he capable of this shift? Yesterday’s poll suggests that half the Brits grasp Ed’s incompetence. It will be interesting to see how the Brits react after Ed’s tribal commitment to his people is fully exposed.

Like his brother, David, who gave the green light for Israeli operation Cast Lead in the name of the British people. our current Labour leader is  consumed by the suffering of  one people who happen to be his. “We visited Sderot and I saw the rockets that had been fired from Gaza and landed in that town.” Did the Jewish Labour leader visit Gaza just a few miles further down the road to inspect  the carnage inflicted by the Jewish State? Did he even consider viewing the condition of the biggest open-air prison known to man? If Miliband visited Gaza, he certainly didn’t share that with the LFI.

As Miliband reaches the end of his speech he reviews the situation in Iraq. “With the unfolding situation in Iraq, we are also reminded of the security situation that Israel faces beyond its borders. Iraq is today facing fundamental threats to its integrity, security and stability.” He neatly omits to apportion responsibility to Lord Levy and the LFI who led the support for Blair’s Government as it launched the 2nd Gulf War. The architects of that genocide were Zionist Neocons who enjoyed enthusiastic support from Jewish Chronicle writers such as Nick Cohen and David Aaronovitch. I realised recently that Instead of chasing Tony Blair, who was probably a naïve Shabbos Goy puppet, it would be smart to investigate, for the first time, the role of the Jewish Lobby in this disastrous affair.  I am certain that The Guardian Of Zion and The Observer of Judea are not going to lead the journalistic inquiry.

At the end of his speech Miliband kindly provides the full rationale for why no Brit should consider voting Labour as long as it is ran by a Zionist Jew.

“I want you to know that if I become Prime Minister in less than a year’s time, I will be proud to do so as a friend of Israel, a Jew and, most of all, someone who feels so proud to be part of the community gathered here today.”

Britain doesn’t need a ‘Friend of Israel’ in Number 10 Downing Street. It needs friend of the British people, an ally of truth and justice and not a Zionist merchant. It needs a humanist and a universalist, instead of an imbecilic tribal operator who sees the world from a kosher perspective driven by the primacy of Jewish suffering.

The following speech serves to convince every proud Brit that the time is ripe to cleanse British public life of  Zionists and Jerusalemites. Britain needs to search for its path back to Athens, ethics and the universal so that it can reminds itself its greatness and its role in Western civilization.

———————————— 

press.labour.org.uk/post/89056233474/ed-miliband-speech-to-labour-friends-of-israel

Press Release
Tuesday, 17 June 2014

***CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY***

Ed Miliband MP, Leader of the Labour Party, in a speech to Labour Friends of Israel, said:

Friends, it is once again a privileged to have the opportunity to address the annual LFI lunch.

I would like to thank everyone from LFI for organising today’s lunch, and I am sure you would like to join me in thanking Sir David Garrard and Isaac Kaye for helping make it happen.

I am delighted that Ambassador Daniel Taub is with us today and I would also like to take this opportunity as we approach the first anniversary of his induction to say how much I have admired the humanity and generosity of spirit shown in his tenure by Chief Rabbi Mirvis.

I am proud to be a supporter of LFI.

You play a vital role in promoting Israel and passionately campaigning for a two state solution for two peoples.

We are committed to working with LFI to further deepen the relationship between my party and the Israeli Labour Party led by Isaac Herzog, who I was delighted to welcome to my home during his recent visit.

I would also like to play tribute to Anne McGuire who has done an excellent job in chairing LFI over the last year.

I also want to welcome Adrian Cohen to his new position as chair of LFI and I am sure we all want to show our appreciation for the tireless efforts of Jennifer Gerber who joined us on our recent trip to Israel.

Let me say before I get into the main part of my remarks, I am sure all of our thoughts today are with the 3 kidnapped Israeli teenagers, Naftali Frenkel, Gilad Shaar, and Eyal Yifrach and their families. We all profoundly hope for their speedy and safe return.

 

And it is a measure of this community’s concern that on Sunday afternoon the Chief Rabbi led a service attended by over a thousand people to pray for their safe release.

Today I want to talk to you about my reflections following my recent trip to Israel.

And what it meant to me as a Jew, as a son, a grandson and a father.

And what it means for Labour in government and our approach to Israel.

We travelled out on the El Al flight LY316 three days before Passover.

Justine and I had not entirely anticipated something, which I am sure will be more familiar to so many in this room, and Chief Rabbi I am sure in particular to many of your congregants – that every other passenger on the plane seemed to know each other.

And it wasn’t long before complete strangers were coming up to Justine and me to ask the same question – “So where will you both be for Seder?”

On our trip we would witness the candour of Israelis and the willingness to speak their minds.

I particularly enjoyed the moment at a briefing given by a group of Knesset Parliamentarians, one of whom, in a state of complete exasperation, turned to me and referring to his colleague said, “Mr Miliband, please don’t listen to him he has no idea what he is talking about”.

It makes the Parliamentary Labour Party appear positively benign.

As we touched down on that pre-Passover plane, it immediately took me back to being a young boy and travelling to Israel for the first time.

For the next two days, I would have the most vivid reminders of the deep roots that I have in Israel: like visiting my cousins at the Nachshonim Kibbutz, where I had picked oranges as a child, and having dinner with my extended family in Tel Aviv, arguing and debating, with love and affection.

And there were three particular things which made this visit not only an official trip but a deeply personal journey:

First, being approach by the assistant to the President of the Hebrew University, who said to me: “My grandmother was in hiding in the same Belgian village as your grandmother”.

I can truly say to you, that experience would be unlikely to happen to me in any other country in the world.

That is just one of the reasons why Israel has special meaning for me and a special place in my heart.

Second, my visit to Yad Vashem.

A moment of reflection, mourning and discovery.

Reflection on the loss of so many millions of Jews.

Mourning for so many members of my family that were lost.

And discovery. As I left Yad Vashem I was handed a collection of documents about my family including new information, 70 years later, about what happened to my grandfather and where he perished.

It was an extraordinary feeling, so many years after he died, to make new discoveries about his death.

The new Yad Vashem tells an overwhelming story of the greatest single stain on the conscience of humanity – the Holocaust.

But it also tells, in a way that I was not expecting, a story of life; the richness and the colour of life for European
Jews before 1939. And of course, it also tells how Israel became a miraculous affirmation of life in the face of death.

Finally, I would also say that it was a joy for me to have Justine with me on my trip to Israel. And for her to have a chance to meet my family.

She was moved and delighted to be there.

And I look forward to travelling to Israel with my children, Daniel and Sam, when they are older.

So these are some personal reflections about my trip.

But I did not simply go as a Jew returning to his family’s roots, but also as someone who wants to be the next Prime Minister of this country.

So I also want to reflect on the lessons I learn as the person wanting to do that job.

And my theme, the promise I want to make to you today, is about the priority the next Labour government will attach to its relationship with Israel.

Because of its importance to the Jews of Britain, because of the democracy it represents, because of its economic lessons, and because of the importance of a Middle East peace process for the stability of the world.

I specifically chose this as one of my first official overseas visits because of all these reasons and more.

The priority that I attach to our relationship with Israel, is not just a promise for Opposition, but a commitment for government.

And today I want to tell you where that sense of priority leads me on the major issues that matter.

Israel: economic power with social challenges

As LFI has repeatedly argued, the world needs to get to know Israel better for its economic achievements, as well as its security and diplomatic challenges.

And what struck me is that while Israel is an amazing economic powerhouse, it also faces the common challenges of inequality that so many countries around the world are wrestling with.

The Israel I experienced on my trip was one that is seizing the future: like the young people at Hebrew University and the thrilling innovation and entrepreneurship of new and high tech businesses.

Israel is a major world innovator and I was inspired by the work of the high tech hub, organised by the British Embassy.

We learnt some of the interesting lessons about Israel’s success: the rate of graduate entry, immigration bringing new skills, the availability of venture capital and the collaboration between private and public enterprise.

I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the excellent work of our brilliant Ambassador Matthew Gould.

And I can tell you that a major priority for a Labour Government would be to further collaborate, building stronger working relationships between British and Israeli companies.

And yet for all the innovation, and economic success, it is impossible to ignore the security challenges that Israel faces.
Indeed, they are an economic issue, holding back investment and preventing Israel from achieving even greater things economically and socially.

And they are not simply issues for Israel, because we all have an interest in a stable and secure Middle East.

Visiting Israel brings home the security challenges that it faces very starkly.

We visited Sderot and I saw the rockets that had been fired from Gaza and landed in that town.

I heard from the Mayor about the reinforcements against rockets they had to build for their local schools.

And Justine and I met children, no older than my own, who don’t get the luxury of playing outside as ours do, but are assigned to an inside bunker playground.

And we met the parents of Daniel Viflic, who had been killed in a rocket attack just before Passover in 2011.

He had simply been visiting his grandmother.

The Viflics are the bravest people, but nothing can change the grief and loss they face.

And after 10 years of continuing rocket and mortar attacks on Israeli civilians from Gaza, of course there remains deep concern amongst Israeli citizens about their security.

So attaching the right priority to our relationship with Israel means fully understanding its security concerns and the threat to its people.

Therefore, we must ensure Israel’s security and right to protect itself.

With the unfolding situation in Iraq, we are also reminded of the security situation that Israel faces beyond its borders.

Iraq is today facing fundamental threats to its integrity, security and stability.

ISIS is a violent and brutal military group posing a threat to the entire region. As we have seen in a horrifying way in the last few days.

Their advances in Iraq and their growing base in northern Syria should be seen by all as extremely grave developments.

As Douglas Alexander said yesterday the priority now must be to promote the political integrity of Iraq, to help the Iraqi government through support and advice and do everything we can to provide humanitarian assistance.

Nobody should be in any doubt about the seriousness of the situation and the priority it demands from the world.

Given all of our interests in stability in the region it is right also to be seeking dialogue with other countries in the wider area.

Which brings us to Iran.

I want to be clear about Labour’s position: we are under no illusions about the Iranian regime.

It has supplied thousands of missiles to Hamas and Hezbollah which have been used against Israel.

If Iran continues its illegal nuclear programme and develops a weapon, it poses a grave threat to Israel and to the stability of the region.

That is why the world has such a strong interest in preventing this happening.

The interim agreement brokered by Cathy Ashton is a step forward. We should take nothing for granted about Iran’s behaviour but that route represents by far the best hope for avoiding what we all fear: Iran with nuclear weapons.

But while it is absolutely right to remain deeply sceptical about the nature of the regime, we support the Government’s decision today to reopen the Embassy as a means of engagement.

All of us are conscious, especially at this moment of the instability of this region. Not just in Iraq but also the unfolding tragedy in Syria and the consequences that is having for neighbouring states.

For us that reinforces the importance of a successful peace process.

Our trip to Israel turned out to be just prior to the collapse of the talks.

We can all see the considerable challenges to the peace process. And there is a growing sense as to what those challenges are.

Settlement building in the occupied territories is a significant threat to a negotiated agreement.

The daily reality of all this was brought home on our visit.

We had the chance to visit a Bedouin camp in the Occupied Territories.

People there lived difficult, impoverished lives, and are faced with the potential threat of eviction.

As we heard during our trip, the real fear is that settlement activity makes the viability of a two state solution more challenging.

And those significant challenges to the peace process include the role of Hamas, not just its failure to renounce violence against Israel but to accept its very right to exist.

These deep concerns about time running out represents reasons for pessimism.

They lead some to say that support for a two-state solution should be abandoned.

I don’t agree.

After all what is the alternative?

So we should step up, not abandon, our support for a two state solution.

We should do so deeply conscious of the pressure of time.

But having set out the reasons for pessimism, there are reasons for optimism too.

Most conflicts are unresolved because we do not know what an agreement looks like.

What came home to me on this trip was reasonable people on both sides have a sense of what a resolution looks like.

Two states for two peoples, based on 1967 lines with mutually agreed land swaps, with Israel as the homeland for the Jewish people and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people, and with each state enjoying self-determination, security and mutual recognition.

We know that compromises in key areas must be made on both sides.

We must also do nothing that will get in the way of peace.

So we are clear that the threat of boycotts of Israel is the wrong response. We do and we will resolutely oppose the isolation of Israel. And my party does so.

No one in my party either should question Israel’s right to exist.

And what is our role in all this? As friends of Israel.

We must, as LFI is, be persuaders for peace and the two state solution.

We can’t deliver peace unless both sides in the conflict want it.

The international community can set high expectations of both sides.

That is what Secretary Kerry has sought to do in an outstanding and brilliant way, winning the trust of both sides.

That will be how a future Labour government approaches the peace process, passionate and engaged in a successful outcome.

I am reminded of the words of Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin used twenty years ago next month at a joint session of both houses of Congress:

“We all love the same children, weep the same tears, hate the same enmity and pray for reconciliation. Peace has no borders…here is where we were born. Here is where we created a nation. Here we forged a haven for the persecuted and built a model of a democratic country. But we are not alone here on this soil, in this land we have neighbours, the Palestinian people – we who have seen you in your difficulties, we saw you for generations; we who have killed and been killed are walking beside you now toward a common future and we want to be good neighbours.”

So let me make this pledge today: in that spirit, we stand with Israelis and Palestinians in their pursuit of peace.

It was meeting extraordinary Israelis and Palestinians that made my recent trip an extraordinary journey.

And a complete privilege for me.

The Jewish community in Britain is also extraordinary: civic minded people of the charity world, dynamic business people,
committed public servants, people from every walk of Jewish life with deep love and affection for Britain.

Over these four years, I have learnt a lot from you.

And I hope you have found me willing to listen and learn.

I want you to know that if I become Prime Minister in less than a year’s time, I will be proud to do so as a friend of Israel, a Jew and, most of all, someone who feels so proud to be part of the community gathered here today.

Posted in UKComments Off on ED MILIBAND – A SHAMELESS ZIONIST IN OUR MIDST

Bombing Won’t Save Iraq

NOVANEWS
AMERICAN CRIMES IN IRAQ
By Patrick J. Buchanan
 

The panic that engulfed this capital after the fall of Mosul, when it appeared that the Islamist fanatics of ISIS would overrun Baghdad, has passed. And the second thoughts have begun.

“U.S. Sees Risk in Iraqi Airstrikes,” ran the June 19 headline in the Washington Post, “Military Warns of Dangerous Complications.”

This is welcome news. For if it is an unwritten rule of republics not to commit to war unless the nation is united, America has never been less prepared for a Mideast war.

Our commander in chief is a reluctant warrior who wants his legacy to be ending our two longest wars. And just as Obama does not want to go back into Iraq, neither does the U.S. military.

The American people want no new war, and Congress does not want to be forced to vote on such a war.

Our foreign policy elites are split half a dozen ways — on whether to bomb or not to bomb, on who our real enemies are in Syria and Iraq, on whose support we should and should not accept, on what our strategic goals are, and what are the prospects for success.

Consider the bombing option.

Undoubtedly, U.S. air power could blunt an attack on Baghdad. But air power cannot retake Mosul or the Sunni Triangle that Baghdad has lost, or Kirkuk or Kurdistan. That will take boots on the ground and casualties.

And nobody thinks these should be American boots or American casualties. And why should we fight to hold Iraq together? Is that a vital interest to which we should commit American lives in perpetuity?

When did it become so?

No. Bombing cannot put Iraq together again, but it may tear Iraq further apart.

The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria has succeeded in northern Iraq because it has allied with the same militias, Baathists and tribal leaders who worked with Gen. David Petraeus in the Anbar Awakening.

And if we use air power in Sunni provinces that have seceded from Baghdad, we will be killing people who were our partners and are not our enemies. Photos of dead Sunnis, from U.S. air, drone, and missile strikes, could inflame the Sunni world.

Upon one thing Americans do agree: ISIS and al-Qaida are our enemies. But are bombing ISIS and killing Sunnis the way to destroy ISIS? Or does bombing martyrize and heroize ISIS for the Sunni young?

And if destroying ISIS is a strategic imperative, why have we not demanded that the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia cease funneling arms and aid to ISIS in Syria? Why have we not told the Turks to stop permitting jihadists to cross their border into Syria?

Why are we aiding and arming the Free Syrian Army to bring down Bashar Assad, when Assad’s army is the only fighting force standing between ISIS and the conquest of Syria?

If ISIS is our mortal enemy, why have we not persuaded the Turks to seal their border and send their NATO-equipped army into Syria to annihilate ISIS?

Turkey’s Kemal Ataturk ended the old caliphate and put the caliph on the Orient Express to Europe.

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan could be the man who strangled the new caliphate in its crib.

U.S. policy in Syria and Iraq today add up to incoherence.

Iran is consistent. She wants to see the Shia regimes survive in Damascus and Syria, and has put blood and treasure on the line.

The Saudis and Gulf Arabs are consistent, while playing a dangerous game. Seeing the Shia regimes in Damascus and Baghdad as alien and hostile, they are helping extremists to overthrow them.

Only the Americans seem conflicted and confused.

In Iraq we are on the side of the Shia regime fighting ISIS. In Syria we are de facto allies of ISIS fighting to overthrow the Shia regime.

“Take away this pudding,” said Churchill, “it has no theme.”

Washington believes that the fall of Baghdad would be a strategic defeat and disaster. Have we considered what the fall of Damascus would mean? Who rises if Bashar Assad falls?

Who goes to the wall if the al-Nusra Front and ISIS prevail in Syria? Would Americans be welcome in that new Syria?

If we help bring down Assad’s regime and a radical Sunni regime takes its place, like the terrorist-welcoming Taliban of yesterday, would we then have to go in on the ground to oust it?

This is not an academic question. The use of U.S. air power in Iraq could cause ISIS to turn back to its primary target — Damascus.

And there are reports that part of that stockpile of U.S. arms and munitions ISIS captured in Mosul is already being moved across the border into Syria for a fight to the finish there, rather than in Iraq.

This new civil-sectarian-secessionist war in Syria and Iraq looks to last for years. How have we suffered by staying out of it?

Posted in USA, IraqComments Off on Bombing Won’t Save Iraq

Kicking Against the Establishment: It’s Time for Truth in Media

NOVANEWS
Posted by: Sammi Ibrahem, Sr

 

Global Research

Rhetoric coming out of Washington is constantly using and abusing the term “democracy” as a concept to be defended and cheered. But what we see in the US is a far-cry from any real and accountable system of democracy.

In fact, the United States of America couldn’t be farther from being “the land of milk and honey” as it once proclaimed itself to be; its promise of wealth and stability, the oft-referenced yet seldom seen “American dream”, is undeniably buried in the realm of wishful thinking — for the majority of people, that is.

Elections give the illusion of choice while maintaining a status quo that sees the rich get richer and the poor scrambling to redefine their definitions of “rock bottom”. (See Andy Kroll, Billionaires Unchained: America is a Democracy of the Wealthy).

The good news is, the majority can no longer afford (quite literally) to stay complacent in the face of rampant financial exploitation by a ruling minority that knows no bounds to its powerlust.

Global Research doesn’t shy away from exposing corporate exploitation and media manipulation; we confront it head on through in-depth and independent coverage of global events:

“Global Research has moved to the forefront of institutions presenting a hard-hitting, progressive, and intelligent critique of world politics and in particular of American foreign policy. I check it every day just to see who is on there and what they are saying. We need to keep this unique Voice alive and kicking against the Establishment.”

– Francis A. Boyle (click for list of articles)

Professor of International Law

To maintain our complete independence, Global Research does not accept government or corporate funding. It may seem obvious, but how can any organization or individual have the freedom to speak the truth if they are funded by the very agencies actively engaged in the dissemination of disinformation? Our independence matters to us and we know it matters to you, our readers.

Our readers are helping the beacon of truth shine brighter by passing on the information, engaging in research and dialogue, and achieving real and sustainable empowerment.

Therefore, we ask you to come together and show your support by making a donation and/or starting a membership(which includes a free book offer) and ensuring that the message reaches as many people as possible. Please help us in the fight against mainstream media lies, we cannot do it without your support.

Posted in USAComments Off on Kicking Against the Establishment: It’s Time for Truth in Media

Libya Coming Full Circle. When A Deemed “Conspiracy Theory” Becomes Reality

NOVANEWS
Global Research

In the duration of the “revolutionary frenzy” that categorized western media coverage of the Libyan Civil War in 2011, public audiences were captivated with both tales of rebels aspiring for “democracy” and with complimenting stories of unabated brutality by Gaddafi forces.

Without any serious mainstream criticism, an imperialist mythology centered on the interventionist doctrine of the “Responsibility to Protect” was cemented in public consciousness with even usually non-mainstream and “anti-imperialist” figures such as Juan Cole deliberately misrepresenting the situation in Libya. In Cole’s perspective, no reference to armed militants from the start of the conflict or the role of extremism and western premeditation found its way into the narrative and he predicted a simplistic narrative where the overthrow of Gaddafi would lead the region into an era of unity, prosperity and freedom.

Libya Today

How is Libya today? If one denied the existence of hell, they need not look further than Libya to observe a case of hell on Earth. Libya as a functioning, cohesive state has virtually ceased to exist, having been replaced by a myriad of conflicting factions divided on tribal and religious lines. While mainstream media tends to obscure the identity of these factions and their connection to western imperialists, Eric Draitser in his analysis, “Benghazi, the CIA, and the War in Libya” shows the beyond the fractious infighting, both primary factions engaging in direct combat have been beneficiaries of the NATO imperialist powers in their systematic aggression against the Libyan state.

Battling over the strategic commercial area around Benghazi is the Islamist Ansar al-Sharia led by Ahmed Abu Khattala fighting against the former leader of the CIA-backed Libyan National Salvation Front and current renegade Libyan Army General Khalifa Hifter. The conflict is more complex than merely conflagration between these two main parties and is interspersed with competing militias and gangs. As noted by Draitser, the February 17th Marytrs Brigade, seen as one of the most capable militias in the region, has received training by western forces and is seen as a reliable security force, but is recognized by its own members as having anti-American sentiments.

The Islamist Ansar al-Sharia has been implicated in the September 11, 2012 attack on the American consulate in Benghazi with its leader Khattala admitting being present but denying leading the attack. With no end in sight for the war, it appears that the primary gainers in the conflict are the western corporate-financier interests who orchestrated the overthrow of Gaddafi because he was seen an impediment to accomplishing their geopolitical aims.

Now they Admit the Truth.

On April 24th, 2014, Washington’s Blog published a priceless and concise piece titled “Confirmed: U.S. Armed Al Qaeda to Topple Libya’s Gaddaffi” with a very astonishing admission by “top military officers, CIA insiders and think-tankers” confirming the obvious truth that “conspiracy theorists” have been saying since 2011. The US backed Al Qaeda in Libya and that the Benghazi attack was a byproduct of this. Washington’s Blog notes that in 2012, it documented that:

The U.S. supported opposition which overthrew Libya’s Gadaffi was largely comprised of Al Qaeda terrorists.

According to a 2007 report by West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center’s center, the Libyan city of Benghazi was one of Al Qaeda’s main headquarters – and bases for sending Al Qaeda fighters into Iraq – prior to the overthrow of Gaddafi:

The Hindustan Times reported last year:

“There is no question that al Qaeda’s Libyan franchise, Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, is a part of the opposition,” Bruce Riedel, former CIA officer and a leading expert on terrorism, told Hindustan Times.

It has always been Qaddafi’s biggest enemy and its stronghold is Benghazi.

Al Qaeda is now largely in control of Libya. Indeed, Al Qaeda flags were flown over the Benghazi courthouse once Gaddafi was toppled.

What was once deemed conspiracy theory became confirmed reality when the Daily Mail reported as Washington’s Blog subsequently pointed out:

A self-selected group of former top military officers, CIA insiders and think-tankers, declared Tuesday in Washington that a seven-month review of the deadly 2012 terrorist attack has determined that it could have been prevented – if the U.S. hadn’t been helping to arm al-Qaeda militias throughout Libya a year earlier.

‘The United States switched sides in the war on terror with what we did in Libya, knowingly facilitating the provision of weapons to known al-Qaeda militias and figures,’ Clare Lopez, a member of the commission and a former CIA officer, told MailOnline.

She blamed the Obama administration for failing to stop half of a $1 billion United Arab Emirates arms shipment from reaching al-Qaeda-linked militants.

‘Remember, these weapons that came into Benghazi were permitted to enter by our armed forces who were blockading the approaches from air and sea,’ Lopez claimed. ‘They were permitted to come in. … [They] knew these weapons were coming in, and that was allowed..

‘The intelligence community was part of that, the Department of State was part of that, and certainly that means that the top leadership of the United States, our national security leadership, and potentially Congress – if they were briefed on this – also knew about this.’

‘The White House and senior Congressional members,’ the group wrote in an interim report released Tuesday, ‘deliberately and knowingly pursued a policy that provided material support to terrorist organizations in order to topple a ruler [Muammar Gaddafi] who had been working closely with the West actively to suppress al-Qaeda.’

‘Some look at it as treason,’ said Wayne Simmons, a former CIA officer who participated in the commission’s research.

While Wayne Simmons’ characterization of such actions by the globalist, imperialist establishment in the United States as “treason” is correct in the sense that it was a clear violation of not only the Constitution, but the public interest of America, there is a rather disingenuous factor involved when some people, especially on the Neo-Con right, attempt to play the “treason card.”

To perpetuate the false political theater of left-wing vs. right-wing designed to capitalize on myopic divisions, some Neo-Conservatives involved with the same corporate agenda as Obama have taken the time to jettison responsibility of U.S. financing of terrorism in Syria and Libya on “Obama the crypto-Muslim.” This charge is found among the likes of Frank Gaffney who would have you delve into partisan-driven Islamophobia blaming everything on the “liberals”, Obama’s “foreign policy”, and treasonous elements within the US government. This, of-course, is done without insight into how such figures are merely cogs within a bipartisan machine of globalist aggression.

Interestingly, while the Neo-Con right attempts to distance itself from the Libyan war, it was one of the most vocal factions, acting in concert with the Obama administration, in promoting greater US involvement in the war as Tony Cartalucci points out in this article. He notes that, “In an open letter to House Republicans, the Foreign Policy Initiative which consists of Gaffney’s fellow Neo-Conservatives, stated in regards to Libya (emphasis added)”:

We share the concerns of many in Congress about the way in which the Obama administration has conducted and justified this operation. The problem is not that the President has done too much, however, but that he has done too little to achieve the goal of removing Qaddafi from power. The United States should be leading in this effort, not trailing behind our allies. We should be doing more to help the Libyan opposition, which deserves our support. We should not be allowing ourselves to be held hostage to U.N. Security Council resolutions and irresolute allies.

Clearly the Neo-Con agenda has been coming full circle since the first Gulf War in the 1990s. The US “gun-walking” to jihadis in Syria from Libya, noted by the Washington Times and New York Times (albeit with partisan spin and distortion), was actually planned under Bush in 2007 as noted by Seymour Hersh in “The Redirection.” It has continued under Obama, influenced by Council on Foreign Relations figures throughout both administrations from Dick Cheney to Hillary Clinton. Consider the following points from “The Redirection”:

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.

To dispel critics’ notions that this is passive, uncontrollable, and indirect support, consider:

[Saudi Arabia’s] Bandar and other Saudis have assured the White House that “they will keep a very close eye on the religious fundamentalists. Their message to us was ‘We’ve created this movement, and we can control it.’ It’s not that we don’t want the Salafis to throw bombs; it’swho they throw them at—Hezbollah, Moqtada al-Sadr, Iran, and at the Syrians, if they continue to work with Hezbollah and Iran.

Neo-Conservative writer Gary Gambill would ride on this wave of terrorist aggression and pen an article for the Neo-Con “Middle East Forum” titled “Two Cheers for Syrian Islamists.” As noted in the analysis of the piece by Tony Cartalucci titled “Globalist Rag Gives ‘Two Cheers’ for Terrorism”, one can see how terrorism is a useful piece of capital of globalist imperialism that is easy to hide in the sight of inattentive masses with easy ploys of political spin and plausible deniability.

The Syria Connection

Libyan terrorists are invading Syria. They have been doing so since the influx of jihadis began, enabled by outside powers. These are not simply rogue networks operating independently but rather include state-sponsorship, especially of NATO-member Turkey and NATO’s criminal proxy government in Tripoli, Libya. We are told by the media that the regime in Tripoli under the auspice of the National Transitional Council, and populated with puppets like Mustapha Abdul Jalil, is a moderate regime distinct from the “marginal Islamist forces.” However, even in mainstream accounts, one can note that these “official, moderate” groups are involved with funding terrorism themselves as many geopolitical analysts have noted.

Tony Cartalucci notes that, “In November 2011, the Telegraph in their article, “Leading Libyan Islamist met Free Syrian Army opposition group,” would report”:

Abdulhakim Belhadj, head of the Tripoli Military Council and the former leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, “met with Free Syrian Army leaders in Istanbul and on the border with Turkey,” said a military official working with Mr Belhadj. “Mustafa Abdul Jalil (the interim Libyan president) sent him there.”

Another Telegraph article, “Libya’s new rulers offer weapons to Syrian rebels,” :

Syrian rebels held secret talks with Libya’s new authorities on Friday, aiming to secure weapons and money for their insurgency against President Bashar al-Assad’s regime, The Daily Telegraph has learned.

At the meeting, which was held in Istanbul and included Turkish officials, the Syrians requested “assistance” from the Libyan representatives and were offered arms, and potentially volunteers.

“There is something being planned to send weapons and even Libyan fighters to Syria,” said a Libyan source, speaking on condition of anonymity. “There is a military intervention on the way. Within a few weeks you will see.”

Readers would be wise to note the heavy saturation of Al Qaeda terrorists in eastern Libya, particularly in Darna, and whose historical role has been documented by the US’s West Point Combating Terrorism Center. It is inconceivable that these forces would not have played a central role of the uprising. According to a October 2011 Christian Science Monitor, Mustapha Abdul Jalil has given a “nod to Islamist fighters” who fought against Gaddafi by courting Islamist interests and in permitting polygamy, formerly banned under Gaddafi. He was seen as catering to Islamists by establishing Sharia law as the foundation of Libya’s future government; under Gaddafi, Shariah had also played a role with limited, moderate interpretation and in context to Gaddafi’s own political ideology. There are fears are that Islamists, repressed under Gaddafi, would make a forceful resurgence, as they have. The article states:

Gadhafi saw militants as a threat to his authoritarian rule…Islamists are a small minority among Libya’s population of 6 million, but they were by far the largest and most powerful faction among the fighters who battled pro-Gadhafi forces in eight months of civil war. Abdul-Jalil, analysts said, was likely to have given his address an Islamic slant as a nod to those fighters who were united with other factions by the common goal of ousting Gadhafi but now are jockeying to fill the political vacuum left by his ouster.

Furthermore:

“It may not be quite be the country that NATO thought it was fighting for (when Sharia is implemented in Libya),” said David Hartwell, a British-based Libya expert. “But the huge amounts of oil and gas in Libya will make everyone learn how to reconcile themselves with the new Libya.”

And just for the record, I don’t equate every single Libyan fighter on the ground as Islamist extremists and I believe there were individuals who felt disenfranchised and had legitimate grievances. As in any society, you have an opposition and in the case of Libya, a Library of Congress page that concedes meddlesome US support for opposition groups, notes that the opposition is, “Divided ideologically into such groups asBaathists (see Glossary), socialists, monarchists, liberals, and Islamic fundamentalists…” Islamists, nonetheless, were one of the most critical driving forces of the conflict on the ground. Gaddafi also had popular support on the ground, especially in the west and among Black Libyans who Gaddafi had protected. One must not neglect the role of racist elements among the opposition fighters targeting blacks under false accusations of them being “mercenaries” as well as the accomplishment of the Gaddafi regime in bringing Libya from one of the poorest countries in the world to a nation that ranked as “high” in the UNDP’s Human Development Index

Full Circle of Destruction

The globalist agenda wanted Libya out of the equation for its role in opposing the global financial order envisioned by Wall Street, namely in challenging the petrodollar by proposing a “gold dinar” currency for Africa with which to sell oil. This is explained in “Are The Middle East Wars Really About Forcing the World Into Dollars and Private Central Banking?” which notes the role of banking interests in orchestrating global aggression. Not to be missed is the “Wolfowitz Doctrine” proposed in the 1990s upon which Libya was a nation slated for regime change.

In seeking to reorient the Middle East according to its interests, the western powers have, in essence, attempted to alter the very forces of nature and reaped undue consequences. Libya is now a failed-state and a terrorist safe-haven. Regardless of one’s opinion of Gaddafi and his short-comings, no one can seriously argue that Libya is better off today. Innocent people continue to die in order to fulfill the hegemonic ambitions of the western elite. This will continue unless we collectively rise up, boycott, and replace these interests. That is real revolution.

Posted in LibyaComments Off on Libya Coming Full Circle. When A Deemed “Conspiracy Theory” Becomes Reality

The Ukraine Genocide and its Cheerleaders

NOVANEWS
Global Research

As the world’s media circus moves on to Iraq and the international community’s already-waning attention switches from Ukraine to a new series of the ‘US foreign policy disaster’ horror show, the Prime Minister of Ukraine Yatsenyuk publicly announces the Kiev government’s genocidal plans in relation to anti-government militants as well as the entire civilian population of East Ukraine,largely composed of ethnic Russians, who oppose the Neo-Nazi regime in Kiev.

Following the Third Reich’s textbook and without any attempt to conceal it, Prime Yatsenyuk refers to the group they are trying to exterminate as ‘subhuman’. This fascist manifesto is then proudly displayed on Ukraine`s Embassy website in the US. [click image to enlarge]

Around the same time, Ukraine’s Minister of Defence announces plans for ‘filtration camps’, where survivors linked to “separatism” will be detained, and Ukraine’s Land Agency reveals that a Ukrainian LEBENSRAUM plan has been defined, which promises free land to Ukrainian soldiers involved in the genocide directed against ethnic Russian Untermensch.

Hitler would be proud and so was the US State Department Spokesperson Jen Psaki, who ignored AP’s Matt Lee’s concern raised at the State Department’s meeting about the choice of the word ‘subhuman’, instead praising Ukrainian Prime Minister and his leadership as been “consistently in support of a peaceful resolution.” (later the website changed it to inhuman, but the first screenshot was already out there)

The most “effective steps” amongst many taken by the Kiev government ‘in support of a peaceful resolution’ in East Ukraine consisted in the following “killing operations”:

1) THE MARIUPOL KILLINGS – intentional killing of unarmed persons by government agents;

2) ODESSA MASSACRE – carried out “unofficially” or by private groups with the government promoting and turning a blind eye to massacre

3) LUGANSK BOMBINGS – indiscriminate civilian bombing (unlawful under Article 48, Geneva Convention);

4) SLAVYANSK SHELLINGS– indiscriminate civilian killings by shelling (as above);

5) KRAMATORSK SHELLINGS – indiscriminate civilian killings by shelling (as above).

These are but a few amongst many “successful peaceful measures” taken by the Ukrainian “government”, that have officially claimed the lives of 270 civilians (11.06.14), amongst them a 12 year old boy and 6 year old girl. The death toll is quickly rising.

Irrespective of whether you see what’s going on in Ukraine as a civil war, war against a foreign aggressor or anti-terrorist operation, the war crimes of the Ukrainian government (highlighted above in bold) towards East Ukrainian civilians amount to a textbookdefinition of DEMOCIDE or intentional GENOCIDE, carried out by a government during war times. It hasn’t claimed a large proportion of population yet, as it’s only the beginning, but there’s enough evidence that if it’s not stopped it will lead to a large scale disaster.

If you are still in doubt that what is happening is indeed genocide, then please continue reading, as I take you through the eight stages of genocide with concrete evidence for each stage coming from Ukraine and available online. Aside from the criminals, who have ordered and carried out the crimes, there are also individuals and media outlets that have either ignored, facilitated, encouraged, promoted or applauded one or all of the stages of this genocide. I believe that these Cheerleaders are also to blame, though not as much as the perpetrators.

The eight stages of genocide:

Stage 1. CLASSIFICATION – people are divided into ‘us’ vs ‘them’.

a) Ukrainians vs Russians: Extreme Ukrainian Nationalism celebrated on Maidan is the root from which hate and genocidal intentions towards Russians and Ukrainian Russians grew. Obscuring the darker undertones of what is going on, Ukrainians would play a game where everyone would be encouraged to jump to show that they are not Russians: “Hto ne skache, tot moskal” (Who is not jumping is Moskal- a derogatory term for ‘Russian’), later re-enacted in subways and school gatherings. Genocidal intentions were revealed from early on, especially by more extreme groups like Praviy Sector: “Moskali na nozhi!” (Knife the Russians!), but also by nationalist youth:“Hang Russians!” .

Cheerleaders:

ANNE APPLEBAUM (ex-editor of the Economist and member of the editorial board of The Washington Post) with her articleNationalism is exactly what Ukraine needs in which she denigrates industrial East and praises ‘nationalistic patriots’, who are waging war against it, as the only hope for Ukraine’s future.

Less successful, but still widespread attempts at dividing people of Ukraine were:

b) civilised West vs ‘mob’ of the East (‘bidlo‘)

Cheerleaders:

REUTERS: In Eastern Ukraine, Mob Rules

EUROMAIDAN PR: Refugees from Donetsk are rude, machinators and lovers of free passes.

c) Liberal West vs Soviet East

Cheerleaders:

FORBES: Russian Separatists in Ukraine are nostalgic for the Soviet Union

At a later stage, many people will be justifying genocide as either fight against evil Russians or extermination of ‘bidlo’ or struggle against Soviet mentality. All these are mechanisms of denial of the crime.

Stage 2. SYMBOLIZATION – when combined with hatred, symbols are forced upon unwilling members of pariah groups:

East Ukrainians, who rose up against Russophobe post-coup government, were termed ‘separatists’ and once they started taking over governmental buildings (just like Maidaners did), they were re-termed ‘terrorists‘. Most common symbol used is an orange-and-black striped Colorado beetle (left), because it resembles the colors of the St. George ribbon (right) worn by Pro-Russians.

8C05C367-E715-41F2-A8D0-176F2E219362_w748_r1_sBnCqvtiCEAAiH7W

Stage 3. DEHUMANIZATION – one group denies the humanity of the other group.

Members of it are equated with animals, vermin, insects, or diseases, which should be ‘cleansed’ or ‘exterminated.’

a) Colorado bugs to be exterminated as ‘pests/parasites’ of Ukraine

BmqrxFBCAAAKm2uY2r8SIM1lw4

Cheerleaders:

CHANNEL 5 (owned by Poroshenko): ran insecticide ad (covert call for genocide/subliminal message that killing ‘Colorados’ would lead to prosperity of the country) which encourages to kill Colorado Beetles by fumigating them from a canister bearing black and red colours of Praviy Sector’s flag.

Pravyi Sektor (Right Sector) flag. Euromaidan, Kyiv, Ukraine.

RADIO FREE EUROPE/RADIO LIBERTY: What’s orange and black and bugging Ukraine?

Stage 4. ORGANIZATION – special army units or militias are trained and armed:

Ukrainian National Guard

Praviy Sector creates “Donbass” Battalion to fight ‘separatists’ in East Ukraine

Neo-fascists train to fight ‘Ukrainian rebels’ in Azov Battalion

Stage 5. POLARIZATION – hate groups broadcast polarising propaganda:

Cheerleaders:

HROMADSKE TV: US-sponsored genocide propaganda Warriors of Light

Stage 6. PREPARATION – victims are identified and separated out

Leaders of DNR and LNR and all the people, who didn’t escape the towns that the government is shelling (humanitarian corridors have not been established!)

Slavyansk, Lugansk, Semenovka, Kramatorsk…

YAROSH: calls for fight against East Ukraine

Tyahnibok: calls for ‘neutralising terrorists’

YULIA TIMOSHENKO: leaked call, where she says “Screw it, we should take up arms and kill the goddamned katsaps” — derogatory Ukrainian slang for Russians — “along with their leader.” In response to a question, as to what is one to do with 8 million Russians, living in Ukraine, she answered: “Exterminate them all with atomic weapons.”

EUROMAIDAN PR and THOMAS THEINER: Call for genocide and nuclear destruction: “Provide guerrillas with Anti-tank Guided Missiles, Man Portable Air-defense Missiles, mines, explosives…Remove uranium from Ukraine’s nuclear reactors and prepare to disperse it in Russia”

Stage 7. EXTERMINATION – it’s extermination to the killers, because they do not believe their victims to be fully human:Odessa Massacre, Luganks bombing, Mariupol killings, Slavyansk shelling.

Cheerleaders:

Odessa massacre:

Mayor of Odessa VOLODIMYR NEMIROVSKY: “The Odessa anti-terrorist operation is legal”

OLESYA OROBETS, Deputy of SVOBODA party: “It’s a historic day for Ukraine, I’m so happy that these pesky separatists in Odessa are finally liquidated.”

Deputy of Svoboda Party IRYNA FARION with her Facebook post after Odessa Massacre: “Bravo, Odessa. Pearl of the Ukrainian spirit. Let the Devils burn in hell. Bravo.”

Stage 8. DENIAL – the perpetrators deny they committed any crimes:

Calling it anti-terrorist operation or fight against Russian invasion is a way of denying that Ukrainian Army is carrying out genocidal orders. More specific denials are Odessa victims burnt themselves or Lugansk victims bombed themselves.

Cheerleaders:

Ex-mayor of Odessa Edward Gurvits: Odessa massacre was an act of self-defence

Lugansk bombings

KYIV POST: Ukrainian air force didn’t bomb Luhansk

History was written by the winners before the invention of the internet. Now, despite the Ukrainian army trying to prevent media from working, many journalists are revealing the blatant lies of the Ukrainian government and Ukrainian/Western media with regards to the ‘Russian invasion’, such as Mark Franchetti’s observation that most people fighting against Kiev government in the East are civilians of Donbas, and not mercenaries from Russia, bandits, alcoholics or drug addicts. This is the impression I got from watching numerous Youtube videos from the battlefields. The truth will eventually emerge and Ukrainians and anyone, who supports them, will not be able to write their history without contradictory comments on the margins. There are enough people out there, who aware of what’s going on, and someone will write the Perpetrators and Cheerleaders into History as the Criminals that they are.

Just as Byron went to fight against Turks in the Greek War of Independence, there are Russian citizens, who have decided to come to East Ukraine and fight against Ukrainian Army. There is a high chance that some money is coming from Russia to support them. There is also a high chance that the whole ‘Ukrainian civil war’ is just a fight between Ukrainian aristocracies or global elites, or it’s awar for shale gas (http://bit.ly/1lCylAK) or war organised by global financial elites. However, and most importantly, there is a large percentage of people in East Ukraine, who have chosen to come and vote in a referendum, if not for separation from Ukraine, then at least for federalisation. These largely working-class people (richer people do not want to risk their wealth by standing up against Kiev’s government) could not accept the historical narrative offered by Euromaidan, including Bandera, anti-Russian sentiments, heavenly hundreds, denial of second world war victories, etc. These anti-government people should have been listened to, talked to and negotiated with, not totally ignored and eventually bombed and shelled.

Genocide is a total abomination of our species that should be condemned by anyone with any conscience, as soon as one becomes aware of it. I consider Cheerleaders, who have supported, encouraged or applauded any or all of the stages of the Genocide that is now going on in Ukraine, as much an abomination as the crime they cheer for. With the help from its powerful war-mongering allies, Ukraine might build a powerful and rich nation (unlikely), cleansed out from ‘evil’ Russians, but they will never regain what they have irreversibly lost – their HUMANITY. As a half-Ukrainian half-Russian, who grew up in Donbas, the centre of ‘Colorados’ and ‘subhumans’, I’m deeply hurt by those other Ukrainians, who harboured so much hate towards Donbas in their hearts, saddened to see my country take a genocidal path and extremely worried about the fate of all my fellow Donbas citizens, who are or soon will be under a significant threat of being killed. I urge all Ukrainians, who are reading this and have not lost all their humanity yet, to put pressure on their local and Kiev government to stop ‘anti-terrorist operation’ before East Ukraine is drowned in blood.

P.S. If you are aware of any Cheerleaders that I haven’t included, please include them in the comments or send me an email. Thank you.

Minor editing by GR

Posted in UkraineComments Off on The Ukraine Genocide and its Cheerleaders

US-Sponsored Terrorism in Iraq and “Constructive Chaos” in the Middle East

NOVANEWS
Global Research

Iraq is once again front page news. And once again the picture that is presented to us in the Western mainstream media is a mixture of half truths, falsehoods, disinformation and propaganda. The mainstream media will not tell you that the US is supporting both sides in the Iraqi conflict. Washington is overtly supporting the Iraqi Shiite government, while covertly training, arming and funding the Sunni Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Supporting the influx of terrorist brigades in Iraq is an act of aggression. But the mainstream media will tell you that the Obama administration is “concerned” by the actions committed by the terrorists.

The preferred narrative in the U.S. and most Western mainstream media is that the current situation is due to the U.S “withdrawal” which ended in December 2011 (more than 200 U.S. troops and military advisors remained in Iraq). This portrait of events in which the US withdrawal is to blame for the insurgency does not draw any connection between the U.S. invasion of 2003 and the occupation that ensued. It also ignores the death squads trained by U.S advisors in Iraq in the wake of the invasion and which are at the heart of the current turmoil.

As usual, the mainstream media does not want you to understand what’s going on. Its goal is to shape perceptions and opinions by crafting a view of the world which serves powerful interests. For that matter, they will tell you it’s a civil war.

What is unfolding is a process of “constructive chaos”, engineered by the West. The destabilization of Iraq and its fragmentation has been planned long ago and is part of the ”Anglo-American-Israeli ‘military road map’ in the Middle East”, as explained in 2006 in the following article:

“This project, which has been in the planning stages for several years, consists in creating an arc of instability, chaos, and violence extending from Lebanon, Palestine, and Syria to Iraq, the Persian Gulf, Iran, and the borders of NATO-garrisoned Afghanistan.

The ‘New Middle East’ project was introduced publicly by Washington and Tel Aviv with the expectation that Lebanon would be the pressure point for realigning the whole Middle East and thereby unleashing the forces of “constructive chaos.” This “constructive chaos” –which generates conditions of violence and warfare throughout the region– would in turn be used so that the United States, Britain, and Israel could redraw the map of the Middle East in accordance with their geo-strategic needs and objectives. …

The redrawing and partition of the Middle East from the Eastern Mediterranean shores of Lebanon and Syria to Anatolia (Asia Minor), Arabia, the Persian Gulf, and the Iranian Plateau responds to broad economic, strategic and military objectives, which are part of a longstanding Anglo-American and Israeli agenda in the region…

A wider war in the Middle East could result in redrawn borders that are strategically advantageous to Anglo-American interests and Israel…

Attempts at intentionally creating animosity between the different ethno-cultural and religious groups of the Middle East have been systematic. In fact, they are part of a carefully designed covert intelligence agenda.

Even more ominous, many Middle Eastern governments, such as that of Saudi Arabia, are assisting Washington in fomenting divisions between Middle Eastern populations. The ultimate objective is to weaken the resistance movement against foreign occupation through a “divide and conquer strategy” which serves Anglo-American and Israeli interests in the broader region.” (Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Plans for Redrawing the Middle East: The Project for a “New Middle East”, November 2006)

Although the divide and conquer strategy is not new, it still works thanks to the media smoke screens and mirrors.

Engineering a civil war is the best way to divide a country into several territories. It worked in the Balkans and it is well documented that ethnic tensions were used and abused in order to destroy Yugoslavia and divide it into seven separate entities.

Today we are clearly witnessing the balkanization of Iraq with the help of the favorite imperial tool, namely armed militias, referred to as pro-democracy opposition or terrorists depending on the context and the role they have to play in the collective psyche.

Western media and government officials define them not by who they are, but by who they fight against. In Syria they constitute a “legitimate opposition, “freedom fighters” fighting for democracy against a brutal dictatorship”, whereas in Iraq, they are “terrorists fighting a democratically elected U.S.-supported government”:

“Known and documented, Al Qaeda affiliated entities have been used by US-NATO in numerous conflicts as ‘intelligence assets’ since the heyday of the Soviet-Afghan war. In Syria, the Al Nusrah and ISIS rebels are the foot-soldiers of the Western military alliance, which oversees and controls the recruitment and training of paramilitary forces.

The decision was taken by Washington to channel its support (covertly) in favor of a terrorist entity which operates in both Syria and Iraq and which has logistical bases in both countries. The Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham’s Sunni caliphate project coincides with a longstanding US agenda to carve up both Iraq and Syria into three separate territories: A Sunni Islamist Caliphate, an Arab Shia Republic, and a Republic of Kurdistan.

Whereas the (US proxy) government in Baghdad purchases advanced weapons systems from the US including F16 fighter jets from Lockheed Martin, the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham –which is fighting Iraqi government forces– is supported covertly by Western intelligence. The objective is to engineer a civil war in Iraq, in which both sides are controlled indirectly by US-NATO.

The scenario is to arm and equip them, on both sides, finance them with advanced weapons systems and then ‘let them fight’…

Under the banner of a civil war, an undercover war of aggression is being fought which essentially contributes to further destroying an entire country, its institutions, its economy. The undercover operation is part of an intelligence agenda, an engineered process which consists in transforming Iraq into an open territory.

Meanwhile, public opinion is led to believe that what is at stake is confrontation between Shia and Sunni.” (Michel Chossudovsky, The Engineered Destruction and Political Fragmentation of Iraq. Towards the Creation of a US Sponsored Islamist Caliphate, June 14, 2014)

We knew well before the beginning of the war on terror that Saudi Arabia was a major supporter of Islamic terrorism. But being a staunch U.S. ally Saudi Arabia is the exception to the rule proclaimed by George W. Bush after the 9/11 terrorist attacks: ”We will make no distinction between those who committed these acts and those who harbor them.”

The fact of the matter is they always do make a distinction, especially when it comes to Saudi Arabia. But while its support for terrorism is acknowledged by the mainstream media, the latter ignores that the fact that the U.S. is (indirectly) supporting terrorist entities. In addition, mainstream journalists never address the reason why the U.S is not reacting to Saudi support for terrorists. The facts are clear: the US is supporting terrorism through allies like Saudi Arabia and Qatar. If those who shape the discourse in the mainstream media fail to connect the dots, it is only because they don’t want to.

In the Middle East, Saudi Arabia has been serving US interests as well as its own. The US alliance with Saudi Arabia shows the contempt the US actually has for democracy. This alliance alone clearly indicates that the goal of the US invasion of Iraq was not to bring democracy and freedom to Iraqis. For Saudi Arabia, a democratic Iraq would be a nightmare and a threat to its repressive monarchic rule:

“Ever since the overthrow of Saddam’s regime in 2003, the Saudi regime has been emphatically hostile towards Iraq. This has been largely due to its deeply entrenched fear that the success of democracy in Iraq would undoubtedly inspire its own people. Another reason is the deeply rooted hatred – by Saudi Arabia’s extremist Wahhabi Salafi religious establishment – towards the Shia. The Saudi regime also accuses Maliki, of giving Iran a freehand to dramatically intensify its influence in Iraq. The Saudi regime has made no secret that its overriding priority is to severely undermine what it perceives as highly perilous and yet growing Iranian influence.

Even though the Saudi regime vehemently opposed U.S. pull out from Iraq, nevertheless in Dec. 2011, Syria rather than Iraq became Saudi Arabia’s principal target for regime change. The Saudi regime has consistently considered the Syrian regime of Bashar Al Assad, an irreplaceable strategic ally to its primary foe Iran. The Saudis moved swiftly to shore up the armed insurgents by deploying its intelligence services, whose instrumental role in establishing Jabhat Al Nusra JN was highlighted in an intelligence review released in Paris in January 2013. The Saudi regime also used its huge influence and leverage on not only Sunni tribal leaders in western Iraq, but also on Saudi members of AQI, convincing it that its principal battlefield must be Syria and that its ultimate goal should be deposing Bashar Al Assad’s Alawite regime, since its overthrow would break the back-bone of the Iraqi Shia-led government and inevitably loosen Iran’s grip on Iraq.” (Zayd Alisa Resurgence of Al Qaeda in Iraq, Fuelled by Saudi Arabia, March 3, 2014)

From Paul Bremer to John Negroponte

But the most important piece of the Iraqi puzzle is the Washington’s covert support of the terrorists. To better understand the sectarian violence plaguing the country today, we need to understand what the US has done during the occupation. Paul Bremer, author of “My year in Iraq, the Struggle to Build a Future of Hope”, played an important role while he was Civil Governor of Iraq in 2003-2004. Hopeful future for whom, one might ask when looking back at what he has done during that year. Certainly not for the Iraqis:

“When Paul Bremer dissolved the Iraqi National Security and Police Forces, he formed another one from mercenaries and sectarian militias who were backing and supporting the occupation. In reality, the nature of hideous crimes committed by these forces was the major motivation behind the sectarian violence killing of 2006-2007.

According to Geneva Convention Protocols, the occupation represented by Bremer, not only failed its duty to protect the population of the country under occupation, they officially formed militias and armed gangs to help them control the country.

Paul Bremer committed crimes against humanity and an act of cleansing and Genocide in Iraq by targeting thousands of innocent civilians through Interior Minister and Special Commandos Forces.” (Prof Souad N. Al-Azzawi, US Sponsored Commandos Responsible for Abducting, Torturing and Killing Iraqis. The Role of Paul Bremer, January 4, 2014)

In 2004-2005, US Ambassador John Negroponte continued Bremer’s work. With his experience in crushing dissent in Central America with the help of bloodthirsty death squads during the 80′s, Negroponte was “the man for the job” in Iraq:

“US sponsored death squads were recruited in Iraq starting in 2004-2005 in an initiative launched under the helm of the US Ambassador John Negroponte, who was dispatched to Baghdad by the US State Department in June 2004…

Negroponte was the ‘man for the job’. As US Ambassador to Honduras from 1981 to 1985. Negroponte played a key role in supporting and supervising the Nicaraguan Contras based in Honduras as well as overseeing the activities of the Honduran military death squads.

In January 2005, the Pentagon, confirmed that it was considering:

forming hit squads of Kurdish and Shia fighters to target leaders of the Iraqi insurgency [Resistance] in a strategic shift borrowed from the American struggle against left-wing guerrillas in Central America 20 years ago’.

Under the so-called ‘El Salvador option’, Iraqi and American forces would be sent to kill or kidnap insurgency leaders, even in Syria, where some are thought to shelter. …

Hit squads would be controversial and would probably be kept secret.

While the stated objective of the ‘Iraq Salvador Option’ was to ‘take out the insurgency’, in practice the US sponsored terror brigades were involved in routine killings of civilians with a view to fomenting sectarian violence. In turn, the CIA and MI6 were overseeing ‘Al Qaeda in Iraq’ units involved in targeted assassinations directed against the Shiite population. Of significance, the death squads were integrated and advised by undercover US Special Forces.” (Prof Michel Chossudovsky, Terrorism with a “Human Face”: The History of America’s Death Squads, January 04, 2013)

Now we are being told that ISIS has managed to put its hands on US-made sophisticated weapons. Make no mistakes. These weapons did not get there accidentally. The US knew exactly what it was doing when it armed and funded the “opposition” in Libya and Syria. What they did was not stupid. They knew what was going to happen and that is what they wanted. Some in the progressive media talk about blowback, when an intelligence asset goes against its sponsors. Forget about blowback. If that’s what it is, it was a very carefully planned “blowback”.

US Foreign Policy. Failed, Stupid or Diabolical

Some will argue that US foreign policy in the Middle East is a “failure”, that policymakers are “stupid”. It’s not a failure and they’re not stupid. That’s what they want you to think because they think you’re stupid.

What is happening now was planned long ago. The truth is that US foreign policy in the Middle East is diabolical, brutally repressive, criminal and undemocratic. And the only way out of this bloody mess is “a return to the law”:

“There is only a single antidote to the “civil war” that is now breaking Iraq apart – and that is a return to law and a convening of justice. The war launched by government leaders in 2003 against the people of Iraq was not a mistake: it was a crime. And those leaders should be held to account, under law, for their decisions.” (Inder Comar, Iraq: The US Sponsored Sectarian “Civil War” is a “War of Aggression”, The “Supreme International Crime”, June 18, 2014)

SELECTED ARTICLES

The following GR articles provide a detailed assessment of recent developments in Iraq.

We also refer our readers to Global Research’s Iraq Report, which contains an extensive archive of articles of more than a thousand articles.

The Iraq Report (archive of over 700 GR articles and reports, in reverse chronological order (2003-2014)

The Engineered Destruction and Political Fragmentation of Iraq. Towards the Creation of a US Sponsored Islamist Caliphate, Michel Chossudovsky

Plans for Redrawing the Middle East: The Project for a “New Middle East”, Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

Resurgence of Al Qaeda in Iraq, Fuelled by Saudi Arabia, Zayd Alisa

The Truth About US Troops “Sent to Iraq”Tony Cartalucci

Terrorism with a “Human Face”: The History of America’s Death Squads, Michel Chossudovsky

The Iraq ISIS Insurgency and the Anglo-American Battle For Oil, Felicity Arbuthnot

American Imperialism and Non-Conventional Warfare in Iraq: Premeditated Covert Operations and the ISIS Insurgency, Phil Greaves

Iraq: ISIS Terrorists Target Native Assyrian Christians in Nineveh, The Assyrian American Association

ISIS “Made in USA”. Iraq “Geopolitical Arsonists” Seek to Burn Region, ISIS “Made in USA”. Iraq “Geopolitical Arsonists” Seek to Burn Region

The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS): An Instrument of the Western Military Alliance, Michel Chossudovsky

US Sponsored Commandos Responsible for Abducting, Torturing and Killing Iraqis. The Role of Paul Bremer, Prof Souad N. Al-Azzawi

Iraq: The US Sponsored Sectarian “Civil War” is a “War of Aggression”, The “Supreme International Crime”, Inder Comar

Al Qaeda: The Database, Pierre-Henri Bunel

Posted in USA, IraqComments Off on US-Sponsored Terrorism in Iraq and “Constructive Chaos” in the Middle East

The Truth About US Troops “Sent to Iraq”

NOVANEWS
Global Research

Indeed, nearly 300 troops are being prepared to deploy to Iraq, as they would be to any nation on Earth where a US embassy is located, and may possibly require evacuation. It is in no way an “intervention” or a gesture of “assistance” to the government of a destabilized country. However, in Iraq, Western headlines would have readers think otherwise.

The Guardian’s article, Barack Obama sends troops back to Iraq as Isis insurgency worsens,” in title alone leads the general population to believe the third “Iraq War” has begun. The article claims:

The US is urgently deploying several hundred armed troops in and around Iraq and considering sending an additional contingent of special forces soldiers as Baghdad struggles to repel a rampant insurgency.

Upon carefully reading the article, however, it is revealed that these troops are only to aid in the security of the US embassy in Baghdad. Buried 11 paragraphs down, amid suggestions, speculation, and conjecture, is the true nature of the latest deployment:

Obama said in his notification to Congress that the military personnel being sent to Iraq would provide support and security for the American embassy in Baghdad, but was “equipped for combat”.

All troops participating in such missions to protect and possibly evacuate US embassies anywhere on Earth are “equipped for combat.” This hyperbole at best is sensationalism, and at worst, intentional disinformation meant to further undermine the stability of Baghdad’s government, by implying that it both seeks and depends on US military forces for its continued survival.

Image: US troops aren’t going “to Iraq.” They are going to bolster security at the US Embassy in Baghdad. Attempts to portray the routine move as an “intervention” is a ploy to undermine the credibility and sovereignty of the Iraqi government.

It has been previously reported that the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is a creation of the United States and its regional allies, with the CIA itself monitoring, arming, and funding the terrorist organization along the Turkish-Syrian border for the past 3 years. The ISIS’ incursion into northern Iraq was portended by their very public redeployment to eastern Syria in March 2014 where they then prepared for the invasion of Iraq.

Since invading, they have committed themselves to overt, sectarian bloodshed in an attempt to trigger reprisals across Iraq along sectarian lines and create a wider sectarian conflict. The relatively small ISIS force can and will be overwhelmed by Iraqi security forces if the psychological and strategic impact of its blitzkrieg-style tactics can be exposed and blunted. In the meantime, during this closing window of opportunity, the US in particular is struggling to undermine both the sociopolitical stability of Iraq itself, and the credibility of the government in Baghdad. Ironically, to do this, the US is posing as Baghdad’s ally.

America’s “Political Touch of Death”

Image: The US has used insidious propaganda to distance itself from its own proxies in places like Egypt, portraying ElBaradei and Mohammed Morsi as “anti-Western.” Policymakers have admitted the need to do so to prevent anti-American sentiment from undermining the chances of success for their proxies. Following this logic, overtly “supporting” those the West opposes would be an effective way to in fact, undermine them.

Readers should recall during the opening phases of the very much US-engineered, so-called “Arab Spring,” that both the US and Israel intentionally and very publicly offered “support” for the embattled government of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, despite training and funding the very mobs that were set to overthrow his government. The alleged support was a psychological operation (psyop) designed not to help the embattled government, but to undermine it further. Egyptians on all sides of the political divide viewed the United States and Israel with everything from suspicion to outright scorn. By posing as allies of the Mubarak government, the US and Israel were able to politically poison the leadership in Cairo and deny it any support that could counter the Western-sponsored mobs in the streets.

In retrospect, the orchestrated Western-backed nature of the Tunisian, Egyptian, and Libyan unrest is clear. However, as the events played out, especially in the early stages, the corporate-owned Western media committed itself to breathtaking propagandizing. In Egypt, crowds of 50,000 were translated into “crowds of 2 million” through boldfaced lies, tight camera angles and disingenuous propagandists like BBC’s Jon Leyne. In Libya, the initial armed nature of the “rebellion” was omitted and the unrest was portrayed as “peaceful unarmed protests.”

Perhaps most diabolical of all is the manner in which the mainstream media portrayed Egypt’s opposition leader Mohamed ElBaradei. Indeed, ElBaradei was at the very center of the protests, having returned to Egypt a year earlier in February 2010 to assemble his National Front for Change with the help of Egypt’s “youth movements” led by the US State Department trained April 6 Movement and Google’s Wael Ghonim. But we were all told he “just flew in,” and that he was viewed with “suspicion” by the West. We were also told that Hosni Mubarak was still our “chosen man” and reports even went as far as claiming (unsubstantiated claims) that Mubarak was preparing to flee to Tel Aviv, Israel of all places, and that Israel was airlifting in weapons to bolster his faltering regime.

Obviously those “attempts” to save Mubarak’s regime failed, precisely because they were never designed to succeed in the first place. And on the eve of Mubarak’s fall, the US eventually turned a full 180 degrees around from defending him, to demanding he step down.

With amazing “foresight,” the Council on Foreign Relations’ magazine Foreign Affairs reported in March 2010, a year before the so-called “Arab Spring,” the following (emphasis added):

“Further, Egypt’s close relationship with the United States has become a critical and negative factor in Egyptian politics. The opposition has used these ties to delegitimize the regime, while the government has engaged in its own displays of anti-Americanism to insulate itself from such charges. If ElBaradei actually has a reasonable chance of fostering political reform in Egypt, then U.S. policymakers would best serve his cause by not acting strongly. Somewhat paradoxically, ElBaradei’s chilly relationship with the United States as IAEA chief only advances U.S. interests now. “

Fully realizing US or Israeli support for ElBaradei would destroy any chance for the “revolution’s” success, it appears that the cartoonish act of overtly, even oafishly supporting Mubarak in the early stages of the unrest was a deliberate attempt to shift the ire of the Egyptian people toward him, and their suspicions away from the West’s proxy ElBaradei. Similar attempts have since been made to bolster the legitimacy of the Muslim Brotherhood while undermining the military-led government now ruling in Cairo.

Beyond Egypt, such a campaign unfolded in Libya against Muammar Qaddafi, with rumors circulated that Israel was trying to save the embattled regime by hiring mercenaries, and even claims being made that Qaddafi was Jewish. Mirroring the cartoonish propaganda aimed at galvanizing Mubarak’s opposition, attempts to tarnish Qaddafi’s image in the eyes of America’s and Israel’s enemies by feigning support for him was attempted, but ultimately failed. Against Syria, a similar campaign by the US and Israel met with even less success.

Still, the “political touch of death” the US and its regional allies wield is extended out toward any and all in the hopes that it will help undermine and destabilize targeted nations. This most recent attempt to portray Baghdad as a benefactor of possible US assistance seeks to both grant the US plausible deniability in its role of raising ISIS legions in the first place, and undermine the Iran-leaning government of Iraq’s Nouri al-Maliki in the eyes of enemies and allies alike.

Posted in USA, IraqComments Off on The Truth About US Troops “Sent to Iraq”

Who’s the Propagandist: US or RT?

NOVANEWS

 

After Secretary of State Kerry lashed out at Russia’s RT network over its reporting on Ukraine, a senior aide assembled a list of particulars, which have backfired by showing how weak Kerry’s case is and how hypocritical Kerry’s State Department has been

The U.S. State Department, which has been caught promoting a series of false or dubious stories about Ukraine, is trying to give some substance to Secretary of State John Kerry’s counter-complaint that Russia’s RT network is a “propaganda bullhorn” promoting Russian President Vladimir Putin’s “fantasy.”

In a “Dipnote” of April 29, Richard Stengel, under secretary of state for public diplomacy, made some broad-brush criticisms of RT’s content – accusing the network of painting “a dangerous and false picture of Ukraine’s legitimate government” by citing examples of fascism, anti-Semitism and terrorism surrounding the Kiev regime.

Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland.Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland.

Stengel claims he knows the difference between news and propaganda because he spent seven years as managing editor of Time. He defines propaganda as “the deliberate dissemination of information that you know to be false or misleading in order to influence an audience” and asserts: “RT is a distortion machine, not a news organization.”

But Stengel offers no specific citations of the supposedly propagandistic stories done by RT, making it impossible to ascertain the precise wording or context of the RT content that he is criticizing. One basic rule of journalism is “show, don’t tell,” but Stengel apparently didn’t learn that during his seven years in the top echelon of Time magazine.

Nevertheless, Stengel accuses RT of “disinformation” ranging from “assertions that peaceful protesters hired snipers to repeated allegations that Kiev is beset by violence, fascism and anti-Semitism, these are lies falsely presented as news.”

Though it’s impossible to fully assess Stengel’s complaint because he doesn’t specify the offending stories, the first complaint is an apparent reference to the mystery surrounding the identity of snipers who opened fire on protesters and police during the Maidan protests in Kiev on Feb. 20.

The U.S. government, the U.S. press and the Maidan protesters were quick to blame President Viktor Yanukovych although he denied giving an order to fire on the protests and suggested the shootings may have been a provocation. That suspicion of “false-flag” violence – as a way to spur on the coup against Yanukovych – also was expressed by some neutral observers on the ground in Kiev.

Two European Union officials, Estonia’s Foreign Minister Urmas Paet and European Union foreign affairs chief Catherine Ashton, were revealed discussing in a phone call their suspicions that elements of the protesters were responsible for the shootings.

“So there is a stronger and stronger understanding that behind snipers it was not Yanukovych, it was somebody from the new coalition,” Paet told Ashton, as reported by the UK Guardian.

In other words, if Stengel is referring to RT’s reporting about the sniper attacks, his assumption that RT was knowingly lying when it referenced a possible role of the Maidan protesters in the sniper shootings is itself false. Further, Stengel must have known that not all the Maidan protesters were “peaceful.”

Hide the Neo-Nazis

Although the State Department has tried to hide the crucial role of neo-Nazi militias in overthrowing Yanukovych’s elected government, it was well known at the time (and acknowledged by the Maidan protesters themselves) that far-right groups had organized 100-man brigades to carry out the final attacks. There was also widely broadcast news footage of these Maidan protesters hurling Molotov cocktails at police, more than a dozen who died in the clashes.

Is Stengel really unaware of the involvement in the coup by neo-Nazi storm troopers from the Right Sektor and the Svoboda party, which both lionize World War II Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera? Does Stengel really not know about the prevalence of banners honoring Bandera, Nazi insignias at rallies and even the appearance of the Confederate battle flag unfurled at the Kiev City Hall as the universal symbol of white supremacy?

Just because virtually the entire U.S. press corps has joined in the U.S. government’s propagandized version of what happened during and after the violent overthrow of Yanukovych doesn’t mean that RT and other news organizations have to shut their eyes, too.

For instance, the BBC, which is funded by the British government much as RT is funded by the Russian government, had the courage to run a segment on the Maidan’s neo-Nazis, noting that the far-right groups were given four ministries in the new government in recognition of their important contribution.

Most significantly, the new chief of national security, Andriy Parubiy, was one of those neo-Nazis. He founded the Social-National Party of Ukraine in 1991, blending radical Ukrainian nationalism with neo-Nazi symbols. Parubiy also formed a paramilitary spinoff, the Patriots of Ukraine, and defended the awarding of the title, “Hero of Ukraine,” to Bandera, whose paramilitary forces joined with the Nazis in exterminating Poles and Jews during World War II.

During the months of protests aimed at overthrowing Yanukovych, Parubiy became the commandant of “Euromaidan,” the name for the Kiev uprising. Then, in mid-April as the new regime’s national security chief and facing growing resistance in eastern Ukraine, Paubiy warned that he was siccing some of his paramilitary veterans, now incorporated in the National Guard, on the anti-regime protesters. On Twitter, he wrote, “Reserve unit of National Guard formed #Maidan Self-defense volunteers was sent to the front line this morning.”

Some leading neo-Nazis have been brazen in their assertion of Ukrainian racial superiority over other ethnic groups in Ukraine, including the ethnic Russians in the east. Like their hero Bandera, these modern-day storm troopers would prefer an ethnically pure Ukraine.

Though it is true that most of the Maidan protesters were there in support of closer European ties and anger over government corruption, it is also true that the neo-Nazi militias surged to the front of the protests for the final clashes on Feb. 20-22. [See Consortiumnews.com’s Ukraine, Though the US ‘Looking Glass.’”]

And, as for Stengel’s insistence that RT’s reporting that “Kiev is beset by violence” is further proof of RT’s “propaganda,” there’s the inconvenient reality that far-right forces have beenclashing with other Maidan protesters over the past few days. Some of these ultra-nationalists want more rewards for their role in Yanukovych’s ouster and some want a harsher crackdown on the uprising in the ethnic Russian east.

Who’s Playing Terrorist Card?

In his unspecified litany of other purported RT offenses, Stengel also cites “the constant reference to any Ukrainian opposed to a Russian takeover of the country as a ‘terrorist.’ Or the unquestioning repetition of the ludicrous assertion last week that the United States has invested $5 billion in regime change in Ukraine.

“These are not facts, and they are not opinions. They are false claims, and when propaganda poses as news it creates real dangers and gives a green light to violence.”

However, regarding the use of the word “terrorist,” which Stengel finds so offensive, it has actually been applied promiscuously not by RT but by the Kiev regime and the U.S. State Department against the anti-regime protesters in eastern Ukraine though they have not engaged in behavior that is traditionally considered “terrorism.”

The Russian ethnic protesters in the east have engaged in no indiscriminate killing of civilians for political purposes, the classic definition of “terrorism.” Yet, the post-coup regime in Kiev has repeatedly announced plans for an “anti-terrorism” campaign against the east. In other words, Stengel’s “side” is guilty of what he accuses RT of doing.

As for RT’s “ludicrous assertion” about the U.S. investing $5 billion, that is a clear reference to a public speech by Assistant Secretary of State for European Affaris Victoria Nuland to U.S. and Ukrainian business leaders on Dec. 13 in which she told them that “we have invested more than $5 billion” in what was needed for Ukraine to achieve its “European aspirations.”

Nuland also was a leading proponent of “regime change” in Ukraine who personally cheered on the Maidan demonstrators, even passing out cookies. In an intercepted, obscenity-laced phone call with U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt, Nuland said her choice to replace Yanukovych was Arseniy Yatsenyuk, who ended up as Prime Minister after the coup.

If Stengel wants to quibble about whether Nuland’s $5 billion remark was a reference to “regime change” or not – although the European association was a key issue in Yanukovych’s ouster – the under secretary can make his argument. But to ignore the obvious context of Nuland’s $5 billion reference is again either a sign of stunning ignorance or willful deception.

As for Stengel’s office of “public diplomacy,” it is a segment of the State Department that I have personally dealt with since the 1980s during my days covering the Reagan administration’s Central America policies for the Associated Press and Newsweek.

Back then, some of us referred to the “PD” office as “the office of propaganda and disinformation” because of the endless distortions and lies generated in support of U.S.-backed “death squad” regimes in El Salvador and Guatemala and for Ronald Reagan’s beloved Nicaraguan Contra rebels who fairly could be called “terrorist” given their proclivity for slaughtering and raping Nicaraguan civilians and for collaborating with cocaine traffickers to make money on the side.

The Earlier Brave Kerry

Ironically, in those days, a younger version of John Kerry was a U.S. senator who bravely investigated these Reagan-affiliated crimes and faced attacks from the State Department’s public diplomacy operatives.

Part of Kerry’s punishment for being early in his investigation of White House skullduggery in Central America was to be excluded from the Iran-Contra investigation when some of Reagan’s crimes and lies surfaced dramatically in late 1986.

Because Kerry had been ahead of the curve, he was judged “biased” on the issue of Reagan’s guilt and thus passed over for the “select committee” investigation. Only Democratic senators who had been fooled by the lies or were asleep at the switch were deemed “objective” enough for the high-profile inquiry. [For more on the contrast between Kerry’s past and present, see Consortiumnews.com’s What’s the Matter with John Kerry?”]

Another irony of Stengel’s defense of Kerry’s anti-RT outburst is that one of the senior “public diplomacy” operatives on Central America back in the 1980s was a young neocon named Robert Kagan, whose State Department team developed propaganda themes to undercut Kerry and various journalists, like myself, who would not toe the line.

At one point when Kagan realized that I would not play ball with the administration’s propaganda, he informed me that I would have to be “controversialized,” that is become the focus of public attacks from pro-Reagan attack groups and thus have my journalistic career damaged, a process that was subsequently carried out.

The irony in this is that Robert Kagan went on to become a leading light in the neocon movement, a Washington Post columnist, a co-founder of the Project for the New American Century, a star proponent of Iraqi “regime change” – and the husband of Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, the recent cheerleader for “regime change” in Ukraine.

That Stengel, the current master of the State Department’s “public diplomacy” operation, is now offended by what he considers “propaganda” by RT has to be considered one of the purest expressions of hypocrisy in the long history of U.S. government hypocrisy. [For more on this topic, see Consortiumnews.com’s Kerry’s Propaganda War on Russia’s RT.”]

Posted in UkraineComments Off on Who’s the Propagandist: US or RT?

Shoah’s pages

www.shoah.org.uk

KEEP SHOAH UP AND RUNNING