Archive | July 5th, 2016

9/11 Truth: “Never Forget the Lies” About Alleged “Air Defense Failures” on the Morning of 9/11

WAS IRAN INVOLVED IN THE 9/11 ATTACKS? The Court Case Linking Tehran to the 9/11 Attacks

Perhaps the most remarkable thing about 9/11 is that people often ask us to “Never Forget” while at the same time never learning, let alone remembering, anything about the crimes. This is a beautiful example of Orwell’s concept of Doublethink in which citizens covet their own unconsciousness in order to avoid acknowledging uncomfortable facts. One such fact is that we were given a string of false, contradictory official accounts for the failure of the national air defense systems that day and the last one given is the most unbelievable.

The ever-changing accounts for the failure to intercept any of the four hijacked planes began two days after the attacks.

That first account was provided in an official hearing to confirm General Richard Myers as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS). Myers testified that no fighter jets were scrambled to intercept any of the hijacked flights until after the Pentagon was hit. Although Myers did not sound terribly confident in his knowledge, people thought he should have been, considering that more than 48 hours had passed and he had been serving as acting CJCS during the attacks.

A second, contradictory story was given five days later, when the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) provided a partial timeline of the notifications it had received from the Federal Aviation Administration and the responses that followed. The timeline showed that NORAD was notified about the hijacking of Flight 175 at 8:43 am, a full 20 minutes before it impacted the south tower of the WTC. Moreover, F-15 interceptor jets from Otis Air Force Base were said to be airborne by 8:52, having been scrambled in response to the first hijacking.

General Ralph Eberhart, who was commander of NORAD on 9/11, reiterated the timeline in testimony to the U.S. Senate in October 2001 and for two years it stood as the official account. Eberhart added that NORAD was notified about the hijacked Flight 77 coming into Washington at 9:24 am, fourteen minutes before it impacted the Pentagon. He repeatedly told the Senate Armed Services Committee that this was a “documented notification.”[1]

A book released in January 2003 further established this account of the military’s response. The book, called Air War Over America: Sept. 11 Alters Face Of Air Defense Mission, was based on hundreds of interviews with the personnel responsible for conducting the nation’s air defenses that day. It was authored by Leslie Filson, public affairs officer for the 1st Air Force, and had been reviewed for accuracy by all the top brass who were in charge of the air defenses on 9/11.

In May 2003, Eberhart’s subordinates General Larry Arnold and Colonel William Alan Scott gave the third version of the story by presenting a slightly revised version of NORAD’s timeline. They contradicted the timeline for Flight 175, saying that NORAD was not notified of the hijacking until three minutes after that aircraft had crashed into the south tower. This was despite the fact that when asked by a U.S. Senator about “the second hijacked plane somewhere up there,” Eberhart had previously said “Yes, sir. During that time, we were notified.”

Arnold and Scott also revealed for the first time that NORAD was notified about the hijacking of Flight 93 at 9:16 am. This was 47 minutes before that flight allegedly crashed in Pennsylvania, at 10:03 am. Obviously, interceptor jets could have easily reached and escorted Flight 93 given this revised timeline.

Colonel Robert Marr, who was running the response at NORAD’s North East Air Defense Sector (NEADS), repeated several times in an interview with investigators that he recalled monitoring Flight 93 during the time that it was hijacked.

It was not only Marr who remembers monitoring Flight 93 in the NEADS battle cab. NEADS intelligence officer Lt. Col. Mark Stuart, who was standing right next to Marr during the crisis, reported the same thing. Both of them said that they were tracking Flight 93. And many air traffic controllers made clear in their handwritten notes from that day, and their personal statements afterward, that Flight 93 was known as a hijacking long before it was destroyed.

General Arnold clarified in testimony to the Commission that, “It was our intent to intercept United Flight 93. And in fact my own staff, we were orbiting now over Washington, D.C. by this time, and I was personally anxious to see what 93 was going to do, and our intent was to intercept it. But we decided to stay over Washington, D.C., because there was not that urgency. So we elected to remain over D.C. until that aircraft was definitely coming towards us.”

911CUnfortunately, the 9/11 Commission Report came out 14 months later, providing a fourth account, and it contradicted all of the previous accounts and testimony. The Commission’s Report stated that:

NORAD’s “air defenders had nine minutes’ notice on the first hijacked plane, no advance notice on the second, no advance notice on the third, and no advance notice on the fourth.”

That is, the Commission claimed that the military was never notified at all about three of the four hijacked planes until after they had crashed.

In order to explain away the considerable evidence for knowledge about the hijacked planes, the Commission made the ludicrous claim that all the Air Force officers had been either mistaken or lying in previous testimonies. Why any of those the officers would spend years lying, in ways that made the Air Force look incompetent, was never revealed.

The Commission’s air defense team, led by an expert propagandist, inserted some new diversionary claims to reconcile some of the confusion. One was a story about “Phantom Flight 11” that was used to explain why the interceptor jets scrambled in the wrong direction and flew at a fraction of their top speed. This phantom flight was never mentioned in the Filson book, which had been thoroughly reviewed by all Air Force leaders prior to publication.

With regard to United 93, the Commission relied on the report of another hijacking as a means of explaining confusion. This was Delta Airlines Flight 1989, which was reported as hijacked that morning despite the pilot of that aircraft saying that he was not hijacked, according to air traffic controller notes. Delta 1989 landed in Cleveland approximately 20 minutes before United 93 was said to have crashed 200 miles away in Pennsylvania.

The Commission’s new explanation, that everyone who thought they were tracking United 93 was really just tracking Delta 1989, is not believable. Reasons include that Delta 1989 never turned off its transponder, was clearly identified throughout its flight, and never lost contact with controllers.

And as Colonel Scott testified, NORAD was notified of the United 93 hijacking at 9:16 and United 93 didn’t turn off its transponder until 9:40, just a few minutes before Delta 1989 landed in Cleveland. Moreover, writer Leslie Filson noted that General Arnold made clear, in his interview with her, that NORAD was tracking both United 93 and Delta 1989. Since NORAD was aware of both, and both were clearly identified, it could not be that Delta 1989 had been mistaken for United 93 at any time let alone for the 47 minutes that the hijacked United 93 was being tracked.

With certainty, the odds are vanishingly small that the three previous official accounts for the air defense failures represented years-long points of confusion for every single Air Force officer who was involved. Alternatively, that all of these military officers spent years lying to make themselves look bad is a claim beyond unbelievable. It is much more likely that it was the 9/11 Commission that lied when it provided the fourth official account. Yet the people who call for us to “Never Forget” are not likely to ever learn, let alone remember, any of it.


[1] Transcript of Hearing Before the Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate, October 25, 2001, U.S. Government Printing Office

Posted in USAComments Off on 9/11 Truth: “Never Forget the Lies” About Alleged “Air Defense Failures” on the Morning of 9/11

The Jewish Colonization of Palestine

Recalcitrance of the Natives

“It is easy for us who have never been victims of foreign conquest and are still living in our homes to vehemently denounce the violence of evicted Palestinians.” [1]

“Palestine is an occupied land stolen from its native people and time does not make it a property of the thief.” [2]

In 1939, Hitler ordered Poland to be depopulated and colonized by Germans. Poland had a substantial Jewish population. Less than 10 years later, in 1947 and 1948, Zionists—who, like Hitler, believed that Jews were a national collectivity, in addition to being a religious one, and that Jews ought to establish a homeland outside of Europe—ethnically cleansed Palestine, a former Ottoman territory, of a large part of its indigenous Palestinian population. The goal was to establish a Jewish state in Palestine to be colonized by Jewish settlers, mainly from Europe.

The Zionists used terrorist methods to induce the Palestinian population to flee, and refused to allow them to return, turning nearly a million of them into refugees. The property of Palestinians who took flight and were barred from returning was taken over—that is, expropriated without compensation—by Jewish settlers.

In May of 1948, Zionist forces proclaimed the formation of a Jewish state in the Palestinians’ country, a date Palestinians mark as the Nakba, or catastrophe. The Jewish state controlled 78 percent of Palestine. Many of the Palestinians whom Jewish terrorists had forced from their homes lived in refugee camps in the remaining 22 percent of their country. This was made up of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem. In 1967, Zionist forces completed their military conquest of Palestine in toto, imposing military rule on parts of the Palestinians’ country they had failed to conquer in 1948. Since then, Israel has engaged in a process of creeping Judaization of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, building Jewish-only settlements, connecting them by Jewish-only roads, and denying building permits to Palestinians.

There has been much talk of a two-state solution. But what, exactly, are two states a solution to? The proffered answer is that they are a solution to the irreconcilable goals of Zionists, on the one hand, who seek Jewish colonization of all of Palestine, and Palestinians, on the other, who refuse to accept the colonization of their country. The proposed solution, which isn’t a solution at all, but for both parties an unacceptable compromise, is for the Zionists to accept that they can’t have all of Palestine and for the Palestinians to accept they can’t keep all of their country.

If we cast this in terms of the German conquest of Poland, we can see that the compromise entailed in the two-state proposal is completely unacceptable. Imagine that in 1939 the international community had called for Germany and the Poles to accept a two-state “solution” by which Germany colonized part of Poland, and the Poles kept another part—a fraction—of their own country. No one would have accepted this, neither the Germans, who were bent on the military conquest of Poland to establish lebensraum—and had the military muscle to achieve their goal—nor the Poles who, quite rightly, would have rejected the proposal outright, as would anyone else in the same circumstances, except under extreme duress, or unless they shared the politics of the invader as, say Petain shared the Nazi’s virulent antipathy to communism and sympathy for the ancient regime, and so accepted a two-state solution for France.

The first two-state proposal was implied in the Balfour Declaration of November 2, 1917, in which one country, Britain, pledged that another country, the Palestinians’, would provide the territory for a Jewish homeland. That declaration, which opened the doors to Jewish immigration to Palestine, sparked decades of conflict between Jewish immigrants to Palestine, the Palestinians and the British colonial authorities, culminating in a major Palestinian insurrection from 1936 to 1939.

The first formal explicit two-state proposal was UN General Assembly Resolution 181 of November 29, 1947, formulated by the United Nations after the British threw the mess they had created into the laps of the new world body. The resolution did nothing to sort out the mess. It called for a Jewish state to be carved out of 56 percent of the Palestinians’ country, and for the Palestinians to content themselves with the minority share of their territory. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who lived in the territory that would come under the jurisdiction of the Jewish state would be forced to live under Jewish rule in their own country. The Zionists were disappointed, because they wanted all of Palestine, but went along anyway because they were being offered more than they had. The Palestinians, not surprisingly, rejected the proposal outright, which, anyone else in their place also would have done. This was hardly an auspicious beginning for a proposal that has since been dubbed a “solution.” How could it be a solution, when a major party to the proposed arrangement rejected it from the very beginning, and for obvious, and entirely justifiable, reasons?

The two-state proposal, then, (not a solution—the term solution is a deception to suggest the scheme is workable) was a bad scheme from the very beginning, and has become significantly worse since. With Zionist forces conquering even more of the Palestinians’ country than Resolution 181 foresaw for a Jewish state, two-state exponents now envisioned a Jewish state in the 78 percent of Palestine that Israel controlled, following the armistice which brought the open hostilities of the Arab-Israeli war to a halt.

In other words, the armistice line, rather than the frontiers envisioned by the UN, would now form the boundaries of a Jewish state. This, of course, was favorable to the Zionists, who would have a state even larger than the one they were to receive under Resolution 181. But if Palestinians thought that relinquishing 56 percent of their country to Jewish colonizers was unacceptable, how could they possibly be expected to think that ceding 78 percent was acceptable? Poles would hardly think that ceding one percent of their territory to Germany would have been tolerable, let alone 57 percent. The idea that anyone would think they would accept the loss of 78 percent of their country to a colonizing invader would be considered an insult.

It gets worse. Since its 1967 military conquest of the remainder of the Palestinians’ country, Israel has built Jewish settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, connecting them by a reticulation of Jewish-only roads. Under the two-state proposal, Israel is expected to insist on including these Jewish “facts on the ground” in any negotiated arrangement, so that whatever state the Palestinians would be allowed to have, would be located on territory making up only a small fraction of their country, and the territory would be non-contiguous, divided by Jewish settlements, and criss-crossed by Jewish-only roads. Can proponents of the two-state proposal sincerely believe their scheme has the merits of pragmatism and achievability? It wasn’t pragmatic and achievable in its implicit form in 1917 under the Balfour Declaration, nor in 1947 in its explicit form in Resolution 181. What, then, makes two-state proponents think that their proposal is more pragmatic and achievable today, now that it asks Palestinians to accept an even smaller minority share of their country than the UN proposal would have given them?

The Palestinians have refused to capitulate to the colonization of their country. They will not to live on their knees. They are, accordingly, unremittingly censured by people who have never been colonized, and, to the contrary, are citizens of countries with histories of colonization, which either promised Palestine to the Jews in the first place, which they had no right to do, or participated in dividing up the Middle East into Mandates (thinly disguised colonial possessions) without the slightest regard for the wishes of the natives, or which today furnish the colonizers with the arms and diplomatic backing they require to carry out their project.

The major advocate of the two-state proposal, the Diplomatic Quartet, consisting of the United Nations, the United States, the European Union, and Russia, recently issued a report which takes the Palestinians to task for using violence to resist the Jewish colonization of the remaining parts of their country which Israel hasn’t annexed de jure. The Quartet accepts the violence Israel uses and has used to fit its yoke on the Palestinians, but condemns the violence of the Palestinians to throw off the yoke. The political violence of Nazi Germany in conquering Poland in order to colonize it is considered deplorable, and the Polish resistance to German military occupation is seen as heroic and praiseworthy, but the political violence of Zionist forces in conquering Palestine in order to colonize it is accepted, while the Palestinian resistance to Israeli military occupation is labelled as terrorism.

On July 1, two Jewish settlers were shot and killed, presumably by Palestinians aggrieved at the creeping Judaization of the West Bank. The settlers were attacked near Al-Khalil (also known by its Hebrew name, Hebron.) [3] This is territory Israel conquered in 1967, and has occupied since. International law prohibits colonization of occupied territory, and the slain settlers lived on the territory illegally. Had Germany colonized Poland, the killing of the Jewish settlers near Al-Khalil would have been tantamount to Polish insurgents (who the Germans would label terrorists) killing German settlers in their country.

But we can go further. Jews who live on territory conquered from the Palestinians prior to 1967 have settled on land from which Palestinians have been displaced by violence. If it would have been legitimate for Polish resistance fighters to attack German settlers on Polish territory, and is legitimate for Palestinian resistance fighters to attack settlers on Palestinian territory conquered since 1967, it is also legitimate for Palestinian resistance fighters to attack settlers on Palestinian territory conquered prior to 1967. The division of the conquest of Palestine along the armistice line of the Arab-Israeli War, marking territory on one side as legitimately conquered, and territory on the other as illegitimately occupied, is completely arbitrary. Zionists have no legitimate claim to any part of the Palestinians’ country, not the territory conquered before 1967, and not the territory conquered after; not up to the armistice line, and not beyond it.

In retaliation for the killing of the settlers, the occupation has locked down Al-Khalil and its surrounding area, and has ordered more occupation troops into the West Bank. [4]

On the same day, the Quartet identified incorrectly that continued Palestinian violence (i.e., resistance) and Palestinian attacks on civilians (i.e., settlers, but not Israeli attacks on Palestinians) are among the major threats to achieving the Quartet’s favored two-state arrangement. [5] To the contrary, the major threat to achieving the two-state scheme is immanent in the scheme itself; the proposal is, for reasons already stated, completely impractical and unachievable, having arrived stillborn in the world in 1947, and has shown no signs of life in all the decades since despite simulated efforts to breathe life into the corpse.

Complaints were also made by the Quartet that Palestinians who use violence to resist occupation and colonization of their country are depicted as heroes in the Palestinian media and on social media, that streets, squares and schools have been named after them, and that Palestinian leaders have not condemned them. In other words, Palestinians must not recognize efforts to liberate their country as legitimate and praiseworthy, nor bestow the mantle of hero on fighters for national liberation. Instead, Palestinian insurgents are to be demonized as terrorists.

The report correctly identifies the causes of Palestinian political violence. These include the building of new Jewish settlements, the expansion of existing ones, the construction of Jewish-only roads and the denial of building permits to Palestinians; in other words, colonization. But it does not label colonization as the cause of Palestinian violence. Instead, it presents Jewish colonization and the recalcitrance of the natives as two independent phenomena, the “bad” behavior of both parties. We’re to believe that if only both parties would stop behaving badly, the “solution” of two states could be brought to fruition.

The boldness of the Zionist land grab in the West Bank would be staggering, were it not for the fact that Israel’s audacity in expanding its territory is well established. Area C comprises 60 percent of the West Bank. It is intended to make up the bulk of land for a future Palestinian state under the two-state proposal, yet Israel has seized over 70 percent of the area and has designated it as solely for Jewish use. The remaining 30 percent is effectively off-limits to Palestinians, since it requires building permits which Israeli military authorities almost never grant. [6]

There are 570,000 Jewish settlers living in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, 370,000 in the former and 200,000 in the latter. Over 80,000 settlers live in isolated settlements deep inside the West Bank. The number of settlers in the West Bank and East Jerusalem has doubled since 1993, when the process of building a Palestinian state in a very small part of the Palestinians’ country was supposed to have begun in earnest. [7]

The Quartet report notes that Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank “raises legitimate questions about Israel’s long-term intentions,” and that these questions are buttressed “by the statements of some government ministers to the effect that the establishment of a Palestinian state will never be allowed.” It also refers to the current situation as “a one-state reality of perpetual occupation and conflict.” [8]

It’s difficult to deny that the Quartet is colluding in the Zionist project of Judaizing all of Palestine.

First, its demand that Palestinians abandon all resistance amounts to a call for Palestinian capitulation. The only force which has ever successfully opposed colonialism is the recalcitrance of the natives, and people have the right to resist the colonization of their country and to fight for its liberation. To deny them that right would be to accept colonialism as legitimate.

Second, while the Quartet identifies settlement activity as the cause of Palestinian violence, it doesn’t label it as a cause, and treats the cause (colonization) and effect (Palestinian resistance) as equal. Hence, Israel is called upon to stop settlement activity and the Palestinians are called upon to abandon resistance to it. But if settlement activity is wrong, and should cease, how can resistance to it also be wrong? Saeb Erekat, the PLO secretary general, quite rightly complained that the report tries to “equalize the responsibilities between a people under occupation and a foreign military occupier.” [9] We might also ask, if settlement activity is wrong, shouldn’t it not only be brought to an end, but reversed and undone? The Quartet didn’t call upon Israel to dismantle its settlements or end its military occupation. And the key members of the Quartet haven’t issued a UN Security Council resolution ordering Israel to undertake these actions, though, in principle, a resolution to this effect could be easily arranged were officials in Washington, London, Paris and Brussels so motivated.

Third, on the very same day Israel began meting out collective punishment to Palestinian residents of Al-Khalil for the crime of resistance, the New York Times reminded us who Israel’s principal arms supplier and military patron is. According to the newspaper, Washington has signalled that it is prepared to “substantially sweeten” a 10-year military aid package for Israel, already valued at $30 billion. The new deal would include a pledge to fund missile defense systems in Israel. This would further weaken the pressure Palestinians can bring to bear on Israel through rocket attacks, ensuring that Israel has even less incentive to discontinue its creeping Judaization of the West Bank and East Jerusalem and colonization of the rest of the Palestinian’s country. [10]

The White House wants the Israelis to use the aid to buy exclusively from US weapons providers, rather than spending some of it on Israeli arms manufacturers. Since 1980, “Israel has been permitted to spend about a quarter of the military aid it receives outside the United States.” It has used this provision to subsidize the development of a domestic arms industry, which is now one of the top 10 arms exporters in the world, competing with US arms makers. No other recipient of US military aid is permitted to make arms purchases outside the United States. [11]

US military aid is a mechanism for the upward redistribution of wealth from ordinary US citizens, who generate the bulk of tax revenue, to the high-level executives and shareholders of major US weapons manufacturers. Israel uses this transfer of wealth from Joe and Jane Average American to buy US arms to enforce and expand its colonization of the Palestinians’ country.

Washington, then, is completely complicit in the Jewish colonization of Palestine. Its complicity is evidenced in its expropriating part of the emoluments of US citizens to furnish Israel with the means of enforcing its oppression of the Palestinians, in its unquestioning diplomatic support of Tel Aviv, and in its refusal to use its economic, diplomatic and political leverage to facilitate Palestinian efforts to liberate their country from the Zionist yoke. Washington’s formal commitment to the two-state proposal is a ruse, a delaying tactic under the cover of which Israel can carry its modern-day colonization scheme through to its logical conclusion, namely, the total Judaization of the Palestinians’ country.

As for the two-state solution, well, it is not a solution at all. It is, to the contrary, the very problem it deceptively promises to resolve. The problem—the root cause of decades of violence in Palestine since the Balfour Declaration was promulgated in 1917, is the idea that an alien state can be implanted in the Palestinians’ country, whether as a single state encompassing Palestine in its entirety from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River, or alongside a separate Palestinian state constituted on only a fraction of the Palestinians’ land. The two-state “solution”, then, is only a particular form of the problem, namely a settler state enveloping some part—and in all cases, two-state proposals have called for it to envelop the major part—of the Palestinians’ country. The solution to the problem is not two states, but a single, secular, democratic state, in which all citizens, Jews, Muslims, and Christians, are equal, and to which all Palestinian refugees are free to return.


1. John Glubb. Forward to George Hajjar, Leila Khaled: The Autobiography of a Revolutionary. Hodder and Stoughton, 1973.

2. Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah. Quoted in “We are required to stay firm,” Syria Times, July 2, 2016.

3. Diaa Hadis and Somini Sengupta, “Israel imposes restrictions on Palestinians in West Bank after attacks,” The New York Times, July 1, 2016.

4. Hadis and Sengupta.

5. “Diplomatic Quarter release report on advancing two-state solution to Israel-Palestine conflict,” UN News Centre, July 1, 2016.

6. Barak Ravid, “Quartet releases report on impasse in Israeli-Palestinian peace: ‘Two-state solution in danger,” Haaretz, July 1, 2016.

7. Ravid.

8. Hadis and Sengupta.

9. Hadis and Sengupta.

10. Julie Hirschfeld Davis, “U.S. offers to increase military aid to Israel,” The New York Times, July 1, 2016.

11. Hirschfeld Davis.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on The Jewish Colonization of Palestine

Terror Attacks Shake US-Backed Baghdad Regime

Gates visited Baghdad to quell US soldiers mutiny in Anbar, US imminent attack on Ramadi soon

Multiple car-bomb explosions killed some 125 and injured 150 in Baghdad Saturday. Online media sites linked to Islamic State in Iraq and Syria claimed responsibility for the attacks, claiming they were directed against Shi’ites, regarded as apostates by the reactionary Sunni fundamentalist group.

The bombing, the latest in a string of major terror attacks, struck in the middle class neighborhood of Karrada, home to Shi’ites, Sunnis and many others. The bombs detonated just after midnight local time, when the streets were crowded with families breaking their daytime Ramadan fast. At least 25 of the dead were children.

The horrific atrocity comes on the heels of similar terrorist attacks in Istanbul, Bangladesh and Kabul, and an earlier attack in Baghdad by a knife-wielding assailant.

In a statement Sunday, the Obama administration vowed that the attacks “will only strengthen US resolve to support Iraqi security forces.”

“The United States strongly condemns ISIS’s heinous terrorist attacks in Baghdad,” a US National Security Council statement said. The NSC said that the administration would “intensify our efforts to root out ISIS’s terrorist network and leaders.”

The attack comes amid a general escalation of military operations against ISIS in Iraq, encompassing both Iraqi forces and the renewed American military intervention, launched by the Obama administration in the summer of 2014. Obama sent in US forces, three years after they were withdrawn, in response to the threatened destabilization of the US-backed government in Baghdad by the seizure of large areas of western and northern Iraq by Sunni insurgents.

Fresh from proclamations of victory over ISIS and “liberation” in Fallujah, the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al Abadi is preparing for another offensive, against the northern city of Mosul, which is projected to last for months and displace at least 500,000 people. The bombing of Baghdad neighborhoods, just days after Abadi’s victory tour through Fallujah, is a humiliating blow to a government already in political turmoil.

Abadi visited the Karrada neighborhood on Sunday morning in a public display of sympathy that aroused anger from the bereaved population. Crowds gathered to denounce the prime minister as a “thief” and a “dog,” and security forces had to escort him from the area.

Sunday’s bombing is only the latest manifestation of the growing breakdown of the neocolonial government installed in power in Baghdad by the 2003 US invasion. The centralized nation-state structure of Iraq is a hollow shell, with most of the country controlled by ethnically-rooted factions. The sectarian tensions inflamed and manipulated by Washington for years are engulfing Iraq in a deepening civil war that threatens the very existence of the US-backed regime.

The intensification of the sectarian conflicts are fueling regional power struggles and threatening wider war in the Middle East. Shia militiamen with ties to the Iranian government have come into conflict with Iraqi security forces during the Fallujah campaign, prompting demands from Sunni leaders that all Shia formations be excluded from the Mosul offensive. Saudi representatives denounced Iran last week for “destabilizing the Middle East,” citing Tehran’s backing for Shi’ite militias accused of atrocities, prompting denunciations from Baghdad, which claimed interference by Riyadh in Iraqi affairs.

Since 2014, two years of renewed US war in Iraq, waged under the fraudulent banner of the “war on terrorism” and “war against ISIS,” have only deepened the sectarian chaos. Baghdad itself is currently under military-police lockdown, a measure taken as much out of fear of the population as of terror attacks.

The Abadi government faces a spiraling political crisis. The government’s assault on Fallujah has inflamed Sunni-Shia tensions amid reports of massacres by sectarian militias on both sides, and Abadi’s political reforms, aimed at tamping down sectarian divisions within the Baghdad government, have been blocked by political opponents in Iraq’s judiciary. The Iraqi prime minister was met with jeers and stone throwing during a visit to the bombing site on Sunday.

Washington is preparing to prop up its client in Baghdad and reassert its dominance over the country with further deployments of US troops. American General Sean MacFarland said last week that he will deploy at least 400 additional troops in Iraq this fall, with or without presidential approval. The Pentagon is pressuring the Obama administration to authorize still more deployments before the end of 2016.

US military forces are being committed to an open-ended and continuously growing war in Iraq. American troop levels in Iraq are already well over the official “cap” avowed by the White House, with the officially acknowledged total at well over 5,000. Thousands of American soldiers and Marines, armed with heavy weaponry including artillery, tanks and Apache helicopters, are laying the framework for large-scale ground war in Iraq.

The Obama administration and Democratic Party establishment are, for political reasons, inclined to delay and downplay the escalation in Iraq until after the November elections, in an effort to disassociate themselves from wars that are hated by broad sections of the US population. At the same time, they are authorizing the Pentagon to create conditions in which further escalations in Iraq, Syria, and globally can be carried out next year, once the political hurdle of the election has passed.

Posted in South AsiaComments Off on Terror Attacks Shake US-Backed Baghdad Regime

Genesis of Current Mass Shootings, Blasts and Suicide Bombings


They’re coming in rapid fashion – in late June/early July alone:

  • Istanbul blasts inflicting mass casualties;
  • Dhaka, Bangladesh shootings and hostage takings;
  • slaughter in Baghdad, killing over 200 and wounding hundreds more – the latest of numerous violent incidents since GW Bush’s 2003 naked aggression; and
  • on America’s Independence Day, an apparent suicide bombing meters from its Jeddah, Saudi Arabia consulate, followed by multiple blasts rocking the area.

Whether these and similar attacks are terrorism, false flags, lone wolf incidents or something else requires understanding how they began in the first place.

In his memoirs, titled “From the Shadows,” former CIA director/defense secretary Robert Gates said US intelligence operatives began aiding Mujahadeen fighters in Afghanistan six months before Soviet Russia invaded.

Former Carter administration national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski explained, saying Jimmy Carter, on Independence Day eve (July 3, 1979), “signed the the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul.”

And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Mujahadeen support led to today’s Taliban, Al Qaeda, the Libya Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), ISIS, Jabhat al Nusra, Jaysh al-Islam, Ahrar ash-Sham, Boko Haram, and other jihadist groups – US created and sponsored or offshoots from them.

Bipartisan US imperial policy bears full responsibility for unleashing a scourge of state-sponsored terrorism in the Middle East, Central Asia, Africa, Europe and America.

Brzezinski was unapologetic, asking “(w)hat is more important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Muslims or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?”

He failed to explain America needs enemies to advance his imperium. Communism was its bogeyman earlier, public enemy number one until Soviet Russia’s 1991 dissolution.

Now it’s radical Muslims, Islam vilified in the process – directly or by implication, America raping and destroying one Islamic country after another.

Muslims most often are used as convenient US or other Western state-sponsored false flag attack patsies.

Yet as James Petras explains, “(o)ver the past fifty plus years, over 125 mass shootings/massacres have occurred within the United States but not one perpetrator has been identified as a trained member of an international Islamist terrorist organization.”

In contrast, America “brutalized and, directly or indirectly, massacred millions of Muslim civilians, citizens of once-sovereign nations, throughout the Middle East, South Asia, and North Africa,” – unprecedented lawlessness continuing unabated, millions more lives at risk.

State-sponsored terror threatens world peace, America its lead perpetrator, waging war on humanity at home and abroad. Its rage for dominance created societies unfit to live in, imperiling life on earth.

Imperial madness threatens everyone, endless wars and headline-making violent incidents reminders of what’s at stake.


Posted in South AsiaComments Off on Genesis of Current Mass Shootings, Blasts and Suicide Bombings

Greece: Revolt Betrayed


“I call you to vote as sovereign and proud, just as the history of Greeks commands. I am engaging myself to respect the democratic choice of the people, whatever it will be.” —Alexis Tsipras on TV, announcing the referendum, 26.6.2015

A year ago more than 62% of the Greek people voted in the referendum held on the 5th of July of 2015 to reject the policies imposed on Greece since 2010 by an alliance of world finance and the German government, aided and abetted by other European elites and implemented through European governments, the EU and the IMF.

Voting the way they did, Greeks gave their government an unambiguous mandate to resist, surprising friends and foes alike, especially through the large percentage of their No vote, as they have done many times in their long history.

Nobody could predict – and nobody did predict – this result, either in Greece or outside its borders. Greeks voted the way they did at a time when the European Central Bank had already begun to carry out its threats, closing down the country’s banking system.

The signal from the European establishment and the bankers behind it was clear. Today we shut down your banks; tomorrow we will shut down your country, if you vote No.

All voters felt the seriousness of their decision, which would most probably put them on a collision course with some of the most powerful forces on Earth.

Greeks voted also No in spite (in some cases even because) of the fact that nearly all the media and the political and financial establishment of the country did everything possible to frighten them. All previous prime ministers, the leadership of the Church, respected retired generals, all the big names in the economy warned Greeks of the consequences they would suffer if they voted No and urged them to vote Yes. (We have grounds to assume that if all those pressures had not been applied, the result of the referendum would have been 80% or 90% for No).

Even SYRIZA did not do any serious campaigning for the No vote! On Monday 29th June supporters of the Yes vote held a rally of about 20,000 people in Constitution Square, with the slogan “We are staying in Europe!” The Deputy Prime Minister Yannis Dragasakis went live on Greek state TV on the evening of the same day, just three days after the announcement of the referendum, to say that differences with the creditors were not after all so tragic, so that perhaps there was room for reconciliation and even a possibility of canceling the referendum. He added that whatever happens, Tsipras had already accomplished his mission and won his place in Greek history, thus opening the way for an “honorable retirement” of the Prime Minister! (The same person, Dragasakis, one day after the final agreement with the creditors, on the 13th of July, went on record to thank the US administration for its great contribution to the … capitulation!).

Perhaps Tsipras’ advisors did not like this interview. Perhaps, with their eye on the public opinion data, they were beginning to fear that Yes was heading for a huge victory, which would be interpreted as their defeat and lead to their eviction from power. Anyway, Tsipras intervened for a second time on Tuesday 30th June, urging Greeks to vote No.

Then something happened. Between Tuesday and Friday most Greeks made decision, in a way that no pollster or politician or analyst could have predicted. It was a question of logic and of hope. They knew they had little to expect from the  “creditors” other than more disasters. The experience of five years had given ample proof of this. Why not try the other way, as their government was proposing?

But those logical thoughts would not be enough in themselves to make Greeks disregard the thinly veiled threat from such powerful enemies to destroy their country, as they have done so many times in the past.  Greeks understood that very serious risks were involved.

It was at this point that the fundamental mechanism came into action that leads to revolts in History, whether violent or peaceful.

The terrible dilemma they were facing activated the deeper strata of the individual and collective subconscious. Dignity won out over fear.

After all, Greece has always been intrinsically linked, as a notion and as a project, to resistance against foreign invaders, and also to the notions  of human freedom, citizenship and democracy. Those notions were born in Greece, for the first time in human history. They made possible the victory of the ancient Greek cities over the overwhelming force of the despotic empire of ancient times and it was this battle that gave birth to the very idea of Europe.

In  modern times, to give just one example, Greeks, along with the British, were one of the very few nations that resisted, in 1940-41, the rising totalitarianism of that era, providing the Soviets with the precious time and room for maneuver that were required for them finally to vanquish the monster.

As the referendum proved, the deepest characteristics of Greek identity had not died out, as some people believed. They remained in the nucleus of the identity and they were awakened when people needed them.

Unfortunately this is not the only near-permanent pattern in Greek history. Another one is betrayal, time and time again, by leaders: the difficulty of this nation acquiring a leadership commensurate with its heroism. Dionysios Solomos – Greek national poet and author of the Hymn to Freedom (also known as Dithyrambis to Liberty), the poem narrating the Greek Revolution of 1821, which became the national anthem of Greece – epitomized it in a historic phrase addressed to the inhabitants of the Ionian Islands (Letter to the Eptanisians): “My beloved people, easy believers, always betrayed”. Does this perhaps apply not only for Greeks but is a rather typical  fate for utopians, idealists, freedom lovers?

On Friday, July 3rd, hundreds of thousands of Athenians, perhaps more, converged on Constitution Square in one of the biggest gatherings in the history of the country to proclaim once again their “No” to the Empire of finance ruling and destroying their country.

On the evening of Sunday, July 5th the result of the verdict was there for all to see. The government, without understanding or suspecting it, or being willing to do it, had awoken the gods of History. As the light of Apollo once more broke over this country, it revealed both the grandeur of the ordinary people who always make human history and the meagreness of their supposed leaders.

There was no one in the government to receive the message. There was no one prepared or willing to launch the battle to which they themselves had called the people of Greece. Terrified by their own decisions and actions, never having prepared for something else other than a compromise permitting them to stay in power, very probably controlled and/or manipulated, one or the other way, by the “Masters of the Universe”, they begun to search for ways to “capitulate in dignity”, just hours after the voting had finished.

During the night Tsipras fired Varoufakis, who would have had great difficulties signing the capitulation. On Monday morning he called together the leaders of all the parties to a meeting under the President of the Republic. Those leaders, insignificant persons in any case, and even more so after being rejected just the previous day by the overwhelming majority of the people, spent many hours working on a communique that would reinterpret the verdict of the referendum and explain that Greeks had given them the mandate not to open a rift with the creditors and not to leave “Europe”. It took some more days, until the 13th of July, for Tsipras to sign the final capitulation – and his own, moral before anything else, death sentence.

The sudden U-turn of the government, as soon as the vote was over, dealt a devastating blow to the morale and the psychological state of the Greek population, a blow much worse than a military defeat. It is normal to be defeated by a  superior enemy. It is not normal to be called to battle by your chief, only for him to begin explaining the advantages of capitulation some days later. The world disappears from under one’s feet. Greek society was suddenly emotionally and intellectually devastated, unable to speak or act in any way. Many people even fell ill.

One year later, Greeks are still suffering from this moral blow and this defeat and also from the terrible consequences it is now beginning to have on their lives and on their country, which is gradually being transformed into a kind of financial Dachau.

According to the most recent polls, the dominant feelings among Greeks are now

  • anger, 57.3%
  • shame, 53.8%
  • fear, 40.9%
  • hope, 15%
  • pride, 3.5%
  • certainty, 3.1%

Was this the intended result or the outcome of a strange combination of different factors? We cannot give any certain answer to this question.  But it is sure that neither Greek nor European history ended on July 13th,  The British referendum is  the latest demonstration of that).   It will continue and it may well assume more violent and dangerous forms, with the geopolitical factor also intervening in the equation, as the terror attacks and the refugee crisis of 2015 have already indicated.

Posted in GreeceComments Off on Greece: Revolt Betrayed

“Things get Worse for Hillary: WikiLeaks Releases 1,258 Hillary Clinton Iraq War Emails

Image result for CLINTON CARTOON

It’s been a bad week for Hillary Clinton… and it’s about to get a whole lot worse, courtesy of WikiLeaks.

Later this week, the British Chilcot report on the Iraq war will finally be published, after an exhaustive  seven year process.

The report has been a thorn in George Bush BFF, and UK PM at the time, Tony Blair. Blair was a staunch ally of Bush, and the neocon drive to illegally invade Iraq. His support for the invasion, and the lies told in the run up to the war, will be outlined in the report.

Another staunch supporter of the Iraq war was Hillary Clinton. It’s hard to find a war Clinton did not champion, and the Iraq invasion was no exception.

Thanks to WikiLeaks, the American public, and entire world, will not have to wait seven years to figure out the reasoning for why Hillary was so gung-ho to topple Saddam, and plunge Iraq into the abyss.

WikiLeaks has released 1,258 of Hillary Clinton’s emails in connection to the Iraq war and tweeted a link to their email archive from their official Twitter page.

Breitbart has more on the WikiLeaks cache of emails, and the latest Hillary debacle.

Wikileaks appears to have a substantial amount of information on Clinton, having already released a large archive of Clinton’s emails earlier in the year. Breitbart has previously reported on Julian Assange’s claims that Google is complicit in the managing of Clintons online media campaign.

Released only a week after Bill Clinton’s meeting with Attorney General, Loretta Lynch and a day after Huma Abedins admission that Hillary Clinton had burned daily schedules, the contents of Hillary’s released emails, containing multiple interactions between Clinton and multiple white house officials, could be extremely damaging to Clinton’s current presidential campaign.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has previously stated that he has multiple leaks in store for Clinton and, as a free speech fundamentalist, believes that a Clinton presidency could be damaging.

“Of course, when she is in power…she is a problem for freedom of speech. We know what she is going to do. She made the chart for the destruction of Libya—she was involved in the process of taking the Libyan armory and sending it to Syria” said Assange in a video posted to YouTube.

With considerable criticism of Hillary’s work as Secretary of State and her recent comments expressing her regret at voting for the Iraq war, these leaked emails could be a source of insight into the presumptive Democratic nominee’s approach to foreign policy.

Posted in USAComments Off on “Things get Worse for Hillary: WikiLeaks Releases 1,258 Hillary Clinton Iraq War Emails

Sweden Joins NATO’s Emerging War Against Russia


Sweden, which historically has been a ‘neutral’ country between the U.S. and Russia, is joining the NATO buildup against Russia, allowing NATO to place nuclear weapons in Sweden for an attack against Russia, and, like NATO (of which Sweden isn’t a member) lying about it to their people, and to the world.

The alleged reason for joining the operation is that “Russian aggression against Ukraine breaches international law and challenges the European security order”, according to Sweden’s ‘defence’ minister Peter Hultqvist. He denied nuclear weapons would be part of it.

He also said, “I have sometimes wondered if there has been deliberate disinformation” by opponents of the proposal. (Let him call this report such ‘disinformation’, because I’m going to link here to solid sources that expose his and ‘The West’s’ othervicious lies leading straight to World War III.)

This is being done by Sweden in the leadup to the NATO Summit on July 8-9 against Russia, and in the context of America’s installation on Russia’s borders of weaponry to disable Russia’s capacity to retaliate against a Western blitz-invasion from NATO. The first successful test of that BMD or “Ballistic Missile Defense” system occurred on 19 May 2016 and constituted a breakthrough in the ability of the United States and its allies to conquer Russia; the test had occurred in Hawaii. Just seven days earlier than that test, the first installation of the system had occurred, which took place in Romania on May 12th. So, U.S. rulers have started to install the ultimate mass-killing system, for the ultimate conquest; it’s the system to block an enemy from defending itself from an invasion. Russia is increasingly surrounded by an expanding NATO, and that expansion up to Russia’s borders is supposed to be accepted by Russia as if it’s not a very aggressive move against Russia. And Sweden’s rulers have decided to be on the winning side of World War III.

The news report on Sweden’s joining this mega-disgusting operation against Russia was published on May 26th, in EU Observer, and added this: “Sweden is also likely to join Nato’s strategic communications centre, Stratcom, in an effort to strengthen the country’s counter propaganda efforts.”

NATO has already been prominently promoting the lie that Russia invaded Ukraine and stole Crimea from Ukraine — which is thebasic lie upon which NATO is preparing to invade Russia. Swedish officials are already using that baldfaced lie in order to fool the Swedish public to accept their country’s becoming a staging area for NATO’s buildup to invade Russia (even though Sweden isn’t in NATO) as a measure supposedly to ‘defend’ Sweden and NATO countries from being invaded by Russia. Get that! Since they can’t find any realistic excuse for preparing to invade Russia, the lie that Russia ‘seized’ Crimea suffices.

Here are the facts about this, the West’s Big Lie:

The most important of all parts of U.S. President Barack Obama’s foreign-policy plan to take over Russia was the one that enabled him to slap economic sanctions against Russia and that enables NATO to treat Russia as an ‘aggressive’ enemy: this is the matter regarding Ukraine and its former peninsula, Crimea, which Russia accepted back into the Russian Federation after Obama’s coup seizing Ukraine had terrified the Crimean people.

Certainly, Obama’s extremely bloody coup in Ukraine isn’t known to most Americans nor to others in The West: the official line, promoted both by the U.S. aristocracy’s government, and by the U.S. aristocracy’s media, and by the media of its associated aristocracies, is that a democratic revolution’ overthrew the democratically elected President of that country, Viktor Yanukovych, in February 2014. The official line is that this ‘revolution’ arose spontaneously after Yanukovych, on 20 November 2013, had rejected the EU’s offer for Ukraine to join the EU. Not part of the official line is that the U.S. Embassy was already starting by no later than 1 March 2013 to organize the overthrow that occurred in February 2014. Also not part of the official line is that the EU’s membership offer to Ukraine came with a $160 billion price tag, and so was entirely unaffordable.

Yanukovych had no real choice but to turn it down. After all, The West needed an excuse to explain the ‘Maidan democracy demonstrations’ that provided a pretext for the overthrow. If one is starting on 1 March 2013 to organize a fascist coup that’s to occur a year later, then one won’t want to provide the victim (Yanukovych and the Ukrainian people) an offer that will beaccepted by him. One will need the offer to berejected, in order to have a ‘justification’ to overthrow the victim. Such a ‘justification’ was that he was corrupt, but they didn’t mention thatall post-Soviet Ukrainian leaders have been corrupt. Another was that Yanukovych had turned down the proposal from ‘the democratic West.’ All of it was lies.

Ukraine is the key in Obama’s plan for four reasons: it’s the main transit-route pipelining Russia’s gas into Europe; it’s also a large country bordering Russia, and thus ideal for placement of American nuclear missiles against Russia; it has (at that time it was on a lease expiring in 2042) Russia’s premier naval base in Sebastopol Crimea, which, for the U.S. to take, would directly weaken Russia’s defenses; and, most importantly of all, the entire case for sanctions against Russia, and for NATO to be massing troops and weapons on and near Russia’s borders to ‘defend’ NATO (now to include Sweden) against Russia, consists of Russia’s ‘aggression’ exhibited in its ‘seizing’ Crimea, and in its helping the residents in the breakaway Donbass far eastern region of Ukraine, Donbass (where the residents had voted 90% for Yanukovych) to defend themselves against the repeated invasions and bombings coming from the Ukrainian government. Crimea is especially important here, because, though Russia refused to accept Donbass into the Russian Federation (and so America’s accusations that the massive bloodshed in Donbass was another ‘aggression’ by Russia was ridiculously false) Russia did accept Crimea.

However, the people in Crimea had voted 75% for Yanukovyc hand had also wanted to become again a part of Russia, ever since the Soviet dictator Nikita Khrushchev in 1954 arbitrarily transferred Crimea from Russia to Ukraine. And therefore Russia — not finding acceptable Obama’s soon-to-be seizure of their naval base — supplied protection for Crimeans to be able to hold a peaceful plebiscite on 16 March 2014 in order to exercise their right of self-determination on whether to accept rule by the bloody new Ukrainian coupregime, or instead to accept Russia’s offer to regain membership (and protection) in the Russian Federation.

97% chose the latter, and Western-sponsored polls in Crimea both before and after the plebiscite showed similarly astronomically high support for rejoining with Russia. But that made no difference in Western countries, because their media never reported these realities but only the official line — as Obama put it:“The days in which conquest of land somehow was a formula for great nation status is [sic] over.” Although he was there describing actually himself (in his ultimate plan to conquer Russia), he was pretending that it described instead Russia’s President, Vladimir Putin, who was merely protecting Crimeans, and, in the process, protecting all Russians (by retaining its key naval base), from an enemy (Obama) whose gift for deceiving the public might have no equal in all of human history.

And that ‘seizure of Crimea’ is actually the pretext upon the basis of which Obama’s NATO alliance is nowmobilizing to invade Russia.

Here is how Sweden’s ‘defense’ minister, in his 25 May 2016 Stockholm speech, described his reasons for Sweden to join the Western forces surrounding Russia:

The upcoming NATO Summit will take place in a security environment that continues to be challenging. And these challenges affect us all.

First of all, the security order that was established in Europe after the Cold War is challenged by Russia. The illegal annexation of Crimea is the first example in more than 70 years where one European state has occupied territory belonging to another state using military force. If we allow the annexation to become a status quo we make ourselves guilty of destroying one of the very pillars of the European security order as we know it. We see no signs that Russia has changed its position or have softened that.

Moreover, there are no indications that Russia is planning to leave the Donbass region. Instead, Russia is building up its proxy army there, with 25,000 soldiers and more tanks than any EU Member State has. The intensity of the conflict in eastern Ukraine can be Increased or decreased depending on what best serves the interests of the Kremlin at any given moment.

He alleged that all violations of the Minsk agreement (the agreement regarding the war in Donbass) were from the Donbass side, and none at all from the Ukrainian side — the side that has actually been attacking Donbass — but the evidence clearly contradicts that lie. The residents of Donbass fire back when fired upon. What are they supposed to do? Then he listed Sweden’s military increases, and he said: “We do this from a platform of non-alignment.” He’s as much a liar as Obama is.

The U.S. doesn’t actually need additional military bases in countries such as Sweden. The U.S. already has around 800 military bases in foreign countries, according to researcher David Vine in his 2015 book,Base Nation. But when tightening the noose, every little bit of extra pull helps. And after the coup in Ukraine, America’s aristocracy has been giving an extra yank at every opportunity. And they (actually U.S. taxpayers) pay well for it. Hultqvist will get his. It’s a nice business.

Back in 1990 the precondition (and Western promise) on the basis of which the Soviet and then Russian leader Mikhail Gorbachev dissolved in 1991 both the Soviet Union and its NATO-mirror the Warsaw Pact, was the promise by the representatives of U.S. President George Herbert Walker Bush, that if that happened, then NATO would not expand “one inch eastward” — which also turned out to have been a lie.

And the same news-suppression that causes Western publics (such as in Sweden, where this article was even offered as an exclusive to  Dagens Nyheter, and was turned down by them) not to know these facts, will now probably cause this news-report to be likewise rejected by virtually all Western ‘news’ media, to all of whom it has been submitted (after its having been declined there). The ones that don’t publish it are sharing in the blame for causing WW III. The few that do publish it will not be to blame for WW III. They all make their choices. (And, if any of them have any allegation to make against this news-report, then any who have honor will publish that allegation, so that the crucially needed public debate can begin, before WW III itself does. The utter lack of that public debate is what’s especially damning against The West.)

Posted in Europe, RussiaComments Off on Sweden Joins NATO’s Emerging War Against Russia

Leaked US Document on America’s Drone Wars: Seeks to Create, Not Stop Terror


The article points out that while the US officially claims “between 64 and 116″ civilians have been killed, it also includes estimates from various think-tanks and pro-war propaganda outlets admitting to at least 200-300 civilian deaths.

However, even these numbers are conservatively low, and in the Washington Post’s attempt to “check” White House numbers, it itself appears to be attempting to downplay the full scale of America’s global drone operations, portraying it as a perhaps ill-fated but honest attempt to target and eliminate dangerous terrorists. However, it is anything but, and the “numbers game” is merely a distraction from this fact.

Leaked US Documents Reveal Drones Seek to Create, Not Stop Terror 

It was revealed by the Intercept through leaked US government documents that civilians may account for as much as 90% of all casualties from drone strikes. In its first article in a long series detailing America’s drone operations titled, The Assassination Complex,” it reports:

…documents detailing a special operations campaign in northeastern Afghanistan, Operation Haymaker, show that between January 2012 and February 2013, U.S. special operations airstrikes killed more than 200 people. Of those, only 35 were the intended targets. During one five-month period of the operation, according to the documents, nearly 90 percent of the people killed in airstrikes were not the intended targets. In Yemen and Somalia, where the U.S. has far more limited intelligence capabilities to confirm the people killed are the intended targets, the equivalent ratios may well be much worse.

And upon viewing the leaked Operation Haymaker documents, it becomes clear that America’s drone operations in Afghanistan have admittedly very little tactical value in eliminating specific “terrorists,” and the actual “benefits” noted amid these operations is instead the perpetuation of terror, fear and sociopolitical division in targeted areas, including among civilian populations.

Considering these noted “benefits,” high civilian casualty rates of up to 90% makes sense. If the goal is to simply instill fear, it doesn’t matter who dies, just as long as someone does.

First Priority: Smashing Resistance, Not Stopping Terrorists 

 It should be remembered that nations like Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan are home to fiercely independent networks of localized tribes.

These tribes, particularly in Yemen or Afghanistan, refuse to recognize the authority of US-installed client governments and their existence not only undermines central government authority, they pose a direct threat to its continued existence.

This helps explain another aspect of America’s drone operations that have left the general public occasionally outraged but mostly confused. That is, the propensity of drones striking weddings.

In Western culture, weddings are generally a family affair with little to do with the actual community they take place in. In traditional cultures like Yemen and Afghanistan, weddings are a central community affair. Beyond just friends and family, everyone from the community participates, with various local religious, educational, political and even military leaders attending or even presiding over the event.

It is difficult to believe that drone operators would target a wedding even if a specific, high value terrorist target was present, understanding the full scope of collateral damage that would occur. In fact, in a 2013 speech at the National Defense University, US President Barack Obama would explicitly claim:

And before any strike is taken, there must be near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured — the highest standard we can set. 

Considering this, it is likely such operations, certain to incur civilian deaths, are instead approved of for the specific purpose of obliterating the very source of a targeted community’s strength and independence, leaving local people reeling, leaderless and at the mercy of the central government Washington has installed into power.

In other words, the US is not necessarily “hunting terrorists,” it is eliminating resistance to the political order it is attempting to reach into targeted nations with.

Uprooting Terrorism, or Merely Trimming Its Branches? 

Nevertheless, the US is also undoubtedly conducting targeted assassinations as well. It can identify and eliminate specific individuals with high precision when it desires to do so, lending further credence to theories that high civilian casualties are likely a matter of intentional policy rather than merely inevitable “collateral damage.”

However, for many geopolitical analysts, drone-borne assassinations should immediately raise questions revolving around the face-value wisdom of targeting individuals who have proven easily replaced over the years by a seemingly endless supply of terrorists and terrorist leaders.

The targets the US is eliminating have no impact on terrorist finance, logistics or military capabilities. In fact, throughout the Intercepts reports, citing US government documents, it is noted over and over again that America’s drone operations have done little to degrade the capabilities of terrorist organizations.

This is particularly suspicious considering the US has created what is essentially the global industrialization of drone-borne assassinations with drone bases dotting Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia along with huge networks of both conventional and covert military force to both facilitate and augment drone strikes. But a lack of any discernible impact on terror despite this industrialized killing-machine is only suspicious if one assumes that the US actually endeavors to stop terrorism with it.

So what is the US actually doing and why isn’t the US instead attempting to identify and target the very source of the terrorism it claims to be fighting globally?

If Terrorism is a Garden, America is the Gardener… 

If we liken terrorism to a large weed, we can compare America’s drone wars to merely trimming its branches rather than digging it up by the root to completely destroy it. This would indicate that the US’ goal is not to destroy terrorism, but rather guide its growth along a specific, desired path.

The self-titled “Islamic State” (IS) and Al Qaeda before it, operate a global network and are currently waging war on multiple fronts. What amount of weapons, money, political support and transnational logistical arrangements must exist to support warfare stretching across North Africa, engulfing the Levant, creeping across Afghanistan and even attempting to take root in Southeast Asia?

In Afghanistan during the 1980s it is now common knowledge that Al Qaeda waged war with explicit US and Saudi support. Evidence reveals Al Qaeda likewise participated in US-NATO backed hostilities in Serbia during the 1990s. And today, it is clear that Al Qaeda and IS are both the recipients of immense state sponsorship in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan and beyond. There is no other explanation as to how either organization has sustained full-scale war against the combined armed forces of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran and Russia in the Levant alone, saying nothing of IS’ military operations in Libya or Afghanistan.

The US and its allies claim to be arming, funding and training only “moderates” but it is clear that these “moderates” do not exist in any significant capacity upon the battlefield. And in the rare instances they are apparent, they are quite literally fighting within the ranks of Al Qaeda and IS.

To truly stop terrorism, the US would need to strike at the very source of their arms, cash and political support. Since it is clear that this source resides in Riyadh, Amman, Ankara, Doha and even Washington itself, it is obvious why the scourge of terrorism appears “unstoppable.”

It has been and still clearly is the policy of the United States and its allies to use terrorism as a geopolitical tool. It serves the duel purpose of serving as a pretext for Western military intervention, as well as a mercenary force with inexhaustible ranks used to fight the West’s enemies where Western armies cannot intervene.

The Purpose of Trimming Branches… 

But a massive global network comprised of heavily armed, deeply indoctrinated and incredibly dangerous men and subsidiary organizations are bound to need “trimming.” Groups may take their US-Saudi-funded madras programming and training too far, operating beyond the mandates set forth by their state-sponsors and thus require liquidation.

The Washington Post, if nothing else, rightly concludes in its above-mentioned article that:

As president, [Barack Obama] promised to end America’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Since taking office, he has cut the number of U.S. troops deployed to war zones around the world from 180,000 to fewer than 15,000. 

The wars, however, have not ended. Instead, Obama, through a reliance on drones and special operators, has succeeded in making them nearly invisible.

It is clear that not only have the wars not ended, they have expanded, if not in terms of US troops involved, in terms of where the US is involved through this army of “irregular troops” it cultivates. The wars are not meant to end, but to perpetuate themselves, devouring one nation and leading to a pretext to begin undermining, dividing and destroying the next. The US has created for itself an open-ended pretext to remain “engaged” globally across multiple continents militarily and geopolitically.

Washington could not do so without the threat of terror ever-looming, the ranks of terrorist organizations seemingly bottomless and its ability to surgically “remove” elements from this weed of terrorism it is cultivating in order to get it to creep in the direction US policymakers and special interests desire.

The world is beginning to realize that if a drone could ever truly end terrorism, it would need to fly above Washington or Riyadh, and until it does, the US will never “uproot” terrorism, but merely trim its branches as it carefully cultivates its growth toward strangling the planet.

Posted in USAComments Off on Leaked US Document on America’s Drone Wars: Seeks to Create, Not Stop Terror

40 years after: Understanding the Soweto Uprising

The Soweto Uprising of June 16, 1976 did not just drop from the sky. The Black students of South Africa did not wake up one day and begin resisting Bantu Education. The uprising was carefully organized and led secretly by leaders of the underground political movement, most of them militants of the banned Pan Africanist Congress of Azania (PAC).

One of the students that the apartheid colonialist police shot dead on 16 June 1976 was Hector Pieterson. According to the late Rev. Benjamin Rajuili who was a minister of religion in the African Methodist Episcopal Church and a teacher at a high school in Soweto, the first student who was shot was his student named Mahabane.

It seems, however, that another student who was shot before Hector Pieterson was Hastings Ndlovu. But in both these cases there were no photojournalists around when they were shot.

The original family name of Hector Pieterson is said to be Pitso. This family is reported to have used the name Pieterson to pass off as “Coloureds.” Under apartheid colonial regime Coloureds were treated a little better than  Africans/Black people.

It is to be noted, however, that despite his circumstance, Hector was shot outside Phefeni Junior Secondary School, a school for Africans only. This was at corner of Moema and Vilakazi streets. Mbuyisa Makhubo, an 18 –year old student, picked him up there. The students were singing the African national anthem “Morena Boloka Sechaba Sa Heso” (God Save Our Nation).

The Soweto Uprising is reported to have involved an estimated 20,000 African students. The number of students who died during the Soweto Uprising has been given as 176, also with estimates of 700 killed.

When commemorating the Soweto Uprising, however, it must not be deliberately ignored that there were revolutionaries who were imprisoned for leading the Soweto Uprising. They were tortured. Others were killed. There are also 82 people who were mentioned in court as co-conspirators.

The Soweto Uprising did not fall from a tree like a ripe fruit. It was organized by patriotic men and women who loved their country immensely. It is the same with the Sharpeville and Langa Uprisings. The fact that some people may not like the organizations that were involved is neither here nor there. History must be recorded as it happened, not as it is wished it could have happened in a manner that suits false propaganda of fake revolutionaries and charlatans.

Who led the Soweto Uprising?

What are the true historical facts about the Soweto Uprising? These facts are found in State Versus Zephania Mothopeng and 17 OthersSupreme Court of South Africa – South and Eastern Local Division presided by Judge David Curlewis. Judgment was on 18, 19, 20, and 26th June 1979. See also Supreme Court of South Africa Appellate Division – The Petition of Zephania Mothopeng and 14 others, 12th September 1979; A book titled SOWETO UPRISING ISBN 978-1-919815-18-3 published by Tokoloho Development Association is more elaborative on this subject.

Many witnesses were called to testify for the prosecution as well as for the defence. Evidence was led that leaders of the oppressed Africans discussed the grievances of their people including the inferior education that was being taught the African people. The discussions were held in secret meetings called by the then banned Pan Africanist Congress (PAC). These meetings were held under cover of Young African Religious Movement (YARM) or Young African Christian Movement (YACM).

YARM had later replaced the name YACM in order to include people of other religions. Many witnesses testified in court about what really happened, who the organizers were and what the grievances of the African people were.

A witness by the name of Papuis Seroka testified that various grievances were aired from the floor by the Masupatsela High School student delegation. It was substantially at that point still called Young African Christian Movement (YACM). YACM was used as a cover for the activities of the banned Pan Africanist Congress. The idea was that the SRC (Student Representative Council) would see to it that the complaints of the students were remedied by taking them up with the authorities.

A witness in the Supreme Court where Mothopeng and other 17 PAC members were tried by Judge Curlewis told the court that he was at Masupatsela High School where he was doing his Form Three in 1976. He told the court that he knew Accused Numbers 13, 15, 16, 17 and 18. The latter was Daniel Matsobane.

This witness called him “Bra Dan” and Number 13 “Bra Mike.” He said Accused Number One (Zephania Mothopeng) was seated “in the corner” of the building where they met. This witness said he was told there was to be a meeting behind the school classroom. He went there.

Accused Number 15 spoke. He said that he had invited high school students to tell them about the setup in South African schools. They discussed the salaries of African workers and those of white workers and the inferior education to which African students were subjected.

Themba Hlatshwayo said that whites were busy exploiting the minerals of the African country such as gold to invest and enrich themselves instead of helping Africans with money to alleviate their poverty. He said the students must belong to political organizations which would enable them to lead them to liberation.

In April 1976 at another meeting, a state witness testified that Themba Hlatshwayo said the Bantustans had been formed to divide the African people into different groups so that the Africans would not know that they were one people and not “Bantus.”

Who fixed the date for Soweto Uprising ?

Papuis Seroka’s evidence in court was that in 1975 Accused Number 15 spoke to him. He invited him to a meeting that night at Accused Number 13’s place. He went there about 19.00. Present at the meeting were Number 13, 15, 16, 17, B.G. and Adam Kunupi. There were three others he did not know. They were adults.

The witness told the court that Number 13 introduced one of the three as the leader of the Pan Africanist Congress (PAC) from Soweto. At his request this man, Accused Number One [Zephania Mothopeng] addressed the meeting. He first gave the open palm salute sign of the PAC which was returned, “Izwe Lethu! iAfrika!” (The Land Is Ours! Afrika!)

He said the time had come when all African people had to stand together to fight for their freedom in South Africa. He said that the PAC is organizing riots which would start a revolution. The riots would be started by the students, throwing stones and burning down buildings belonging to the apartheid colonialist government and its puppets. The riots would spread throughout the country. “Then the adults who are concerned about their liberation will take over. This will lead to total liberation.”

Mothopeng said that the date of riots had not been fixed, but as soon as it had, an alarm signal would be given and then the students would start rioting. He gave the PAC salute which was returned and he sat down.

Adam, another witness, testified before Judge Curlewis that at the beginning of May 1976 he was asked by Accused Number 15 to attend a meeting at Mike’s place. Accused Numbers 17, B.G., 15, 16, 18 and 13 were present as well as other people, he thought about five. He said three were adults.

Mike introduced them as their leaders from Soweto. Adam said one of them stood up and said, “This is Uncle here.” He pointed at the now Accused Number One [Zephania Mothopeng].

Mothopeng then addressed the meeting. He said that students were to organize riots. They must start simultaneously throughout the country. When the riots begin students must organize things like stay-away from school and from work. Apartheid government property must be destroyed in order to cripple the economy of the country.

“This is the aim of the riots. A date will be set and the students in Kagiso must start.” The court was told that this is what Mothopeng said. Accused Number 13 then said he would send Number 15 and 16 the date on which the uprising would start.

Predicted riots in Soweto and Kagiso in action

A witness at the trial of Mothopeng and 17 other PAC leaders testified that on the 16 June 1976 he heard that the riots had started in Soweto. He went to the home of Accused Number 15. He asked him why the people in Kagiso had not started. Accused Number 15 said he did not know. He advised them to go to Accused Number 13’s place that same day to find out.

The witness said he did not go out as his father would not let him go out into the night having heard of the riots. The following day, according to this witness, Accused Number 15 asked him why he had not attended the meeting. He explained that his father would not let him go. Number 15 then said that Number 13 had given instructions that they should meet at 17.00 at the bottle store. The riots in Kagiso would start there.

At about 16.00 on 17th June, while he was still at home in Kagiso, he heard shouting and saw the riots had started. The people were going to the bottle store. He too went there. On his arrival the bottle liquor store was already on fire. He and others looted the place.

This witness said Accused Number 15 came to him and said they had finished with the bottle store and that the next targets were the schools.

They should begin with Masupatsela High School that night. Accused Number 16, 17 and B.G. were with Number 15. They were still looting at the liquor store.

The next day 18 June, the students became uncontrollable. The police arrived. Shots were fired and the students dispersed. The school was closed. The witness said he saw that the school offices were burned down and that there was a burnt-out bus behind the school. He said that thereafter, he did not and could not make contact with any members of Young African Religious Movement (YARM) because of the presence of the police.

The court recalled that Felicia’s evidence was recounted in a conversation between B.G., and Accused Number 16 on violence. They said they went outside and threw stones at buses. One bus was stopped. The driver ran away and the rioters got in the bus and drove the bus against the wall.

Students got into the bus and it was driven in the direction of Masupatsela High School. The witness said he did not get into the bus. He continued looting and throwing stones at passing buses and cars.

On cross-examination the witness said a teacher by the name of Sejanamane said the riots were a good thing. Students must fight for their rights. The students organized stay-away from work. They threatened workers and prevented them from going to work. They attended funerals of their schoolmates. They burned a truck belonging to Beeld, an Afrikaans language newspaper.

The riots continued for a long time. The PAC under cover of YARM continued with underground activities which were related not only to the unrest within the country, but mainly to the programme of sending recruits for military training outside South Africa.

Arrests of activists for the Soweto Uprising were made by the police throughout 1977 and beyond. Christopher Sophondo joined YARM in November 1976 because as he said YARM members had visited him in hospital after he had been wounded on 19 June 1976 by police bullets.

Anyway the time came for the Soweto Uprising to be thoroughly interrogated and scrutinised by the Court. What did the Court hear? What did it conclude after hearing both the prosecution and defence lawyers? Did it establish for a fact the Pan Africanist Congress of Azania (PAC) led the Soweto Uprising?

The court found that the accused organised the Young African Religious Movement (YARM) as cover for the banned Pan Africanist Congress to conscientise the students on their state of oppression and about the inferior education they were receiving; some of it through the medium of Afrikaans, the  language of their oppressors.

Accused Number two – John Ganya – was convicted of organising ninety young people to undergo military training in the PAC camps in countries such as Tanzania, China, Yugoslavia and Libya – using Swaziland and Botswana as transit routes. Ganya’s other recruits included 17 municipal police.

Ganya brought funds and PAC literature into the country, especially for students to read for their mental decolonisation. Ganya told the court that in 1976 there was tension in the African townships, especially in Soweto. As a result, a community meeting was called by Dr. Naoboth Ntshuntsha to bring parents of detained students to talk to the representative of the apartheid regime. Many school children were no longer sleeping at their homes, but at schools or in the bush for fear of arrest. This was before June 16 of 1976. During this meeting the apartheid regime’s police arrived and arrested Dr. Ntshuntsha.

This witness testified that when students demonstrated against the inferior Bantu education and use of Afrikaans as medium of school instruction, the police had used bullets. They killed many students. “Whenever Africans demanded their rights peacefully, whites accused them of throwing stones and the police shot at them,” Ganya said.

From the evidence led in court in the trial of Zephania Mothopeng and 17 other PAC members, it was clear that the accused had been working among the students long before June 16. But the programme on the education of African youth was linked to recruiting some youths for military training against the apartheid colonialist regime.

This became clear from the court testimony of Jerome Kodisang who in December 1975 had left Soweto for military training in Libya. He returned to South Africa in June 1976 “with the purpose of using that training.”

Marks Shinners who was accused Number Three in the Bethal Trial for the Soweto Uprising was alleged to have “instructed students in Atteridgeville to riot.”

Evidence led against Temba Hlatshwayo showed that in 1975 he served as a student member on the executive committee of the Young African Religious Movement (YARM) which discussed the use of violence during the anticipated Soweto Uprising. He recruited students for membership or support of the Young African Religious Movement and participated in discussions on the use of violence against the apartheid colonialist regime.

Rodney Tsoletsane was alleged to have served on the student committee of YARM. He attended meetings at Michael Matsobane’s house where the use of violence against apartheid was discussed and demonstrated. He aided two young people to undergo military training abroad.

The court found that Daniel Matsobane was a field worker for the Urban Resources Centre in Roodepoort and Kagiso in 1975 and 1976. He actively promoted its projects by transporting people to meetings.

Julius Landingwe was secretary for Masakhe Educational Promotions in Cape Town from 1975 to 1976. The Court found that he had conspired to send people out of the country for military training. He replied that he had merely transported students to Swaziland to further their academic studies. The Court dismissed his evidence.

A 21-year-old student by the name of Terence Makhubela testified in court that he left school in 1976 because he did not agree with the system of Bantu education which was being taught to African students. He explained, “It was common knowledge that the students who continued with Bantu Education would have their certificates written with blood when freedom was attained.”

The Soweto Uprising of June 16 did not just drop from the sky. It was led and organized secretly by the leaders of the underground. The Court named them. When passing the sentence in the Supreme Court of South Africa, Judge Curlewis said among other things:

“You Mothopeng, acted to sow seeds of anarchy and revolution. The riots you organized and predicted eventually took place in Soweto on 16 June and at Kagiso the next day.”

Judge Curlewis further said, “And then the last thing I would like to mention here…is Pan Africanism is the goal of the PAC…they propagate and promote the concept of Pan Africanism. This is also prominent throughout the existence of the Pan Africanist Congress…from the beginning the aims of the organisation were radical in the sense that they strove for a fundamental change.”

Names of activists found guilty of leading Soweto Uprising

The Court found all the 18 accused guilty of leading the Soweto Uprising except one. Their prison sentences were as follows:

Name                                             Sentence                             Age                                            Home

1. Zephania Mothopeng                    30 years                           66 years                                         Soweto

2. John Ganya                                11 years                           48          “                                       Soweto

3. Marks Shinners                           12 years                          37              “                                   Atteridgeville Pretoria

4. Bennie Ntoele                            10 years                           38              “                                   Mamelodi   Pretoria

5. Hamilton Keke                            5 years *                         34           “                                       East London

6.  Michael Sithembele Khaya             7 years                          24            “                                     Soweto

7. Alfred  Ntshali Tshali                      0 years *                        47            “                                     Manzini Swaziland

8. Julius Landingwe                           8 years                          30             “                                    Gugulethu Cape Town

9. Zolile Ndindwa                              7 years                           26              “                                   Gugulethu Cape Town

10. Moffat Zungu                               7 years                           43                “                                 Soweto

11. Goodwill Moni                              7 years                           24          “                                       Gugulethu Cape Town

12. Jerome Kodisang                         7 years                           26         “                                        Kagiso

13. Micheal Matsobane                     12 years                          26             “                                    Kagiso

14. Johnson Nyathi                           10 years                         32         “                                         Kagiso

15. Themba Hlatshwayo                    10 years                         21          “                                        Kagiso

16. Rodney Tsoletsane                       5 years                         20          “                                         Kagiso

17. Daniel Matsobane                       12 years                         31          “                                         Kagiso

18. Molatlegi Thlale                            8 years                         22           “


* Hamilton Keke was given a suspended prison sentence of five years.  He had at the age of 17 years been earlier sentenced to 10 years imprisonment on Robben Island. Alfred Ntshali-Tshali was found not guilty and acquitted.

Despite his advanced age, Zephania Mothopeng was sentenced to 30 years in prison. Others implicated in the Soweto Uprising died even before they appeared in Court. They were brutally tortured. Many died in detention. Some of these were Dr. Naoboth Ntshuntsha, Aaron Khoza, Samuel Malinga and Bonaventure Malaza.

Court told of torture of accused

Fourteen of the accused in the secret Bethal trial for the Soweto Uprising – June 16 revealed that they had been tortured with electric shock; pulled by their hair and beards, forced to have showers in very cold water and made to stand naked. Some had also been tied to an iron bar above their heads and made to stand several days handcuffed next to a heater at high temperature. They were threatened with a firearm and with being thrown out of the window from a high building while in detention. They were denied sleep and food for long hours.

Johnson Nyathi who appeared in court on crutches had been assaulted by the apartheid colonial police and thrown out of the window from a high building while in detention. His legs had been broken. He was interrogated about his part in the preparations of the Soweto Uprising and the armed struggle against apartheid and colonialism which the apartheid colonialist regime called “terrorist.”

Michael Matsobane testified that he had been assaulted during the police questioning about the Soweto Uprising. His hands were tied behind his back to a bench. He was hit by a policeman while in that condition until he fell to the ground and his ear began to bleed.

Court dismissed defence lawyers appeal 

The defence lawyers for the accused in the Soweto Uprising case appealed the decision of Judge Curlewis of the Supreme Court of South Africa. The appeal was heard in the South African Appellate Division on the 16 July 1979 and dismissed the same day. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgement of Justice Curlewis. The Appeal Court stated among other things that the learned judge [Curlewis], in dealing with the evidence of Veli Maseko, had stated:

“It should be clear that these incidents are not something new, he [Veli Maseko] cannot invent, nor is there any reason for him to do .The details of the incident and their sequence, the contents of what was told to him, he did not suck out of his thumb…no matter how desirous he was of being released or getting an indemnity….”

This was with regard to Ground of Appeal 1(a). There were many grounds for the appeal. I will not deal with all of them. For Ground of Appeal 1(b), the Court of Appeal said that an indication of the learned judge’s approach was to be found in the following passages:

“One can take any of the witnesses who testified against Accused Number One [Zephania Mothopeng] and examine the hypothesis that they have falsely incriminated him. Michael, for example…it is argued that Michael has made up his trip to Moabi in Botswana and conversation with Number One to please the police to get him out of detention and so forth….

A moment’s consideration will show the absurdity of all these arguments. If none of what Michael recounts happened, if his mind is tabula rasa, then the police would teach him to say something simple and embracing…”

Ground of Appeal 1c was next the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court considered. In dealing with the witness Fakazi John Mdakane, the learned judge [Curlewis] said, “This witness was a good witness like others. There is absolutely no reason for him to incriminate…in such a disjointed fashion.”

When dealing with the evidence against the first Petitioner [Zephania Mothopeng], the judge of the Appeal Court said in Volume 130 page 5013 line 2 to 18, “The first determining is what  the real issue in the case…did the accused carry out the illegal activities as alleged by the state, that the Pan Africanist Congress (PAC) and the reviving of the outlawed PAC and inciting people to go for military training and to riot, then the only inference may be that they used these various bodies as cover.

The learned judge of the Appeal Court dealing with the facts by the defence that no identification parade had been held in respect of a most important identification parade said:

“Counsel said there should have been a parade. I do not agree. Among 18 people in the atmosphere of this court he [the witness] was in fact at a disadvantage compared with an identification of a parade, particularly Number One, is known from the evidence at the time Papuis saw him, he was bearded and is now clean shaven. This I may say is an old trick….”

The Appeal Court affirmed the judgment of Judge Curlewis. The court affirmed the sentence of the accused for the Soweto Uprising as imposed in the Supreme Court. It dismissed the petition of the accused for the Soweto Uprising. They were sent to jail for organizing the Soweto Uprising.

Whatever the mutilators of history may invent to desecrate Soweto Uprising of June 16; we cannot make Soweto Uprising more sacred. The heroic students of 16 June 1976 and the heroic sons and daughters of the African soil who were tortured, killed and imprisoned for the Soweto Uprising have already consecrated this historic day with their blood and lion bravery; more than the mutilators of the Soweto Uprising can ever add or subtract.

Of the Soweto Uprising as told in court, even the media that was often hostile to the Pan Africanist Congress, could not suppress the verdict of Judge Curlewis on PAC involvement in leading the Soweto Uprising. The Sunday Times of 1 July 1979 in Johannesburg proclaimed:

“South Africa’s biggest trial and one of the longest in the country’s judicial history wound up this week when the banned Pan Africanist Congress (PAC) supporters were jailed for underground activities. They were sentenced to a total of 162 years imprisonment….

The statistics of the trial have set their records…it has taken 165 sitting days, 5200 pages of evidence and argument considered. 86 co-conspirators were involved…the entire trial including the marathon 21-hour judgment was held in camera [secretly].”

It must be recorded here for posterity that SASO leaders such as Steve Biko, Bokwe Mafuna, Barney Pityana, Bennie Khoapha and many others who developed the political concept of black consciousness in South Africa played a historic revolutionary role.

This is despite the fact that many leaders of SASO and Black Consciousness Movement later suffered and endured many distortions and vilifications from the usual fake inventors of fake goods. These mutilators of political history have always rapaciously, and for self-glorification, aimed to reap where they have neither ploughed nor planted.

Long live the martyrs and makers of the history of the Soweto Uprising!

Posted in AfricaComments Off on 40 years after: Understanding the Soweto Uprising

Is the Coup Against Corbyn a Plot to Spare Tony Blair from War Crimes Probe?


In the tumultuous wake of Brexit, why has the Labour Party turned on leader Jeremy Corbyn for campaigning for the “Remain” camp, while the Conservatives have welcomed new leader Theresa Mays for doing exactly the same?

Alex Salmond, former Scottish First Minister, has proposed one damning theory by suggesting that the Labour Party’s coup against Corbyn is an orchestrated attempt to stop him from “calling for Tony Blair’s head” when the Chilcot Report, the government’s official inquiry into the Iraq War, is published on Wednesday.

In a blistering op-ed published Sunday in Scotland’s Herald, Salmond writes, “It would be a mistake to believe that Chilcot and current events are entirely unconnected. The link is through the Labour Party.”

“I had a conversation on exactly this point with veteran Labour firebrand Dennis Skinner. He answered in one word ‘Iraq,’” Salmond adds:

The Skinner line is that the coup was timed to avoid Corbyn calling for Blair’s head next Wednesday from the Despatch Box. Indeed many would say that when Corbyn stated that he would be prepared to see a former Labour Prime Minister tried for War Crimes then he sealed his fate as leader of the Parliamentary Labour Party.

As Common Dreams reported last summer, Corbyn campaigned on the position that the former prime minister could face war crimes charges based on his decision to partner with then-U.S. President George W. Bush in the invasion of Iraq.

And just over a month ago, the Labour leader reiterated his willingness to have Blair tried for war crimes after the Chilcot Report is released.

In a recent interview, Salmond again pointed out to a reporter that the “Chilcot Report is coming out next week and by all accounts it’s going to be a damning indictment of Tony Blair and his warmongering. And most of the people who are now gunning for Corbyn were Blair’s closest supporters.”

Journalist Glenn Greenwald has also noted that not only have those driving the coup been Iraq War supporters, but the chief contender to replace Corbyn, Angela Eagle, backed Blair’s push for war in 2003:

Observers have pointed out that Eagle also opposed the government’s investigation into the Iraq War.

“So I’m wondering if this was a pre-emptive strike against the Chilcot Report, because Jeremy Corbyn has indicated he would support Tony Blair being held to account, as he should be,” Salmond said.

“Certainly I’ve never seen anything like it in a parliamentary party,” the former First Minister added.

But has Labour’s gambit to protect the warmongering Blair been successful?

Salmond thinks not, according to his writing in the Herald: “At this juncture it looks as if the coup has stalled and Corbyn will survive to fight just one last day on Wednesday. However, will the Chilcot account give him the ammunition he needs or will it be yet another establishment whitewash in the long litany of British cover ups from Suez onwards?”

“Chilcot will not be a verdict, that much is clear,” Salmond writes. “However, it could still supply the damning evidence for the jury to bring a conviction in. In a triumph of hope over experience my political sense tells me to expect fireworks.”

Indeed, the Independent reported Sunday that if Blair escapes censure after the report is released, some British MPs are hoping to impeach the former prime minister using an ancient Parliamentary law that could see Blair finally sent to prison for his role in the conflict.

Posted in UKComments Off on Is the Coup Against Corbyn a Plot to Spare Tony Blair from War Crimes Probe?

Shoah’s pages