Archive | July 9th, 2016

India, the US, and the Nuclear Suppliers Group

NOVANEWS

Image result for INDIA US FLAG

By Brian CLOUGHLEY 

India has failed to achieve membership of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), which is a group of countries seeking «to contribute to the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons through implementation of two sets of Guidelines for nuclear and nuclear-related exports». Given that members of the NSG already supply India with uranium, New Delhi’s campaign is intriguing, especially as one of the Group’s main requirements is that suppliers of nuclear-associated material may authorise such trade «only when satisfied that the transfer would not contribute to the proliferation of nuclear weapons».

It could not be clearer that this international agreement forbids provision of nuclear expertise or material to a country that has not ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) which the US State Department describes as «the cornerstone of the nonproliferation regime».

But even cornerstones can be undermined, and that process began when President George W Bush started negotiations with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in 2005 to produce a US-India nuclear cooperation agreement. It took considerable effort by both sides to come to a mutually satisfactory arrangement whereby India would have access to nuclear material and technology consistent with the primary US aim of entry to the potentially large Indian market for construction of nuclear power stations.

The commercially-based Agreement for Cooperation between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of India concerning Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy of 2007 is known as the 123 Agreement because it was necessary to amend Section 123 of the US Atomic Energy Act 1954 which governs ‘Cooperation with Other Nations’.

India declined to abide by the Act’s specification that it «must have full-scope International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards, essentially covering all major nuclear facilities», because this would involve inspection of defence-related establishments, and Washington promptly removed this inconvenient requirement.

The modified Act seemed to clear the way for nuclear collaboration on a major scale, but there has as yet been no commitment by US nuclear plant manufacturers, mainly because they do not want to be held financially responsible for a nuclear accident at a power station which they designed or built.

It is accepted worldwide that national nuclear plant operators are accountable in the event of accidents, but India’s Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010, and Rule 24 of the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Rules, 2011, provide for the right of recourse,pursuit of which could involve foreign enterprises, be they suppliers or operators, being held liable for damages. In spite of lobbying by US President Obama during his 2015 visit to India, which was much praised as having achieved a «breakthrough» in removing the liability barriers which India’s parliament strongly supported, there has been no radical change that would encourage US firms to seek major contracts. (The Westinghouse Electric Company, generally thought to be American, which is negotiating to build six nuclear plants in India, has been owned by Japan’s Toshiba since 2006.)

In February 2015 India’s Ministry of External Affairs stated that the Civil Liability Act «channels all legal liability for nuclear damage exclusively to the operator» – but Clause 17 of the Act specifies that operators are permitted to seek financial recourse from suppliers after paying compensation for «patent or latent defects or sub-standard services», which are, naturally, open to legal interpretation in the event of a disaster, which is no doubt being borne in mind by India’s legislators who have not forgotten the 1984 disaster at the Union Carbide chemical plant at Bhopal that killed and maimed many thousands of people.

While there have as yet been no commercial benefits to the US from its nuclear accord with India, there have been other effects, including some that are less than desirable in the context of «proliferation of nuclear weapons» which is condemned by the Nuclear Suppliers Group.

The Arms Control Association records that «In September 2008, in a move led by the United States, the Nuclear Suppliers Group eased long-standing restrictions on nuclear trade with India by the group’s members. NSG rules generally forbid the sale of nuclear goods, such as reactors and fuel, to non-NPT countries». Before this ‘easing’ of international constraints, India had been unable to import uranium and was therefore entirely reliant on its own mines, which produce only low-grade ore but are in the long term capable of providing fuel to any number of nuclear facilities, civilian and military. The only drawback is that domestic processing would be enormously expensive. Importing uranium is very much cheaper.

As a result of being excused from the international stipulation requiring its adherence to the NPT before being permitted to import nuclear fuel and technology, India negotiated nuclear cooperation arrangements with eleven nations, including the holder of the world’s largest uranium deposits, Australia, whose government’s 1977 Uranium Export Policy had specified that «customer countries must at a minimum be a party to the NPT and have concluded a full-scope safeguards Agreement with the IAEA». But profit beats morality, and, as noted by the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, «Australia was the last domino to fall when it created an exception for India to its export policies in December 2011».

Countries involved in nuclear cooperation with India observe similar rules to those of Australia which specifies that its uranium «may only be exported for peaceful non-explosive purposes». And of course it cannot be claimed that foreign-supplied uranium could be used to produce nuclear weapons. These are manufactured at installations using India’s abundant (although process-expensive) indigenous ore which, thanks to the flexibility of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, is no longer needed to fuel civilian nuclear power stations. Quantities, quality and details of application need not be revealed.

Following the US-India nuclear agreement the president of the Federation of American Scientists, Charles D Ferguson, wrote in Arms Control Today that «by granting India access to uranium, the deal allows India to divert its indigenously-mined uranium to military applications without detracting fuel from the civilian program» – and that is the crux of the entire affair.

The Nuclear Suppliers Group, at the urging of the United States, approved a measure that assists India to produce more nuclear weapons more economically. The «cornerstone of the nonproliferation regime» was dealt a massive blow. Although the US Hyde Act of 2006 requires the President to inform Congress of non-compliance with «the provision of nuclear fuel in such a manner as to facilitate the increased production by India of highly enriched uranium or plutonium in unsafeguarded nuclear facilities» it is impossible for the US to certify that this is not taking place because there is no provision for verification. Clever India.

Membership of the NSG remains a major foreign policy goal for India, and US support for its ambition was formally indicated in 2015 joint statement by President Obama and Prime Minister Modi which «committed [them] to continue to work towards India’s phased entry» to the Group. The US has made it clear that it will continue to support India’s efforts to achieve its objective, and that the requirement for «full compliance» with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or other «equivalent international nuclear nonproliferation agreement» is irrelevant so far as India is concerned.

It’s intriguing how international agreements can be reinterpreted, distorted, massaged or just plain ignored when it suits Washington’s policies – and, it seems, the pockets, prosperity and re-election prospects of America’s Legislators.

Posted in USA, IndiaComments Off on India, the US, and the Nuclear Suppliers Group

The Iraq War, Brexit and Imperial Blowback

NOVANEWS

Image result for Brexit LOGO

By Nadine El-Enany

(Image: Lauren Walker / Truthout)

Brexit is a disaster we can only understand in the context of Britain’s imperial exploits. A Bullingdon boy (Oxford frat boy) gamble has thrown Britain into the deepest political and economic crisis since the second world war and has made minority groups across the UK vulnerable to racist and xenophobic hatred and violence.

People of color, in particular those in the global South, know all too well what it is to be at the receiving end of the British establishment’s divisive top-down interventions. Scapegoating migrants is a divisive tool favored by successive governments, but the British establishment’s divide and rule tactic was honed much further afield in the course of its colonial exploits. Britain has a long history ofinvading, exploiting, enslaving and murdering vast numbers of people, crimes for which it has never been held accountable.

While the British Empire may be a thing of the past, British imperialism is not. Today the Chilcot inquiry reports on the role of Tony Blair’s government in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which resulted in the death of nearly half a million Iraqis and the destabilization of the region, for which its inhabitants continue to pay the price. It isno coincidence that the Blairite wing of the Labour Party, amidst the Brexit chaos, launched a coup against its current leader, Jeremy Corbyn, who is set to call for Blair to be put on trial for war crimes.

The referendum that resulted in a 52 percent vote in favor of Britain leaving the EU was initiated by the Conservative government. Shortly after the result was announced, it became clear that the leaders of the Brexit campaign had not wanted this result. Member of Parliament Boris Johnson appeared ashen-faced at a press conference. He had neither expected nor wanted to win the referendum. He only wanted to be next in line for Number 10 Downing Street. David Cameron, who had led the Remain campaign, resigned as prime minister immediately. He had called the referendum in a bid to keep the Conservative Party together, without sparing a thought for the lives that would be destroyed if the bet did not pay off. His gamble backfired, as did Boris Johnson’s. Member of Parliament Michael Gove, who had been Johnson’s right-hand man in the Leave campaign, betrayed him within days of the result, announcing he would be running for prime minister, thereby ending Johnson’s bid to lead the country. This series of events has thrown the Conservative Party into disarray, the very outcome Cameron had wanted to avoid. Nigel Farage, who stoked up unprecendented levels of racist hate and deserves much of the credit for the Brexit win, resigned as leader of the UK Independence Party on Monday, saying he “wants his life back.”

As political leaders jump ship in the wake of the Brexit vote, reports have emerged of a Britain divided, of a traumatized population, grieving and suffering the onset ofdepression. There is talk of the need for reconciliation in a country where communities and families have been divided. Alongside this, there are expressions ofanger and demands for the British establishment to be held accountable for the outcome of the referendum.

There is no doubt that the feelings of anger and loss in the wake of Brexit are real, but where is our collective sense of outrage in the face of the establishment’s divisive and destructive actions elsewhere? After all, the deregulatory reforms entailed in austerity policies imposed in European Union countries with disastrous consequences, including cuts to vital welfare services, following the 2007 financial crisis, as Diamond Ashiagbor has argued, are “medicine first trialed on the global South since the 70s.” Ashiagbor notes, “European states are experiencing this as a category error, in part because they have not been on the receiving end of such policies,” which are all too familiar in the global South.

In the week following the announcement of the referendum results, two news items probably escaped most people’s attention. The UK Supreme Court delivered a rulingthat further impedes the prospect of the Chagos Islanders returning to the home from which they were forcibly removed in 1971 by the colonial British government as part of a deal to allow the US to establish a military base on the largest island, Diego Garcia. Also in the news last week were reports of 94-year-old Kenyan, Nelson Njao Munyaka, who testified in the High Court about killings he witnessed by British soldiers under 1950s British colonial rule. Munyaka is one of 40,000 Kenyans suing the British government over injuries and loss suffered in the course of its repression of the Mau Mau independence movement. Munyaka spoke of witnessing the shooting of his workmates, being made to carry their corpses and the flashbacks he suffers of the physical and verbal assaults he endured at the hands of British soldiers.

Brexit is not only nostalgia for empire — it is also the fruit of empire. Britain is reaping what it sowed. The legacies of British imperialism have never been addressed, including that of racism. British colonial rule saw the exploitation of peoples, their subjugation on the basis of race, a system that was maintained through the brutal and systematic violence of the colonial authorities.

The prevalence of structural and institutional racism in Britain today made it fertile ground for the effectiveness of the Brexit campaign’s racist and dehumanizing rhetoric of “taking back control” and reaching “breaking point.” This rhetoric is entirely divorced from an understanding of British colonial history, including the country’s recent imperial exploits, which have destabilized and exploited regions andset in motion the migration of today.

Islamophobia powered the Blair-Bush war machine, allowing the lie to be peddled that only the Arab world produces brutal despots, and that the lives of nearly half a million Iraqis are an acceptable price to pay for Britain to be the closest ally of the world’s superpower. Just as the political leaders who called the EU referendum along with those who led the Leave campaign did so with no plan in place for the aftermath, so did the Bush-Blair coalition embark on the 2003 invasion of Iraq with catastrophic consequences. Thirteen years on, Iraqis continue to feel viscerally thetrauma of war and the pain of their divided society. Only this week, another suicide bombing in a busy marketplace took the lives of more than 200 people.

The British establishment does not care to learn lessons from the past. Recall its thoughtless and entirely self-interested military intervention in Libya in 2011, which has left the country in a war-torn state of violence and chaos, a hot-bed for ISIS (also known as Daesh). But we can learn lessons — lessons that might help the left build solidarity and resist repression in more productive ways. We can begin by understanding Brexit instability and our feelings of loss and fear in the context of longstanding and far-reaching oppression elsewhere. As for privileged Remainers with power and influence, they are disingenuous not to accept a large slice of responsibility for the outcome of the EU referendum. From New Labour’s redefining of the Left as “extreme centre,” to Labour’s “austerity lite,” to their support for imperial wars and the mainstream media’s marginalization of left voices and people of color, and their denial of racism, they oiled the wheels of the Brexit battle bus. It is no use for the powerful liberal mainstream to cry crocodile tears now. They would do better to recognize their role in creating the conditions for the sort of racism that propelled the Brexit campaign to victory.

Posted in UKComments Off on The Iraq War, Brexit and Imperial Blowback

The West’s Establishment Lies and Crimes Are Leading Us to The Unthinkable

NOVANEWS
A scene of destruction after an aerial bombing in Azaz, Syria, Aug. 16, 2012. (U.S. government photo)

Corporate media messaging about the war on Syria is corrupt to an unprecedented level, despite years of sustainable evidence that contradicts the lies.

The “West”, including U.S.–led NATO, the Persian Gulf Monarchies, and Israel, are waging a proxy war against Syria. ISIS or Daesh is the designated enemy, but it has long been (publicly) acknowledged that the real enemy is President Assad of Syria, not ISIS.  All of the invading, un-islamic mercenary terrorists are the West’s “strategic assets,” including ISIS. Engineered islamophobia is all part of the Western psy- op to demonize all Muslims, to create fear, to create racism, and to create hatred — vital components for illegal wars of aggression.

Empire seeks to replace the democratic, pluralist, progressive government of President Assad with a Wahhabi-inspired, compliant, stooge government.

We have witnessed Empire’s genocidal handiwork in Iraq, Libya, Ukraine, and beyond – all part of a neo-con project for global dominance, globalized war, and globalized poverty, but Syria and its allies, including Russia and Iran, have seemingly drawn a red-line with Syria. Empire’s unipolar ambitions are being frustrated on Syrian soil.

The war is not a “clash of civilizations” as some warmongers might profess; it is a clash of one civilization, Syria’s, against Western barbarism.

Criminal mainstream messaging, however, has created a state of mass political imbecilization amongst Western media consumers.  In a classic case of “reverse-projection”, people’s engineered perceptions present President Assad and Syrians as the “bad guys”, while the invading terrorists are viewed as the “good guys”.

Repeated messaging of these false narratives, coupled with sophisticated confusion-mongering, continues to weld these lies into the collective political consciousness of Western media consumers.

How did the “Establishment” orchestrate such a coup?

Ostensibly “neutral” information sources are not neutral at all. So-called “Non-Governmental Organizations” (NGOs), including very governmental sources such as the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) the CIA, Mossad etc. as well as oligarch (ie Soros) funded foundations, are all embedded with the terrorists, and these are the sources that are the foundation for corporate/mainstream media (MSM) “news” stories.

The White/al Qaeda Helmets, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR), and Avaaz are just a few of the many corrupt NGOs lying about the War on Syria. Add to this Qatari -based Al Jazeera, and Western media’s modus operandi of trotting out “experts” who have conflicts of interest  but who nevertheless pose as “neutral” sources of information, and we see that the media serves as an agency for imperial war, rather than as an agency for truth and justice.

Meanwhile, voices of truth, justice, and peace are suppressed.  Writer/Professor Tim Anderson, an expert on the war, and author of The Dirty War on Syria (click right image to order directly from Global Research), recently posted these words:

In my country (Australia) we have seen five years of a near monolithic war narrative on Syria, and associated wartime censorship of dissenting views. Although I have probably written more than any other Australian academic on the conflict in Syria, I have been effectively black-listed from the Australian corporate and state media, because what I say does not fit the official line.

Not only are the lies enabling the siege of Syria and its peoples, but they are also propelling us blindly towards a possibly cataclysmic nuclear war against Russia and its allies.  The stakes are high, and there are ominous forebodings that Washington-based warmongering circles – namely, the Military Industrial Complex (MIC) – are intent on provoking the unthinkable — cataclysmic nuclear warfare.

The “Strategic Deterrent Coalition”, a non-profit organization, with funding from war-profiteering companies such as Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Orbita AK, and BAE systems, is one such “circle”.  It aims to “educate” decision-makers and “build a consensus” in favour of the “pre-emptive”/first strike use of nuclear weapons.

The jargon sounds almost benign, but the premise upon which the fear-mongering is based is patently absurd.  Prof Michel Chossudovsky explains in “ ‘The Doomsday Forum’: Senior Military, Nuclear Weapons Officials Convene… America’s ‘$1 Trillion Nuclear Weapons Plan’. Take out Russia, Iran and North Korea? “ :

Theater of the absurd: the US is intent upon using nuclear weapons as a means of self defense against Al Qaeda and ISIS under the Administration’s counter-terrorism initative:

And the United States is part of an international campaign against violent extremist organizations groups ‘seeking to destroy our democratic way of life.’

To effectively keep adversaries and potential adversaries in check, America must maintain ‘a safe, secure, effective and ready nuclear deterrent.’

Lest we forget, Al Qaeda was created by the CIA and the ISIS is supported and funded by two of America’s staunchest allies: Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

In fact, the entire “War On Terror” constitutes the “Theater of the Absurd”, since it is well- documented that the stated enemies of the “West” (ie al Qaeda/al Nusra Front, ISIS, and all the terrorists invading Syria) are supported by the West, the Gulf Monarchies, NATO, and Israel.

Instead of building a consensus for war, and first-strike nuclear attacks, we need to build a consensus for truth, justice, and peace.

As a first step, we would do well to boycott toxic mainstream media (MSM) messaging, which favours lies, injustice, and war.

(This is an expanded, edited version, of an article which appeared at Russia Insider)

 Notes

1. http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-doomsday-forum-senior-military-nuclear-weapons-officials-convene-americas-1-trillion-nuclear-weapons-plan/5534549


original

Posted in USA, EuropeComments Off on The West’s Establishment Lies and Crimes Are Leading Us to The Unthinkable

NATO, America’s “World Policeman”, An Instrument of US Imperial Conquest

NOVANEWS
 
Russia_NATO_flags.svg

US-dominated NATO threatens world peace. It’s for offense, not defense. No threats exist except invented ones, lamely justifying the unjustifiable. Washington uses the alliance to advance its imperium, hanging a sword of Damocles over humanity.

Claiming NATO’s resolve is to confront a “resurgent Russia” masks its aim to be a world policeman, a global alliance operating on every continent, an enforcer of US foreign policy – an agenda of endless wars, elimination of all independent governments, puppet regimes replacing them, planet earth colonized.

Obama’s Financial Times op-ed on the summit’s eve combined anti-Russia saber-rattling with willful deception.

“This may be the most important moment for our transatlantic alliance since the end of the cold war,” he said.

Claiming terrorist threats ignored US responsibility for creating ISIS and likeminded groups, using them as imperial foot soldiers in the Middle East, Central Asia, Africa and elsewhere.

Citing the refugee crisis failed to explain America’s responsibility for the gravest one since WW II. Accusing Russia of “aggression against Ukraine threat(ing) our vision of a Europe that is whole, free and at peace” turned truth on its head.

Saying “(w)e need to bolster the defense of our allies in central and eastern Europe, strengthen deterrence and boost our resilience against new threats” begs the question.

Why when invented threats alone exist, America and its rogue allies the only real ones, NATO belligerently serving their interests, its agenda humanity’s greatest scourge.

Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg is a US-appointed front man representing its imperial interests.

At Warsaw’s summit saying “NATO…send(s) a very clear message that we are here” is code language reflecting aggressive US foreign policy – Russia and China its prime targets, creating the illusion of both countries posing a threat to alliance members when none exists.

Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov urged “common sense” over “anti-Russia hysteria,” explaining it’s “absurd to speak of a (nonexistent) threat coming from Russia when people are being killed in the heart of Europe, while hundreds die in the Middle East every day.”

Days earlier, Putin said “(w)e are always accused of some kind of military activity. Where? On our (own) territory. But (deploying NATO combat troops and heavy weapons) on our border – that’s OK.”

According to Russian upper house Federation Council Foreign pPolicy Committee chairman Konstantin Kosachov, “(t)he Warsaw summit is a summit of deception…cement(ing) a second wall in Europe after the Berlin one…proceed(ing) from the logic of confrontation…”

Russian Federation Council first deputy Defense and Security committee head Frants Klintsevich called deploying battalions of combat troops near Russia’s border an “act of aggression…hav(ing) an extremely negative impact on the global situation on the whole.”

Russia will respond appropriately, he added, responsibly protecting its national security interests. Belligerent US-led actions belie Stoltenberg saying NATO doesn’t want a new Cold War, arms race, confrontation or Russia isolated.

Its agenda risks global war for the first time since WW II ended – today’s super-weapons able to end life on earth.

 

Posted in USA, EuropeComments Off on NATO, America’s “World Policeman”, An Instrument of US Imperial Conquest

The New Immoral Age: How Technology Offers New Ways of Killing People and of Destroying the World

NOVANEWS
drone

“It turns out … that I’m really good at killing people.” President Barack Obama (1961- ), (as reported in Reed Peeples, ‘A President and his Drones’, June 29, 2016, —a review of the book ‘Objective Troy: A Terrorist, a President, and the Rise of the Drone’, S. Shane, 2015)

We hold that what one man cannot morally do, a million men cannot morally do, and government, representing many millions of men, cannot do.

—Governments are only machines, created by the individuals of a nation for their own convenience; they are only delegated bodies, delegated by the individuals, and therefore they cannot possibly have larger moral rights of using force, or, indeed, larger moral rights of any kind, than the individuals who delegated them.

—We may reasonably believe that an individual, as a self-owner, is morally justified in defending the rights he possesses in himself and in his own property—by force, if necessary, against force (and fraud), but he cannot be justified in using force for any other purpose whatsoever. Auberon Herbert (1838-1906), British writer

“Nothing that is morally wrong can be politically right.” Hannah More (1745-1833) English writer and philanthropist

A belligerent state permits itself every such misdeed, every such act of violence, as would disgrace the individual. Sigmund Freud (1856-1939), Austrian psychiatrist and philosopher

Prof. Rodrigue Tremblay

We not only live in the computer and digital age, we also live in a profoundly immoral age, in which the use of violence against people has become easily justifiable, nearly routinely, either for religious, military or security reasons.

Let us recall that the Twentieth Century was the most politically murderous period ever in history. It is estimated that political decisions, mostly made by psychopaths in various governments, resulted in the death of some 262 million people—a democide or political mass murder, according to scholarly works by political scientist Rudolph J. Rummel. It remains to be seen if the Twenty-first Century will regress from this barbarism or exceed it. So far, things do not look too good. Human morality and empathy is not increasing; it is declining fast. And with nuclear weapons in the hands of potential psychopaths, the next big step toward oblivion will not be a cakewalk.

Indeed, a new brand of immorality has permeated into some political minds, according to which what one individual cannot morally do on his own, i.e. cold-blooded murder of another human being, a head of state, a government or a group of public officials can do, in his place. Under what moral code can individuals delegate to governments or public officials authority to do crimes that they themselves cannot do without being immoral? Wouldn’t that be extremely hypocritical and a parody of morality?

According to basic humanitarian or humanist morality, as the Auberon Herbert’s quote above illustrates, what is immoral for one individual does not become moral because one million individuals do it, under the cloak of a government or any other umbrella organization. In other words, a head of state or a government cannot enjoy a wider choice of moral rules than the ones that apply to every individual. The agent (the public person) cannot have looser moral rules than the principal (the people). There cannot be one morality for an individual in private life, and another one for an individual acting within a government.

For example, it is widely accepted under basic moral rules that an individual may only use deadly force in self-defense, when his own life or the lives of his family are threatened. Therefore, the delegated morality to a state by its citizens to use deadly force cannot extend beyond the requirements of self-defense against actual or imminent attack, of the maintenance of order, and of the implementation of justice. Any unprovoked act of deadly aggression, resulting in the untimely and extrajudicial death of people, by a head of state, a government or its officials against other people becomes automatically immoral, if not illegal, notwithstanding in what legal mumbo jumbo such an aggression is couched.

It is true that the current chasm between individual and official morality has been long in developing. When the Roman Emperor Theodosius (347-395), in 380, adopted Christianity as its official state religion, it was difficult to apply Jesus Christ’s pacifist and non-violence admonition that “all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword”. Christian theologians such as Augustine of Hippo (354-430) were thus obliged to develop the argument that moral rules designed for individuals did not necessarily apply to an individual becoming an emperor, a king or a head of state who must administer justice or wage wars. In particular, the Commandment “Thou shall not kill” was redefined to exclude heads of state involved in so-called “just wars”, waged by a ‘legitimate authority’. It was spelled out, however, that such wars could not be pre-emptive, but strictly defensive to restore peace. Otherwise, such a war would become immoral.

Nowadays, there is a basic public morality inscribed in the United Nations Charter and in the Nuremberg Charter. The latter clearly prohibits crimes against peace, defined as referring to the “planning, preparation, initiation, or waging of wars of aggression”… A war of aggression is defined as is a military conflict waged without the justification of self-defense, usually for territorial gain and subjugation. The U.N. General Assembly adopted these definitions, on December 11, 1946, as part of customary international law. Such was the core of public morality after World War II.

However, over the years, public morality has steadily declined, most recently illustrated in 2003 when U.S. President George W. Bush launched a U.S.-led war of unprovoked aggression against the country of Iraq, assisted by British Prime minister Tony Blair. The latter unnecessary and disastrous war, launched on a mountain of lies, has been thoroughly investigated in the United Kingdom, but hardly at all in theUnited States, the center of it all.

Therefore, notwithstanding that no serious post-administration inquiry has been carried out in the United States regarding the mischief caused by the George W. Bush-Dick Cheney tandem, at the very least, future historians will have the 12-volume Chilcot Report to assess how some British and American politicians fooled the people, in 2002-2003, and launched a war of aggression against an independent country, with no direct consequences for themselves.

More generally indeed, in the Twenty-first Century, it can be said that killing technology has advanced at the same time as public morality and personal accountability have declined.

Truman globalresearch.caIn the U.S., for instance, it has long been suspected that the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), (a sort of secret government within the government created by President Harry Truman in 1946), was involved in covert illegal activities, especially when it came to sponsoring terrorist death squads in various countries. In 1975, for example, the U.S. Senate established a Select Committee to study governmental operations with respect to illegal intelligence activities, chaired by Senator Frank Church (D-ID). That important committee investigated illegalities by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

Among the matters investigated were the covert activities of the CIA involving attempts to assassinate foreign leaders and attempts to subvert foreign national governments. Following the reports and under the recommendations and pressure by the Church committee, President Gerald Ford issued Executive Order 11905 (ultimately replaced in 1981 by President Ronald Reagan’s Executive Order 12333) with the express intent to ban U.S. sanctioned assassinations of foreign leaders.

Now, let us move fast forward. The most recent instance of a public official known to have assigned to himself the task of targeting some people, even American citizens, to be assassinated with unmanned drones or other means, without charge and outside of judicial procedures, and without geographic limits, is under President Barack Obama. Indeed, Mr. Obama seems to be the first American president to have institutionalized what is called the “Terror Tuesday” meetings, during which the American president, with the help of the head of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), decides about the assassination or the capture of individuals deemed to be enemies of the United States around the world.

Last July 1st, the Obama administration released its own assessment of the number of civiliansassassinated by drone strikes in nations where the U.S. is not officially at war. It claimed it has killed between 64 and 116 “non-combatant” individuals in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and Libya, between January 2009 and the end of 2015. However, the London-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism has estimated that as many as 380 to 801 unarmed civilians have been recorded to have been killed with the new technology of unmanned drones.

Remote Killing, Drone Screens

Drone killing may be the most controversial legacy that President Barack Obama is leaving behind. To my knowledge, this is without precedent in U.S. history, at least at the presidential level, that assassinations of people, including some Americans, are carried outside of the legal framework, under direct supervision of a U.S. lethal president. In a democracy based on checks and balances, this would seem to be an example of executive overreach.

With such an example originating in the White House, it may not be a surprise that an American military officer has recently requested the “authority” to assassinate people without presidential approval, in his geographical area of responsibility, in Africa.

It is very disturbing to empower a government, any government, with the power to execute people without trial or due process. This may be a sign of our times, but this is not what we could call a progress of civilization or of human morality. It seems rather that as killing technology has advanced, and as power has become less constrained, humanitarian morality has badly declined.

It is a sad truth that advances in military technology over time have always been used to kill people. Even the dreadful atom bomb has been used to kill hundreds of thousands people. It is only a matter of timebefore it could be used again. It would only take one psychopathic madman in power to destroy humanity.

Addendum:

All this immorality permeates into the management of the economy, under the motto “greed is good”. As Iassessed at the beginning of this year, the world economy is ripe for a huge awakening. A mixture of wars of aggression and of financial market crashes could shake the world in the coming months.

That is because the people who fan the flames of war are the same ones who are pushing financial markets to their limits and created a huge asset bubble.

Barak Obama’s little known neocon-inspired goal has been to expand NATO to Russia’s borders and to isolate Russia. This mischievous brinkmanship policy is being played out to the fullest. Indeed, there is presently a suspicious and dangerous buildup of NATO troops at the Russian border, with the obvious intent of provoking Russia into some sort of conflict. These professional warmongers may get their wish and they may soon plunge the world into chaos.

Posted in USA, Human RightsComments Off on The New Immoral Age: How Technology Offers New Ways of Killing People and of Destroying the World

Police Murder Because They Are Trained To Murder

NOVANEWS
The Militarization of Law Enforcement
 
Swat officers on the scene of the shooting

In response to my request for information on US police training, readers have sent in a variety of information that seems to fit together. I am going to assemble it as best I can as a working hypothesis or provisional account.  Perhaps a former or current police officer concerned about the change in the behavior of US police, or an expert on police training and practices, will come forward and verify or correct this provisional account.

First, we know that the police have been, or are being, militarized.  They are armed with weapons of war that hitherto have been used only on battlefields.  We don’t know why police are armed in this way, as such weapons are not necessary for policing the American public and are not used in police work anywhere except in Israeli-occupied Palestine.

There is an undeclared agenda behind these weapons, and neither Congress nor the presstitute media have any apparent interest in discovering the hidden agenda.

Nevertheless, the militarization of the police fits in with what we know about police training.

There are sourced reports that US police are receiving training from Israel, both from traveling to Israel and in the US from Israeli training firms or from US firms using Israeli methods.

See, for example, https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/homeland.html

and  http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/us-police-get-antiterror-training-israel-privately-funded-trips

The training of American police by Israeli occupation forces is not an Internet rumor or “conspiracy theory.”  It is a fact acknowledged by the Israeli press:  http://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-trains-us-law-enforcement-in-counter-terrorism/

Israeli police practices arose from decades of occupying a hostile Palestinian population while stealing the Palestinians’ land and isolating the population in ghetto enclaves.  Essentially, Israeli police practices consist of intimidation and violence.

https://electronicintifada.net/content/israels-export-occupation-police-tactics/8485

We know from innumerable news reports over many years the behavior of the occupying Israeli Army toward the Palestinian population.  In four short words: it is extremely brutal.

For a soldier, especially a female soldier, to execute a child and his mother in the streets of Palestine or in the family’s home requires that soldier to have been desensitized to human life that is not Israeli.  This requires Palestinians to have been dehumanized, as the native inhabitants of what is today the United States and Australia were dehumanized by the European immigrants who stole their land.

On the basis of this information, we can infer that the Israeli training of US police teaches the police to see only police lives as valuable and the lives of the public as potential threats to police lives.  This is why American police often murder a wrongly suspected person and almost always an unarmed one.  The examples are numerous.  You can spend much of your life just watching on youtube the existing videos of wanton murders of US citizens by police.

The American police are being taught at public expense that only their lives are valuable, not our lives. Therefore, in any encounter with a citizen, the automatic assumption is that the citizen intends harm to the police and must be immediately forcefully subdued and handcuffed or, alternatively, shot dead.  The police are trained that the safest thing for the police to do is to terminate the suspect even if it is a soccer mom who forgot to signal a turn while driving her kids to a practice.

In other words, the American police have no more obligation to respect the lives and rights of US citizens than the Israeli occupying forces have to respect the lives and rights of Palestinians.

This does appear to be an accurate description of the situation.  Even the New York Times has blown the whistle on William J. Lewinski, who trains US police to shoot first and he will answer the questions for them in court, on the rare occasion that the wanton murder they committed lands them there.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/us/training-officers-to-shoot-first-and-he-will-answer-questions-later.html?_r=1

What about racism?  Racism is the answer put forward by liberals, progressives, the putative leftwing, and by blacks themselves.

There are problems with the racist explanation.  One obvious problem is that the American police wantonly murder and brutalize white people also.  Just the other day the police murdered a 19 year old white American while he lay on the ground.  And the TSA abuses far more whites than it does blacks.  See my website for recent examples of both.

A former black police officer provides revealing insight into the real situation.  He says that about 15% of a police department consists of people who are there for the right reasons and represent a culture of public service. Another 15% are psychopaths who routinely abuse their power.  The remaining 70% of the department goes with whichever of the two cultures prevails.  Unfortunately, “the bad officers corrupt the department” and the Chicago police under former Chicago Police Commander Jon Burge proves the case.

http://www.vox.com/2015/5/28/8661977/race-police-officer

The former black police officer assigns blame to “institutional racism.”  However, based on what we have learned about Israeli police training, the police bias against black Americans might not be racist or totally racist.  Blacks in America have a history of dehumanization.  In the eyes of police trainers, American blacks fit the mold of Palestinians. It is easier to begin the training process by making American police indifferent to the lives of an already dehumanized element of the US population. Once the police are indoctrinated to see themselves not as servants of the people but as “exceptional, indispensable people” whose lives must never be at risk, it is a simple matter to generalize the feeling of police superiority over the white population as well.

I have always been suspicious of the racist explanation.  This is an explanation fed to the public in order to break the public into waring factions that cannot unite against their real oppressors. Indoctrinated as we are to hate and fear one another, those who rule and abuse us can do as they will.

It is as clear as a clear day that only a tiny percentage of white Americans belong to the One Percent.  The rest of us are of no more consequence to those who rule than are blacks. Yet, we are divided, fearful of and opposed to one another.  What a success for the One Percent !

Let me be clear.  Just as we oppose the mentality of violence that is being inculcated into the police who live on our earnings, numerous Jews and Israelis themselves oppose the settler mentality that the Israeli government has come to represent. Jews are among the most ardent defenders of human rights of our time. Think of Norman Finkelstein, Noam Chomsky Ilan Pappe, and the American Civil Liberties Union. Think of the brave Israeli organizations that oppose the theft of Palestinian lands and villages.  We cannot damn an entire people for the sins of their political masters.  If so, then after Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama, all Americans are damned.

The two greatest threats to the world are American and Israeli exceptionalism.  It is the success of the indoctrination of this Nazi doctrine of exceptionalism that is the source of the violence in the world today.

The problem of American police violence is that the police are now defined as exceptional and unaccountable. They can kill the rest of us without accountability, just as Washington slaughters untold numbers of peoples in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, and Pakistan. Unexceptional peoples are dispensable.

It is paradoxical that training US police in the violent methods of the Israeli occupying forces is justified with the argument that it is necessary to save American lives from terrorists when the actual result is far more Americans killed by police than by terrorists.

Clearly the police training is counterproductive.

It would seem that the families of those murdered and abused by police have good grounds for suing mayors, city councils, county commissioners, governors and state legislators for negligence in police oversight.  The evidence is in.  The police are taking lives, not saving them.  The training is a total failure.  Yet it persists.  This is a high order of negligence and failure by public authorities.

Posted in USA, Human RightsComments Off on Police Murder Because They Are Trained To Murder

The Bloodiest Ramadan Month on Record

ISIS Linked to Multiple Terror Attacks. But Who is Behind ISIS?
terrorists

The bloodiest Ramadan month in modern times has just come to an end. With relentless, near daily attacks, the world’s largest terrorist organization has proudly and defiantly proclaimed full credit for committing heinous acts just to strike terror into the hearts and minds of the planet’s 7.4 billion humans. This unprecedented month of holy terror that commenced at sundown on June 5th through July 5th witnessed an enormous spike in terrorist attacks like no other before it, violently marring the 30 days of religious fasting, charity and prayers for over 1.6 billion Muslims worldwide joining their families and friends in celebration. ISIS made a clear, in-our-face statement that all the globalized antiterrorist efforts to end the scourge of Islamic State terror are both too feeble and too futile to stop the carnage. Terrorists’ ultimate objective is to inflict fear and terror into people’s daily lives so that in no corner of the globe can feel safe.

Back in May a full three weeks prior to the start of Ramadan month, ISIS spokesman Abu Mohamed al-Adnani pronounced the rally cry to warn the world:

Ramadan, the month of conquest and jihad. Get prepared, be ready to make it a month of calamity everywhere for the non-believers, especially for the fighters and supporters of the caliphate in Europe and America.

In the twisted Islamic State terrorist version of Ramadan, Allah favors martyrdom sacrifice during the holy month and opens the gates of heaven to those who die for their Muslim cause. On the 27th day of Ramadan, celebrated as the Day of for Mohammed’s first writing of the Koran the worst attacks occurred

A brief timeline of the lethal damage caused by their month long attacks:

* June 5th Afghanistan: MP murdered by bomb near home in Kabul also wounding 11 just hours after Taliban stormed courthouse south of capital killing 7 and injuring 21
*June 12th US: ISIS took credit for alleged lone jihadist gunman, an Afghan American who perpetrated America’s deadliest mass shooting in history and worst terrorism on US soil since 9/11 during early morning hours at Orlando, Florida gay nightclub allegedly killing 49 and wounding 53 according to official false narrative
* June 13th France: Islamic jihadist stabs police officer and then later his wife in a Paris suburb in front of their son
* June 13th Philippines: ISIS linked terrorist group beheads a second Canadian citizen being held hostage
* June 20th Kenya: Islamic terrorists from Somalia’s al-Shabaab group attacked a police vehicle with a rocket grenade launcher killing 5 policemen wounding 4 others
*June 20th Afghanistan: Waves of multiple attacks in Kabul 14 deaths claimed by ISIS and 11 by the Taliban that include police cadets as well as Nepalese security guards; interior ministry stated 30 total dead and 58 injured
* June 21st Jordan: A suicide truck bomb exploded at an army post killing 7 soldiers wounding 13 near refugee camp along Syrian border, the worst act of terrorism in Jordan in years
* June 27th Lebanon: Two waves of suicide bombers attack and kill 5 men and injure dozens in a Christian town
* June 28th Malaysia: Suicide bomber launches a grenade attack injuring 8 patrons watching a soccer match on the nightclub bar television, marking first known ISIS attack in Malaysia
* June 28th Turkey: 3 suspected ISIS suicide bombers opened fire then blew themselves up at Istanbul airport killing 45 and wounding more than 250
* June 29th Yemen: 43 are killed by four bombs going off at checkpoints in a southern Yemeni city claimed by ISIS
* July 2nd Bangladesh: 7 gunmen kill 20 hostages and 2 police officers at a bakery in capital Dhaka frequented by foreigners
* July 3rd Iraq: IS truck bomb goes off destroying multiple shops in upscale, relatively “safe” Shia neighborhood killing 250 and injuring  as the deadliest bombing in Iraq since 2003
* July 4th Saudi Arabia: Series of three ISIS suicide bomber attacks strike sacred mosque in Medina where Prophet Mohammed is buried killing 4 security guards and a Shia mosque in Qatif while earlier another bomber attacked US Embassy in Jeddah
* July 5th Indonesia: ISIS suicide bomber detonated a bomb outside a central Java police station injuring one police officer, marking the second ISIS attack in Indonesia after incident on January 14th in Jakarta killed 4

Virtually all of the above violence is linked to the Islamic State caliphate.

Hitting multiple targets spread around the globe in so many countries is designed to send the message that no person on earth is safe or can be protected from terrorism. It also defiantly demonstrates that regardless of how advanced or sophisticated international counterterrorism measures may be or become, no national state authority can adequately defend its own citizens, be they Muslims or infidels alike. The holy month’s final global body count is 421 dead and 729 wounded. If murdered civilians and police in such war torn nations as Syria, Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq (in addition to the 250 killed in the one incident) are also included in the tally, over 800 innocent victims of terrorism were slaughtered in 15 different countries from the US to the Philippines. Every group became victims, Westerners, Christians, Asians, Sunnis, Shias and Arabs.

Mainstream consensus is quick to report that ISIS terrorists are attempting to make up for their recent battlefield defeats resulting in 47% lost ground territory in Iraq and 20% in Syria by unleashing its global war on infidels through stepping up terrorist attacks around the world. With Russian air support, the Syrian military has made steady progress defeating the ISIS stronghold in northern Syria and Aleppo, moving in for the kill in the ISIS de facto capital Raqqa. And Iraqi and Kurdish forces with help from Iran have made strides beating back terrorists in Falluja and holding Mosul under siege. IS leaders have been killed by coalition airstrikes and growing numbers of defectors in the ISIS ranks have fled the war zones. The recent terrorist payback in Baghdad killing 250 Iraqi citizens is no doubt a direct consequence of those battlefield losses. And now that Ramadan is over, ISIS is still going at it. After a mortar attack on a Shia shrine near Baghdad on Thursday, three suicide bombers entered the mausoleum to blow themselves up and killed 36 and injuring 40 more Iraqis. By going on the offensive with multiple deadly acts of global terrorism, ISIS hopes it can rebound its sagging recruiting numbers as well.

Some MSM articles and commentators suggest that Orlando, the Istanbul airport and most recent Saudi attacks are all acts of revenge towards the US-Turkish-Saudi coalition’s “renewed” fight against ISIS dubbed Operation Inherent Resolve.” But it’s more apt to be a camouflaged smokescreen designed to convince former doubters that these nations long promoting and protecting Islamic State terroristsare now actually uniting with sworn enemies Russia, Iran and Syria to destroy them. That notion seems at best a farfetched joke.

What remains different over these last 30 days is, on its month long rampage, ISIS apparently decided to bite the very hand that feeds it the most, namely the US-Turkey-Saudi alliance. More than any other countries on earth, these three nations have proven to be the prime financiers, trainers, suppliers and lifeblood maintainers of this Wahhabi Takfirist brand of terrorism. Turkey’s President Erdogan has long dreamed of leading a second Ottoman Empire and the House of Saud for decades has envisioned ruling over an Islamic Sunni caliphate extending to every continent. ISIS fits well into their delusions of grandeur. After all, the royal Saudi family sees itself as the “custodians of Islam, defending the two most sacred mosques in its backyard in Medina and Mecca. But the Medina attack delivered the royals their wakeup call, letting them and the world know they’re not doing such a swell job. Yet as a ground force alongside AQAP, ISIS terrorists and the Saudi air force fight hand-in-glove committing Yemen war crimes. And of course with the US Empire secretly deploying militant Islamic jihadists as its go-to proxy war allies in over half dozen countries for nearly a half century now, the biggest staged bloodbath [albeit no visible evidence] in US history is still using ISIS to wage its forever war on terror (and let’s not forget regime change Assad).

Yet the Islamic State made it an exclamation point this Ramadan 2016 by specifically targeting its foremost pseudo-secret allies – the United States, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Only Israel as a secret ISIS admirer continues to escape Islamic State’s deathly wrath (although a few Palestinians were active over Ramadan shooting or stabbing a few Israelis trying to make up for the genocide against them). So why now have the trio of biggest covert supporters of global terrorism suddenly become Islamic State’s biggest targets? This presentation explores a plausible, if not probable explanation by peeling away the mainstream propaganda.

Solving any crime mystery always starts by answering the critical question who stands to gain the most from such widespread, seemingly indiscriminant slaughter of innocent human beings around the world. Answering that question addresses basic motives for committing such lethal atrocities. Another question is, beyond the local militants committing the crimes and their leaders allegedly sending orders from the Syrian battlefield, who or what organized entity has the international means and resources of carrying out such heinous actions over such a wide geographical area of the world? ISIS may be the biggest terrorist group on earth, but the vast international security-surveillance apparatus spanning the globe possesses the technological capability with facial recognition and biometrics breakthroughs to track virtually every electronic and phone communication on the planet as well as the known whereabouts of virtually every ISIS member.

In the past law enforcement intelligence always seems to be overly familiar with the jihadists that invariably are identified soon after their dirty deed, often accidentally on purpose leaving their terrorist calling card by way of passport or ID at the crime scene, which in and of itself more than invites suspicion wafting a foul smelling false flag. If deep state actually wanted to apprehend these terrorists prior to their acting out, with both the means and the will, deep state could. But deep state continues allowing, or more aptly orchestrating from behind the curtain an ever-rising number of these terrorist attacks.

Every national and international intelligence agency in the world was well aware of the advanced three week notice calling for this year’s Ramadan month to be the most violent month of holy terror on record. Combine that fact with existing irrefutable evidence that global terrorism is a direct manifestation of the US, its Western allies along with Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf State monarchies, engineered by invisible handlers from the international intelligence community – most often the CIA, FBI, Mossad, MI6 and others, and you have the bloodiest Ramadan month on record.

By linking the skyrocketing incidence of terrorism to Islam’s holy month perpetrated by yet more Muslim extremist patsies, the powers-that-shouldn’t-be have effectively reinforced worldwide Islamophobia and religious hatred, driving a terrorized global population into yet more distrust and bigotry against 1.6 billion Muslim scapegoats. Secondly, fear of future violence from more murdering Muslims rises while justifying deep state’s increasing security lockdown and authoritarian enslavement over the global masses with yet more surveillance and draconian measures of absolute control. Thirdly, in the eyes of the world, murdering their fellow innocent Muslims only vilifies the ISIS terrorists even more. Fourth, its effect on terrorized citizens will compel a growing percentage of them to be more accepting in seeking safety and security through centralized global governance, which falls right into the New World Order agenda. Deep state wins, humanity loses, all due to the hired thugs deployed by the ruling elite.

Taking all this into account while destabilizing geopolitical events and developments continue unfolding worldwide at the accelerated breakneck pace throughout 2015 and 2016, a clearer glimpse of the bigger picture should begin to emerge. Polarizing militarization is dividing the Western and Eastern alliance into facing off as separate enemy camps driven by over-the-top US-NATO belligerence presently lined up in unprecedented numbers at the Russian border flanked by missiles aimed at Moscow, while mounting hostilities and tensions are building in the Asian Pacific around China, all demonically and premeditatedly provoked by increasing Western aggression, and we now find ourselves but a matchstick away from igniting World War III. Simultaneously, deep security state oppression and tyranny through divide and conquerinduced fragmentation of both American and Western populations is intentionally instigating growing mass civil disturbance, spreading violence and police state brutality at an alarming, war zone rate.

Meanwhile, the paper printing funny money out of thin air can only kick the house of cards can down the road so long before all of these disastrous converging developments implode on each other to totally collapse the fast crumbling global economy. Finally, growing evidence of a large celestial body creating havoc throughout our solar system is impacting every planet with far-reaching effects and changes never before observed. The gravitational and electromagnetic disturbances caused by this massive intruder into our solar system that some call Nibiru/Planet X is casting an ever-darkening shadow foretelling a potential mass extinction level event with high probability of enormous meteors and comets as hurtling projectiles toward earthly collision. This of course is one possible doomsday event that NASA and the federal government have refused to warn Americans about. Meanwhile preparing for the worst, both Russia and China have been building subterranean respite for sizeable portions of its populations with either a possible nuclear Armageddon or earth knocked off its axis scenario while US elites have only selfishly readied their underground luxury dwellings for themselves, damning the rest of us above ground as sitting duck targets. Thus, this bloodiest Ramadan appears to be just a microcosm of the macro-disasters to come. As Betty Davis would say, “Hang on, it’s going to be a bumpy ride.”

Posted in Middle EastComments Off on The Bloodiest Ramadan Month on Record

The Paris Bataclan Terror Attack

NOVANEWS
Six French Military Were Present, Instructed Not to Intervene, People Died…
 
victime_bataclan

They were instructed according to their rules of engagement not to intervene, not to come to the rescue of the people inside the Bataclan nightclub or those in the street in front of the Bataclan. 89 people were killed, more than 100 wounded.

According to a Belgian news report (July 5),  The night of the attack at the Paris Bataclan, November 13, 2015, six French military personnel of the Sentinelle Project (launched by France’s Ministry of Defense) were at the entry of the concert hall.

They did not intervene because the circumstances [pertaining to the Bataclan attacks] did not meet their “rules of engagement”, according to cdH [Political Party] Member of Parliament (Député) Georges Dallemagne in a Tuesday morning statement [July 5] on Belgium’s RTL TV.”

An early report by Nouvel Obs (May 6, 2016), confirmed that there were 8 military personnel. They outnumbered the four alleged terrorists inside the Bataclan. If they had intervened, this would have saved lives. It is unclear from the report as to time at which they were stationed in front the nightclub.

Military personnel invariably obey orders from higher up. The question is: Who instructed them not to come to the rescue of people inside the nightclub? Was it the Police or the Ministry of Defense? According to Nouvel Ops: The  military of the Sentinelle force did not have the green light to use their weapons.  ”The victims will be rescued later, without the support of the Army” (translated from French).

It is worth noting that the 4 alleged terrorists were known to the police. It was also confirmed that there was foreknowledge of the November 13, 2015 attacks.

According to the New York Times: “Most of the men who carried out the Paris attacks were already on the radar of intelligence officials in France and Belgium”,

 ‘Rules of Engagement’

“We know that the [French] gendarmerie did not intervene when they were on location,” said the MP.”We know that six armed soldiers who were in front of the Bataclan did not intervene when the massacre at the Bataclan occurred.

“They were of the opinion that they should not intervene, because it so was not part of  their “rules of engagement”. Those rules state that they had to protect themselves only. That is absolutely incredible, hallucinatory. ”

Le Soir and 7sur7.be (translated from the French by GR)

The justification for not intervening is indeed nonsensical. The mandate of France’s Sentinelle project under the auspices of the Ministery of Defense is clear in this regard: The Sentinelle Operation had been launched in January 2015 in relation to  the Charlie Hebdo terror attacks. Its mandate (defined on November 13, 2015) :

to Protect the French people and provide security in support of the Internal Security Forces (FSI) at the most sensitive locations in Paris and the provinces” 

[original French]: “l’opération Sentinelle vise à protéger les Français et sécuriser, en appui des FSI, les sites les plus sensibles à Paris et en province.

Media Coverup

Not a single French mainstream media acknowledged the Belgian report quoting a Belgian Member of Parliament.  The English language media did not pick up the story.

The reports suggest that only a specific and select group of police were allowed to enter the nightclub. Why??

There were 10,000 Sentinelle forces in France. They operate under the auspices of the Ministry of Defense. The “Rules of engagement” defined by the Ministry of Defense for the Sentinelle Forces on November 13 were clearly defined. They were mobilized and deployed throughout the country as part of a counterterrorism operation. Their mandate was to protect the French people against the alleged terrorists.

http://www.lalibre.be/actu/international/un-depute-belge-l-affirme-6-militaires-en-armes-devant-le-bataclan-ne-sont-pas-intervenus-le-soir-des-attaques-577b5d4735705701fd967b73
Below is the brief of the Ministry of Defense (French) defining the mandate of the Sentinelle Forces on November 13, 2015

Aujourd’hui, la force Sentinelle est constituée de 10 000 soldats – dont 6 500 en Ile-de-France et 3 500 en province. Au total, 50 unités de l’armée de terre ont été mises à contribution pourparticiper à cet effort. Retour sur cette montée en puissance.

Dans la nuit du 13 novembre 2015, l’armée a immédiatement renforcé les dispositif sécuritaires des forces de sécurité intérieure (FSI) sur les sites frappés par les attentats terroristes.

Dans les 48 heures qui ont suivis les attentats, 1000 hommes sont venus renforcer le dispositif Sentinelle d’Ile de France.

Puis en 72 heures, 2000 hommes supplémentaires portent les effectifs déployés en France à 10 000 hommes. En région parisienne, l’arrivée de ces renforts porte à 150 le nombre d’unités militaires déployées. Elles sécurisent plus de 350 lieux – en appui des FSI. En province, la vigilance reste maintenue et le 20 novembre, 500 hommes ont renforcé les 3 000 soldats déjà Lancée à la suite des attentats survenus à Paris les 7, 8 et 9 janvier 2015, l’opération Sentinelle vise à protéger les Français et sécuriser, en appui des FSI, les sites les plus sensibles à Paris et en province.

Posted in FranceComments Off on The Paris Bataclan Terror Attack

The “New Cold War” is No Longer Cold

NOVANEWS
NATO Expands Military Presence along Russia’s Border, Lying All the Way to Barbarossa II
 

Despite claims made during NATO Summit Warsaw 2016, that “NATO remains a fundamental source of security for our people, and stability for the wider world,” it is clear that the threats and challenges NATO poses as existing to confront are in fact threats of its own, intentional creation and continued perpetuation.

From the ongoing refugee crisis triggered by NATO’s own global-spanning and ongoing military interventions, invasions, and occupations, to its continued expansion along Russia’s borders – violating every convention and “norm” that existed during the Cold War to keep it “cold,” NATO has proven that it is to the populations it poses as protector over, in fact, their greatest threat.

In particular, the summit in Warsaw, Poland centered on NATO’s expanding military presence along Russia’s borders, particularly in the Baltic nations of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, as well as in Poland itself.

The summit also covered ongoing NATO involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq, two nations so far beyond the Atlantic states the alliance allegedly was founded to protect, it would be comical if the consequences of their far-reaching meddling weren’t so serious.

Belligerence Vs Balance 

Global peace and stability is tenuously maintained through a careful balancing act between conflicting centers of power. The story of human history is that of this balancing act being performed.

World War II, which gave way to the current international order we live in, came about because of a fundamental failure to maintain this balancing act.

Perhaps the most troublesome aspect of World War II’s genesis, was the German military build-up along the then Soviet Union’s borders characterized by Berlin at the time as a means of collective defense for Europe, when in fact it was the lead up to a full-scale invasion known now as “Operation Barbarossa.” It is troublesome particularly because NATO is currently building up its forces in almost precisely the same areas and in almost precisely the same manner Nazi Germany did in the 1930s.

When German forces crossed into Russia on June 22, 1941, a potential balance of power meant to preserve Germany and the rest of Europe against perceived Soviet menace turned into a war that devastated both Europe and Russia.

The subsequent Cold War is an example of a balancing act of power being performed mostly with success. However, despite many common misconceptions regarding the Cold War, the mere existence of opposing nuclear arsenals and the concept of mutually assured destruction was not why balance was maintained.

Instead, balance was maintained by an immense framework, painstakingly constructed by both American and Soviet leaders, at the cost of both nations’ egos, pride, and interests and involved everything from agreements about the weaponization of space, to the composition and deployment of their nuclear arsenals, and even regarding defense systems designed to protect against nuclear first strikes.

There were also specific and complex agreements arranged over the deployment of troops along each respective center of powers’ borders, including the borders of nations that existed within their spheres of influence.

It was clear during the Cold War that both Washington and Moscow vied to expand their respective reach over the rest of the world, resulting in proxy wars everywhere from the Middle East to South America, and from Africa to Asia in a “low-intensity” bid – relative to all-out nuclear war – to gain the upper-hand.

Preceding and in the wake of the Soviet Union’s collapse, tentacles of Western influence had finally prevailed, and reached deep within Russia itself, eroding not only Russia’s own institutions and national sovereignty, but unsettling the global balance of power that had existed for decades after World War II.

It was only during the rise of Russian President Vladimir Putin that this trend was reversed and something resembling global balance reemerged.

It was clear that during the early 2000’s, whatever progress the US had made in dismantling the remnants of Soviet checks to its otherwise unlimited desire for global hegemony, would need to come to an end, and a new framework mirroring that of the Cold War, established to accommodate emerging global powers including the Russian Federation

But this is not what happened.

The New Build-Up 

Instead, under the administration of US President George Bush and continued under that of President Barack Obama, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM Treaty or ABMT) was unilaterally withdrawn from by the United States.

Additionally, the United States – beginning in the 1990s and continuing until today as seen in Ukraine – has funded and backed various political coups across Eastern Europe under the guise of “promoting democracy,” installing client states along Russia’s borders. Attempts to undermine and overthrow governments continues in nations like Belarus and Azerbaijan, as well as the Central Asian states of Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan.

Nations successfully overthrown and co-opted by Washington have been systematically turned against Russia economically, politically, and militarily. These nations are almost immediately folded into NATO’s military alliance. In 2008 for example, the US client regime in Georgia would invade the Russian-backed republic of South Ossetia, precipitating a full-scale Russian response in what many believe was a NATO attempt to test Russian resolve. It is reminiscent of Nazi-Soviet geopolitical jousting in Finland just before Operation Barbarossa commenced.

Ukraine, overthrown in a NATO-backed putsch between 2013-2014, has also taken a hostile posture toward Russia, and again, Western military aggression, seeking Ukraine as a vector through which to strike deeper at Russia is a direct replay of events that unfolded during World War II.

The story of NATO post-Cold War has been one of confrontation, not of fostering security or stability.

Instead of working on a new framework to establish global stability by recognizing a new emerging balance of power between East and West, NATO has attempted to “race” in a reckless bid to expand its own influence as far and wide as possible before this balance of power establishes itself through the realities of military, political, and economic force

It appears that NATO may even be contemplating the destabilization and overthrow of the political order in Moscow itself with attempts to foster terrorism in Russia’s southern regions through massive NATO-backed conflicts in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan, as well as the funding and support of hostile political fronts all across Russia.

A Gradient of Balance Versus a New Cold War 

The Cold War was characterized by two distinct centers of power with little room for nations to deal in anything resembling an intermediary sphere of influence.

Today, very easily, a gradient of balance can be established between North America, Europe, Russia, and Asia – where the best benefits of dealing with each other could be enjoyed by all. The only requirements would be first allowing Europe to develop a foreign policy that reflected the best interests of its own governments, people, and industry, and second, the ability for Washington, London, and Brussels to abandon their unrealistic designs toward global hegemony and opt instead for a more realistic balance of multipolar power.

NATO precludes all of this – effectively coercing Europe into a zero sum game with Russia, just as it had done during the Cold War.

Europe faces many threats. But none of them from Russia. It is flooded by refugees fleeing NATO wars. It is weathering instability in nations like Ukraine, whose political order was upended by NATO-backed political violence. And Europe is plagued by the irresponsible, reckless actions of prospective NATO members like Georgia, run by incompetent regimes installed by and for Washington’s best interests, not the stability and long-term interests of the European people.

Europe’s leadership has clearly demonstrated no interest in recognizing these realities. It will be up to the European people themselves to demand a more rational shift away from the various, intentionally manipulative strategies of tension NATO has cultivated, and toward a more sensible and independent relationship with the world beyond the Atlantic alliance.

There has been much talk of Britain’s leaving of the European Union. Perhaps it is time for the European Union to leave the long and corrosive influence of Anglo-American interests and institutions.

Until then, the people of Europe should examine closely the lessons of history of aggressive expansion toward Russia’s borders, the lies such expansion was predicated upon, and the consequences those lies had on the security and stability of Europe when finally they were exposed through the unfolding conspiracy they were designed to obfuscate.

The wheel of history turns not because our hands are on it, turning it, but because our apathy and ignorance has prevented our hands from stopping it.

Posted in USA, RussiaComments Off on The “New Cold War” is No Longer Cold

Watch: New UK Prime Minister Theresa May pledges loyalty to I$raHell

Theresa May

Nureddin Sabir, Editor, Redress Information & Analysis, writes:

Britain is about to have a new prime minister, Theresa May, and no doubt many will be wondering where she stands on the twin issues of Israeli crimes and justice for the Palestinian people.

Many will have guessed the answer, given that 80 per cent of MPs of Mrs May’s governing Conservative Party are said to be members of the Zionist lobby group, Conservative Friends of Israel.

But because there are some notable Conservatives with principles who can distinguish right from wrong and know who are the villains and who are the victims in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, such as Nicolas Soames and Christopher Patten, some optimists might have some lingering doubts.

Well, they needn’t any longer.

Theresa May, the current UK home secretary who will be prime minister by the evening of Wednesday 13 July, is on record for defending Israeli impunity and is in total denial of the historic injustice committed by Britain when it collaborated with European Zionist terrorists – who had been murdering its own soldiers and policemen in Palestine – to dispossess and ethnically cleanse the indigenous Palestinians from their land and impose a colonial settler-state in Palestine.

Theresa May, in other words, is as slavishly Zionist as the Zionist pimp she replaces, David Cameron, known to some as “Agent Cameron”.

In the video below, Mrs May delivers a speech to the Bneir Akiva, Britain’s largest Zionist youth movement, to celebrate the creation of Israel, the colonial settler-state founded on the bones and in the houses and farms that had been stolen from the Palestinian people.

In the speech, delivered in April 2015 to mark the 67th anniversary of the dispossession of the Palestinians, Mrs May makes a few curious remarks.

She speaks of Israel’s leading role in combating human trafficking, omitting to mention the state-sponsored trafficking of children, or the abuse of Palestinian and African workers, in the Zionist state.

Strangely for a home secretary, Mrs May says she’s proud of changing domestic law to make it impossible to prosecute Israeli war criminals in the UK under Universal Jurisdiction, so that killers such as Tzipi Livni and Israeli officers involved in crimes against Palestinian civilians can roam free in Britain.

Also strangely for a home secretary, Mrs May hurls praise on the so-called Community Security Trust”, a Mossad-linked Jewish vigilante-cum-propaganda and disinformation body responsible for harassing and smearing anti-Zionist activists, including Jews.

Throughout the speech, Mrs May speaks of British Jews as if they were a guest community in the UK, rather than fully-fledged Britons, thereby subscribing to a basic Zionist tenet that Jews cannot – indeed must not – be assimilated in gentile communities and can be at home only in the Jewish ghetto, Israel.

Not once in the speech did Mrs May mention the Palestinian people, the brutal dehumanising occupation or how real justice might deliver peace to Israelis and Palestinians alike.

No wonder that British Zionists are “over the moon”, as Gilad Atzmon put it.

The Israeli news website Ynet describes Mrs May as “Israel’s true friend”.

The Jewish Chronicle reports that Mrs May has worked closely with the Community Security Trust… Mrs May had committed another GBP13.4 million of government money to Jewish security measures and had made her intentions towards the community clear.

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, UKComments Off on Watch: New UK Prime Minister Theresa May pledges loyalty to I$raHell


Shoah’s pages

www.shoah.org.uk

KEEP SHOAH UP AND RUNNING