Archive | July 29th, 2016

Syrian fighters may be settled in USA


FSA McCain 4d755

By Steven Sahiounie 

Soon there could be an influx of Syrian refugee families settled in America. They would be typically settled in a small city, let’s say like Flint, Michigan. The city authorities would receive help and a few special federal programs to assist in supplying the needs of these newcomers to USA. They would be given a house or an apartment, which would be subsidized under a county housing program which in turn is paid from federal money. They would be given free medical coverage under an existing county or state medical program, and they could visit the local medical centers free of charge. The county medical bills would be sent to a federal source for payment.

These new Syrian refugees are not your typical group, who we have seen on TV, walking through Europe in summer 2015. These newcomers to America are not from the refugee camps in Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan which the media has followed for years.

This is a special group with direct ties to the federal government of America. These are the fighters of the Free Syrian Army and their wives and children. To the Americans welcoming them into their communities, they would appear to be Syrian families who have suffered over 5 years of war and untold stories of loss and hardship. But, in reality these were the fighting men, the mercenaries of the US CIA program in Turkey and Syria. Some people labeled them “The John McCain’s Army”, in honor of the Republican Senator of Arizona, who was the FSA’s main supporter in Congress. Sen. McCain gave such passionate speeches in Congress; he was able to convince his fellow Senators of the need to send American military weapons, satellite imagery and technical training to these fighters. These men were paid large monthly paychecks, much more that the average income of uneducated laborers in Syria. In 2011 their monthly pay was $1,000. As the years went by, their salary was increased. The payroll was managed by an official of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, who was playing a key role in the regime change program in Syria.  The paychecks were issued in Turkey, payable in US dollars.

USA, UK, NATO, EU, Australia, Canada, Jordan, Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia each had instrumental roles in the international attack on Syria for the purpose of regime change. People questioned: how could democratic countries promote armed terrorism for the purpose of bringing democracy to Syria? Experts pondered how democracy could be achieved from the barrel of a gun.  The Americans never wondered how monarchies like Saudi Arabia and Qatar could bring democracy to Syria, when there has never been any freedom or democracy in either country.

In the Vietnam War, the American government used a local tribe to fight for USA.  They were a close-knit mountain tribe called Hmong. They were trained and given weapons. They were sent on specific missions to kill both North Vietnamese troops, and also others. It was a highly secret covert program. Those Hmongs fighting had made a specific deal with the US federal government.  That in the event of failure on the US side in the war, they would be evacuated to USA and would be safely placed into new lives with full benefits to care for them. I am sure there were sleepless nights among them, wondering who will win the war, and would the Americans fulfill their promises to them.  In the end, the US government stood by their word and evacuated the Hmong people, in the thousands, to Fresno, California. There, they were put into free houses and apartments; all paid by the Fresno county Section 8 program.  Section 8 was a program designed to help the poorest people, typically with young children. Fresno county government offices then billed the US federal government offices to cover the free housing for the Hmong ‘refugees’. They were given free medical coverage at Valley Medical Center, which is the Fresno county funded hospital. Each was given a Medi-Cal card, which entitled them to free medical.  The Medi-Cal program was a California State funded program to cover the poorest Californians.

They were given coverage on the Food Stamp program, which gave free foods to the Hmongs, through the existing welfare program.

History is about to repeat itself, as the Syrian Arab Army with their allies inside Syria have taken strategic areas in Damascus, Aleppo, Latakia, Palmyra, Homs, Deir Ez Zor and many other locations, and the US sponsored ‘rebels’ appear to be facing defeat on the battlefields. The FSA spokesman has already predicted defeat.

When and if this happens in the coming days or weeks, the FSA will pull back into Turkey and the US agents, who are headquartered in Adana, will coordinate the safe and swift removal of the FSA and their wives and children. They will be put on chartered planes from the Adana airport to arrive finally at their new home, which could be Flint, Michigan.

Flint is a troubled community. It has severe water problems as well as economic problems. The Flint city and county officials could be more than happy to have special federal money coming their way, which would be tied to the “Syrian Refugee” settlement. The local churches, mosques and various charities would all rally around their newcomers. The American people are well known for their generous and welcoming nature. Everyone in USA can trace their ancestry back to newcomers at some point in time. America is a melting-pot and they are proud of that heritage.

At first glance, these Syrian refugees may appear to be war-weary and looking for a new life of security and peace. It might take years for some incident to happen, where their military training and terrorist background could re-surface. Their American neighbors will not be aware that the Free Syrian Army was founded on the principals of Radical Islam. The founders of the FSA were all fighting for the purpose of regime change in Syria, in order to establish Sharia law, and to transform the secular government of Syria into an Islamic State. The FSA fighters were all strictly Sunni Muslims, even though Syria is made up of 18 different sects, and millions of Christians, but the FSA were an exclusive ‘one-sect-militia’.

The American CIA plan of attack on Syria was formulated in 2006, and the wheels put into motion. The Radical Islamic political ideology was keeping pace with the CIA regime change plan. The Muslim Brotherhood had infiltrated every major city in USA and UK, and had portrayed themselves as legitimate political persons, who just happened to be Muslims. Knowing that the US and UK protect religious rights; they found safe haven and grew stronger and stronger. The CIA decided to formulate the FSA, and describe it as “Freedom Fighters” to the western audiences, through the network of mainstream media.  Political propaganda machines went to work through CNN, BBC, France24 and Al Jazeera as they cranked out story after story of Syrian ‘regime’ atrocities, while never mentioning the FSA war crimes and atrocities. Knowing that most Americans never check the details of news report independently, they could fabricate stories and use fabricated videos to change the hearts and minds of western viewers into believing that the “John McCain’s Army” were freedom fighters, akin to the founding fathers of America.

There are already hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees in Germany, and scattered through various European countries. The Europeans are fearful that terrorists could be hiding among the mainly normal refugees. They are fearful of future terrorist attacks which could be committed by the very refugees they welcomed in and housed, clothed and fed.

Welcoming in hundreds of past terrorists, such as the FSA, could have disastrous results in USA. When you ask the people of Aleppo: “Who made you leave your homes?” they answered, “The FSA.” When you ask the Christians in Homs: “Who destroyed your churches and killed the Priests?” they answered, “The FSA.”  When you ask the 16 year old Christian girl near Homs: “Who captured you and gang raped you for 6 months in 2012?” she answered, “The FSA.”

Given the facts and past history of the Free Syrian Army, would you want them living next door to your family?

Posted in USA, SyriaComments Off on Syrian fighters may be settled in USA

Outrageous crimes and genocide protected by Western lies and duplicity

Image result for crimes and genocide PHOTO
By Mark Taliano

Recently Paul Craig Roberts recounted a conversation he had with James Jesus Angleton, a former head of CIA counterintelligence, in which they discussed strategies that the CIA employs to dupe the American and global public, with a view to perpetrating criminal agendas, cloaked beneath the lie of “national interests”. Angleton explained to Roberts that,

“intelligence services create stories inside stories, each with its carefully constructed trail of evidence, in order to create false trails as diversions. Such painstaking work can serve a variety of purposes … Then if the official story gets into trouble, the backup story can be released in order to deflect attention into a new false story or to support the original story.”

The strategy of “stories within stories”, and using competing narratives to confuse, to distract, and to lead the public down false paths (red herrings) is entirely consistent with the 9/11 crimes, the subsequent “War On Terror”, and the criminal invasion of Syria.

The official stories explaining the 9/11 false flag are bundled with hidden stories, “limited hangouts”, and “distance from accountability” strategies — all serving to daze and confuse North Americans in particular, to the point where we revert to passively accepting the narrative of the day and the overarching lie that supporting the neo-con war agenda is patriotic.

The first 9/11 story – Story A – identified al Qaeda and Bin Laden as the primary perpetrators, but this story is being supplanted by another story – story B – which features Saudi Arabia as the villain. No doubt Saudi Arabia played a role in the crime and the on-going cover-up, but “Story B” is also a “limited hangout” in the sense that only a limited part of the story is “hanging out”. It also serves to provide cover or “distance from accountability” for some of the major villains who are still shielded from the glare of the spotlight. Additionally, it serves to lead us down false trails (red herring) that divert public attention from the hidden agenda of global war and poverty.

The Saudi Arabia limited hangout does beg an important question though: Will the CIA’s Wahhabi mercenary outfits — ISIS, al Qaeda/ al Nursra Front, and all the fraudulently labelled “moderates”, be targeting Saudi Arabia next?

The same strategy of “stories within stories” is occurring with the West’s criminal war of aggression on Syria.

Professor Tim Anderson explains in an interview that,

“Washington’s plan for a New Middle East – with compliant states across the region – is failing. Their Plan B is to partition or otherwise divide Syria and Iraq. Their Plan C will be to withdraw while pretending that they have helped bring peace to the region.”

The original Plan A: to quickly destroy democratic, pluralist, non-sectarian Syria with Western and Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) backed terrorist invaders — with a view to setting up a stooge Wahhabi-style dictatorship, is failing. Not only are the terrorists being defeated on the battlefield, but the psy op “strategy of disassociation” is crumbling as well. More and more people are seeing through the lies of the “moderate rebel” story: the Western/GCC – backed “moderates” (all of whom share the same strategic ambitions as ISIS and the West) are at least as bad, maybe worse than their “comrades in arms”, “ISIS”.  When U.S State Department spokesperson Mark Toner explained that they might put a “pause” on funding the so-called “moderates”, who publicly and brazenly chopped off the head of a Palestinian boy, the “strategy of disassociation” was beheaded as well.

Plan B is also failing, at least in Syria, since the “balkanization” efforts at creating ethnically or religiously-based enclaves within Syria is hitting the wall of Syria’s longstanding culture of religious freedom and pluralism. Syrians identify themselves first and foremost as Syrians, and not according to their religious affiliations.

Hopefully, Plan C is around the corner. The West will pretend that it has achieved peace, and it will withdraw its disgusting terrorist proxies.

The ugly truth about the genocidal Western designs for Syria – well documented for years by sources including former Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) chief Michael Flynn, by Generals Dempsey, and Clark, by Vice-President Biden, and by publicly available Defence Intelligence Agency documents, as well as from other open source documents — is increasingly being accepted.

Despite the fake reporting, the fake NGOs, the “stories within stories”, the indolence and criminality of the corporate presstitutes, the ugly truth is imposing itself on Western audiences, whether they like it or not.

Just peace requires this uncomfortable foundation of truth.

Posted in USA, EuropeComments Off on Outrageous crimes and genocide protected by Western lies and duplicity

Guantánamo Review Board refuses to release ‘mistaken identity’ prisoner after 9 years

Image result for Guantánamo bay CARTOON

A little-known Afghan prisoner has been refused clearance to leave Guantánamo Bay, despite an apparent case of mistaken identity by the U.S. government.

Guantánamo’s Periodic Review Board (PRB) ruled this week that Haroon Gul, 33, must continue to be detained indefinitely without charge or trial because his plan for what he would do post-release was insufficient. The Board also seemed unimpressed by Mr. Gul’s insistence that the government’s allegations against him are false.

The Board’s hearing was the first time in nine years that Mr. Gul has been given the opportunity to defend himself. Yet the process was inadequate and unfair. Neither Mr Gul’s attorney nor his military representative were allowed to discuss the allegations with him under attorney-client privilege, nor was he given the chance to rebut the classified allegations against him before the Board.

Mr Gul, who has never been charged nor received a trial since arriving at Guantánamo Bay in 2007, was originally passed to the US military by local Afghan forces, according to a report by Al Jazeera. His wife and young daughter now live in a refugee camp, the report says, but little more is known to the world about him.

Mr. Gul has previously had no defense attorney during his nine years at Guantanamo, despite his desperate and persistent attempts to find one. He was represented at his Periodic Review Board hearing by Reprieve U.S. attorney Shelby Sullivan-Bennis, who met him for the first time only four days before the hearing.

His file will become eligible for review in six months time.

Commenting, Reprieve U.S. attorney Shelby Sullivan-Bennis said:

“We have reason to believe that Haroon is one of the many proven cases of mistaken identity, but without a lawyer, he had no capacity to challenge his detention in federal court, as others did. He was given less than three hours out of the last nine years to prepare with an attorney for this hearing that determined his fate. This is status-quo justice in Guantánamo.

“When I met this bright-eyed, chatty young man I was blown away by his attitude. He was smiling and laughing and making American cultural references that even I didn’t get.

“This denial is slap in the face to Haroon’s persistent efforts to toe the line the government has drawn for its prisoners. Haroon has learned English from scratch; he learned math and science and computers; he has played soccer with fellow detainees and been kind to the guards that lock his cage at night. To this day, he says he does not understand why he’s in there. ‘Why me?’ But day after day he makes the very best of his situation and treats those who have wronged him charitably.

“Haroon is not a bad man, Haroon is not even an irritable or ill-tempered man. He is a man who was tortured into speaking against himself and held captive by my government for nine years without an attorney.

“The allegations against our clients in Guantánamo, to this day, include information that the government admits is wrong. We are still relying on this torture-evidence to keep men hundreds of miles from their families for years on end.

“I went to law school to be a part of the American justice system, but in Guantánamo, I cannot find it.”

Posted in USAComments Off on Guantánamo Review Board refuses to release ‘mistaken identity’ prisoner after 9 years

Kshama Sawant vs. Rebecca Traister on Clinton, Democratic Party and Possibility of a Female President ”video”


Image result for clinton cartoons

As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton makes history by becoming the first woman to accept a major-party presidential nomination, we speak with Rebecca Traister, writer-at-large for New York Magazine who has covered Clinton for a decade. Her most recent article is headlined “Hillary Is Poised to Make the ‘Impossible Possible’ — For Herself and for Women in America.” We are also joined by Kshama Sawant, a Socialist city councilmember in Seattle who helped win a $15/hour minimum wage for all workers in Seattle.


AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, We are “Breaking with Convention: War, Peace and the Presidency.” I’m Amy Goodman. We’re broadcasting from the Democratic National Convention here in Philadelphia, where former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has made history by becoming the first woman to accept a major-party presidential nomination.

HILLARY CLINTON: I believe our economy isn’t working the way it should, because our democracy isn’t working the way it should. That’s why we need to appoint Supreme Court justices who will get money out of politics and expand voting rights, not restrict them. And, if necessary, we will pass a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. I believe American corporations that have gotten so much from our country should be just as patriotic in return. Many of them are, but too many aren’t. It’s wrong to take tax breaks with one hand and give out pink slips with the other. And I believe Wall Street can never, ever be allowed to wreck Main Street again.

And I believe in science. I believe climate change is real and that we can save our planet while creating millions of good-paying clean energy jobs.

I believe that when we have millions of hard-working immigrants contributing to our economy, it would be self-defeating and inhumane to try to kick them out. Comprehensive immigration reform will grow our economy and keep families together, and it’s the right thing to do.

So, whatever party you belong to or if you belong to no party at all, if you share these beliefs, this is your campaign.

AMY GOODMAN: To talk more about the historic nomination of Hillary Clinton, we’re joined now by two guests. Rebecca Traister is writer-at-large for New York Magazinewho’s written about Hillary Clinton for a decade, her most recent article headlined “Hillary Is Poised to Make the ‘Impossible Possible’ — for Herself and for Women in America.” She’s the author of All the Single Ladies: Unmarried Women and the Rise of an Independent Nation. We’re also joined by Kshama Sawant, a Socialist city councilmember of Seattle. She helped win a $15-an-hour minimum wage for all workers in Seattle.

We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Rebecca, let’s begin with you. You were on the floor of the convention last night when Hillary Clinton gave that speech. Your reaction?

REBECCA TRAISTER: Well, I was listening — from the floor, it was hard to tell how it was going over. I mean, there was — because there were protesters, I had — I could hear the protesters. I was watching what was happening. I was paying attention. I wasn’t — I wasn’t as focused on the speech and how it was being received. I was very aware of the sort of theatrical tensions within the room, everybody trying to drown each other out. And so — and as somebody who’s written about Hillary Clinton for a very long time and knows that these moments, these big speech moments where she’s supposed to give some kind of speech that inspires and unites, don’t always go very well for her — this is not — this is not her forte as a politician — you know, I wasn’t quite sure.

Overnight, I’ve read some of the reactions, and it seems to me that it has been much better received than many speeches that Hillary gives. In part, I think it had a lot of the marks of Bernie Sanders on it. I mean, one of the things that surprised me as I was listening to it is the time that she spent talking about Bernie and his supporters in warm ways, I’m sure ways that were not necessarily persuasive to those who were objecting, and that you heard so much about — I mean, you heard — you saw in that speech the product of what this primary process has done with regard to Hillary’s candidacy. Walking into this election cycle as somebody who’s written about Hillary, has had a lot of ambivalence about her tendencies to move toward the center, you know, a year and a half ago, I could have imagined a very different convention speech in which Hillary Clinton gets the nomination. And I think that the role that the Bernie left has played — not just Bernie Sanders himself, but his supporters — but, you know, the fact that there were protesters in there has moved Hillary Clinton in ways that, as somebody who has always been to the left of her ideologically, I’m very grateful for. And I think that you did see the marks of that in that speech. And we have a different candidate for president than we would have, had we not had this primary process.

AMY GOODMAN: Kshama Sawant, the message throughout this week, and your response to Hillary Clinton, the first woman to be nominated by a major party to be president of the United States?

KSHAMA SAWANT: Well, as a Socialist and a feminist myself and as a woman and a woman of color, I have no question in my mind that in order to make social change, it is absolutely critical that women, people of color, all the members of the oppressed communities under capitalism, be on the forefront of struggle. But I think the identity of the person we are talking about, the leading people, is — are much less important. Their identities are much less important. What’s far more critical is where they stand.

So, if you look at the significance of her being the first female nominee, I understand the appeal of that, I’m sympathetic to that. But here’s what I would say. I actually — you know, all throughout this campaign season, I was reminded of a show — an episode that you played, Amy, in 2008, when you had Melissa Harris-Perry and Gloria Steinem debating, and Gloria was saying, “Well, if you’re a woman, you need to vote for Hillary Clinton,” and Melissa was saying, “Well, if you’re a person of color, you need to vote for Obama.” And I was sitting there watching as a woman of color, saying neither of these candidates represent my interests as a woman of color. And the reason I say that is it has less to do with their identity and far more to do with the interests they represent.

At the end of the day, we don’t — I don’t think the debate is about her speech skills and all of that. It’s more the fact that she is a dogged representative of Wall Street and Wall Street interests, and her entire party, the Democratic Party, and the establishment that controls it, is a representative of Wall Street interests. And yes, there are differences between Republicans and Democrats, but that is one thing they agree on, that they are primarily advocates for Wall Street. And Hillary Clinton is well on her way to be the international emissary for the fracking industry, which is so dangerous, so much so that she has refused to really, you know, even accept that this is going to be a huge problem in terms of climate change.

But you look at the whole spectrum of issues. A lot of people think that, well, it’s a woman leader, and this is going to be important. But, look, she was on the board of Wal-Mart for six years. Wal-Mart is the world’s biggest purveyor of poverty wages. And who do you think it affects? It affects women at the very bottom. You heard from the woman, the poignant story of the woman — I saw her last night at the protest — who said that because welfare was destroyed under Bill Clinton, she — her mother had to become a sex worker. Hillary Clinton was not an innocent bystander when welfare was dismantled. She actually played an active political role alongside Bill Clinton and the new Democrats. Now, as a feminist, I would have loved for her to have played an active role to shore up welfare, to make sure that women’s living standards could have been improved. Unfortunately for us, she’s playing a very active role as a woman, but as a defender of Wall Street. So we really need to get outside of that. And if people are looking for a woman to support, think about Jill Stein.

AMY GOODMAN: Rebecca Traister?

REBECCA TRAISTER: Well, there are a lot of parts of what you just said. I’m in agreement with you about parts of it. I’m very — I am also interested in getting money out of politics. I don’t think that’s the only issue that’s at stake here. I think that there’s a degree to which — and as somebody who has written about my ambivalence and criticism of Hillary Clinton on some of these counts, I think that — I’m glad that you and her other critics are making these points very, very loudly. I don’t think those are the only issues at stake, though. I don’t think that her — what you see as her role as an emissary of Wall Street is where these questions end, and that voting for Jill Stein is a solution that works, either in terms of feminism or in terms of addressing the issues that you care so passionately about. Jill Stein is not going to win the presidency. And the person who would win the presidency, if Hillary Clinton is stopped — and I understand the impulse to stop her — is Donald Trump. And so, when it comes to issues of fracking, of Wall Street, of paid leave, of subsidized child care, of protecting what social programs we have in place now and shoring up social programs in the future and not seeing them destroyed, in terms of immigration reform, I think there are all those issues on the table. I am not sure that the feminist choice is supporting a woman who has — who offers very little threat of actually winning.

I would also say, with regard to welfare reform, which is policy that I abhor and loathe and was critical of and horrified by at the time, I think it’s extremely fair to criticize the public statements that Hillary Clinton made in support of it, but I also think it’s really important to contextualize what her actual role in it was. She was not in elected office — and I’m not excusing her. She made statements in support of it. However, you have to understand and consider the fact that she was under enormous pressure as the wife. She wasn’t in elected office. She was playing the wife. She was a controversial wife. She was widely seen, incorrectly, as a radical left force within that White House in that era, and there was tremendous pressure on her to be supporting her husband, which ties into all kinds of old, you know, assumptions about wifeliness and the role that first ladies are supposed to play. Yes, it is absolutely fair to criticize the statements she made in support of welfare reform, to look critically at what role she played. There are all kinds of different stories about how she was trying to exert influence over that legislation as it was happening. But I don’t think that asking Hillary Clinton to pay the bill for welfare reform and for the crime bill in a way that members, including Joe Biden, including John Kerry, who was a nominee — the idea that this bill is being handed to Hillary Clinton, who was not in elected office, but was in this ceremonial position during those years, is the way to productively, critically address the ravages of welfare reform.

AMY GOODMAN: Kshama Sawant?

KSHAMA SAWANT: Well, I don’t agree that she was in any ceremonial position. She was playing an active political role. But we don’t need to quibble over those details. Hillary Clinton has been long enough in politics that she has her own independent track record, as secretary of state, as a warmonger and as a lobbyist-in-chief for big business and for multibillionaire interests. I don’t see how we can, in any honesty, expect a woman who takes, you know, a quarter of a million dollars for every speech that she makes to Goldman Sachs, you know, who has been a rapacious factor in the global economic crisis, as somebody who will represent the interests of ordinary people. But I think, you know, again, we need to move away from an individualized and personalized narrative of politics to the larger context in which all of this is happening. The real problem here is not just her, but the fact that the Democratic Party and the establishment that controls it has a long track record of a systematic betrayal of the interests of working people and, you know, not to mention war abroad.

So, I think that when people are worried about Trump, it’s absolutely legitimate. I am horrified. I find Trump’s agenda of misogyny, bigotry, hatred and anti-immigrant hysteria absolutely stomach-turning. But if we are to actually defeat the phenomenon of Trump, then we have to look at Trump, the Trump phenomenon, not as something that happened just out of nowhere, out of thin air, but understand that the Trump phenomenon is a product of the fact that both the establishment parties, Republicans and Democrat, have moved to the right over the last several decades. And similarly, when the tea party in the Republican right made gains in 2010, that was not because Americans suddenly woke up and went right-wing. That was because millions of people were dejected and angry at Obama’s corporate bailouts, and they were so disappointed and betrayed. And what’s striking about that election is that it had historically the lowest voter turnout since the Second World War. What does this tell us? This tells us that there’s a huge chasm between where the establishment stands, and the establishment parties, and ordinary Americans. And the reason Trump finds an echo is not because millions of people are racist. It’s because millions of people are looking for an alternative. They’re grasping for an alternative to corporate politics.

So the question really is this: How can — if we want to defeat Trump, then the bigger question is: How will we defeat Trump and avoid building an ongoing basis for the right wing? And the reason the right wing finds an echo is because the left has failed to build so far. And this year, if we don’t talk about concrete left politics, through the Jill Stein campaign, then we are going to leave the field open for Trump. Trump and the Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson are going to have a monopoly over millions of disenchanted voters.

AMY GOODMAN: Rebecca Traister?

REBECCA TRAISTER: Well, I want to — I’m curious about this. So, do you think that encouraging people to vote for Jill Stein is going to defeat Trump? I mean, what do you actually envision happening, if you’re — if the idea is more of us should be voting for Jill Stein because we’re dissatisfied with Hillary Clinton?

KSHAMA SAWANT: Well, first of all, it’s a problem to look at presidential election years as something that’s in a — you know, it’s in its own box, and then everything else is disconnected. That’s not how it works.


KSHAMA SAWANT: And in reality, everything in history points towards the fact that building mass movements on the ground are absolutely critical in order to make social change. And those mass movements actually die a sorry death as long as we don’t build independent of those mass movements. The reason we succeeded in winning $15 an hour, because I and Socialist Alternative ran our campaign in defiance of the Democratic Party establishment in Seattle, and we fought for 15. Do you think the Democrats led on it or even supported it? No. They were dragged along and were forced to vote on it, because the vast majority of people in Seattle built our movement on the streets and forced them for it. And that’s the example of what we’re talking about.

And what’s at stake is not whether Jill Stein is going to win or not. The fact is this: If on November 6th we have a very strong vote — a million and a half, 2 million, 3 million votes for Jill Stein — that will make this movement that we’re building sit up, ordinary people sit up, the people who are going to make change sit up and take notice that it is possible to build an independent party of the 99 percent, which is the real goal we need to go towards.

REBECCA TRAISTER: Well, first of all, I want to say I agree with you completely about your point about presidential politics being in this box, and this is the only time we come and focus on it, and it’s a real mistake, it’s absolutely detrimental to the way that the system works, and that this is still a time we can get people to tune in and feel strongly about it. That is, in fact, precisely why I, who agreed with his politics very strongly, had doubts about Bernie Sanders from a practical perspective as the nominee, because I worried that putting somebody — because I — I agree that individual ascension to the top or leadership positions within parties that have not shifted all the way down the ranks gave me tremendous anxiety that it would hurt a movement to the left to put a left candidate at the top with a recalcitrant Congress, recalcitrant state and local governments, and that in fact the move to the left had to be from the bottom up.

So, I just want to say that I absolutely agree with you. However, what we are now heading into — and this is why I wanted to understand. Are you envisioning the push for Stein as being big enough that it gets people to pay attention, but not big enough that it damages Hillary Clinton’s prospects? Because while I agree with you that this shouldn’t just be about individual stories, and it’s not just about Hillary Clinton, it’s part of larger systems, the reality is, in November, there is going to be an election, and one person is going to win it. And even if we understand that this is about larger systems, that one person is going to gain a certain amount of control over systems, including the Supreme Court, that’s going to make decisions over the course — you know, that are going to affect a generation or two.

And so, I think there’s — while I agree with you wholeheartedly that we should be looking at this more holistically and systemically, and talking about how the fight for $15 and the activist work on the ground that is being done around paid leave, paid sick days, these things that none of the presidential candidates have really been on the ground with, none of them, including Hillary Clinton, including Bernie Sanders — you know, obviously, not Donald Trump or the Republicans — we absolutely need to move those activists into politics and up the pipeline, but we also can’t fool ourselves that the individual questions of who’s going to win the presidency in November are meaningless. They’re going to carry meaning and weight and realities for millions of Americans.

KSHAMA SAWANT: Well, those of us who are talking about building an independent party for the 99 percent, we take the question of the presidential elections absolutely seriously. I don’t — I am not saying that it is meaningless. But here’s the question I would like to ask: If the Democratic Party establishment, the Democratic National Committee, was — had as its first priority to defeat Trump — I have no doubt that they want to defeat Trump, but if that was their topmost priority, then why did they not do everything in their power to promote the one candidate who, through many, many polls, was indicated to have been a really prominent, a very powerful voice against Trump and having the real possibility of winning against Trump? And, obviously, I’m talking about Bernie Sanders. Instead, what the Democratic National Committee has done is use every dirty trick in the book to stymie his campaign.

And the reason Bernie did not succeed the Democratic — in winning the Democratic nomination is not because the Democratic base didn’t support him. I mean, he has electrified an entire base of tens of millions of people. The reason he didn’t win the nomination is not because of recalcitrant Congress, it’s because of a recalcitrant Democratic Party establishment, for whom, although defeating Trump is the priority, a bigger priority for the Democratic Party establishment is to defeat the agenda of working people to really fight for the massive social change, because the interests of ordinary working people and the interests of Wall Street are diametrically opposite. The interests of Wall Street are completely antagonistic to the interests of ordinary working people. So as long as we tie ourselves — forget about individuals. As long as we tie ourselves to a party that is tied to Wall Street, our movements will reach a graveyard in the Democratic Party.

AMY GOODMAN: Let’s break, and then we’re going to come back to this discussion. And thank you very much, because I warned you before the show, no soundbites. And you’ve taken me at my word. I want to thank Kshama Sawant — she’ll be back in one minute — who is a Socialist city councilmember in Seattle. She spearheaded the movement for $15 an hour, and they won. Rebecca Traister is with us. She’s a writer-at-large for New York Magazine, just wrote, somehow, between yesterday and today, a major piece on the significance of Hillary Clinton as the first woman to be nominated by a major party for president of the United States. Stay with us.


AMY GOODMAN: That’s Michael Franti singing “Listener Supported.” This isDemocracy Now!,, our two-week special, “Breaking with Convention: War, Peace and the Presidency.” I’m Amy Goodman. We’re broadcasting from the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia. Actually, we’re broadcasting from PhillyCAM, which is Philadephia’s public access TV station. And for those who haven’t gotten a chance to see our break, go to it at and see what the folks here are doing, people making their own media.

We’re talking about Secretary of State Hillary Clinton making history by becoming the first woman to accept a major-party presidential nomination. Our guests are Rebecca Traister, writer-at-large for New York Magazine. She’s written about Hillary Clinton for a decade, her most recent article headlined “Hillary Is Poised to Make the ‘Impossible Possible’ — for Herself and for Women in America.” She’s the author of All the Single Ladies: Unmarried Women and the Rise of an Independent Nation. And we’re joined by Kshama Sawant, who is a Socialist city councilmember in Seattle, Washington. She helped win, spearhead the $15-an-hour minimum wage for all workers in Seattle.

Well, we left it at Kshama talking about how you won that victory and how the Democratic Party was allied against you. And you talked about if the Democratic Party was serious about taking on Donald Trump, which it sounds both of you women seriously are interested in, that they would not have fought so hard to undermine Bernie Sanders. Rebecca Traister, can you respond to that?

REBECCA TRAISTER: Well, you know —

AMY GOODMAN: That he was the best candidate, you said, and that the polls indicated —

KSHAMA SAWANT: The polls said that.

AMY GOODMAN:  — he was the one who could beat Donald Trump. Now, the polls do show — and right now, I’m sure, new polls will be coming out now; after a convention, you get that convention bump — that he is ahead in most polls that are being taken right now.

REBECCA TRAISTER: Yeah. Yeah, I know. I’m terrified. I don’t think that Bernie Sanders — I mean, and this is my guess. We’re all guessing counterfactually at this point. I mean, I’m not —

AMY GOODMAN: Why are you so concerned about Donald Trump?

REBECCA TRAISTER: Because look at the amount of support he has behind him. I mean, he is channeling something. And whether it’s what Kshama says — I mean, I think it’s a combination of many factors, that it’s this sense of dissatisfaction with the establishment, that it is an understanding and a feeling on the right that what we have is not working, and they’re searching anywhere for alternatives, and they’ve, on the right, got their hands on this particularly ghoulish one. I also think that it has — I also think that simultaneously it’s tied to all kinds of racial and gendered, xenophobic resentments, and that that’s empowering a lot of it. I think that we are still in the midst of major ruptures and shifts in this country about the kinds of people who can have power, the kinds of people who can be sitting here having these kinds of conversations and having an impact on elections, and that there are all kinds of resentments at work, you know, and that as powering — and that’s powerful. It could be — it could —

AMY GOODMAN: So, what about the point that —


AMY GOODMAN:  — if the Democratic Party wanted to actually beat him?

REBECCA TRAISTER: Well, I was not persuaded that Bernie Sanders — I know he polled very well, but he also hadn’t had any negative ads run against him. He didn’t have a single negative ad run against him. There’s the incredible —

AMY GOODMAN: And hardly any media also covering him, although toward the end —

KSHAMA SAWANT: Well, the media tore him apart, especially in the New York state primaries, where he had — first, there was a media blackout, and then there was a vicious series of attacks on him. So I don’t really agree factually about the fact that he wasn’t attacked in the media. And in reality, the reason he didn’t win the nomination is because the Democratic Party did not want him to win the nomination. And it’s not just about the polls. It’s not just about the polls that indicated that he would have made a better candidate against Trump. It’s about the actual politics, I mean, the political substance of Clinton and Trump.

I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that there is a difference between Clinton and Trump. And as I said, I find Trump’s agenda stomach-turning. But the reason Trump gets an echo is because people look at somebody like Clinton, and they see, correctly, her as an epitome of the establishment. Unfortunately for us, Trump is now, as you said, ghoulishly, but he is disingenuously posing as an outsider to the establishment, even though we all know he is very much an insider. He’s a multibillionaire. He represents the same interests of Wall Street that Hillary Clinton represents. The contrast between them is so little. That’s why you’re seeing this difficulty. So, in reality, if Hillary Clinton is not doing well against Trump, it’s because there is not enough of a contrast. The reason Trump is making gains is because you don’t have a real left to counter him.

REBECCA TRAISTER: I really disagree that the contrast between them is so little. I think the contrast between them is vast. I mean, I just — I understand that you’re saying there’s a difference, but I think it’s just not true that that difference is slim.

KSHAMA SAWANT: Well, no, I mean, I completely agree that they are different, but if you look at the actual realities on the ground, the people who are drawn towards Trump, I don’t agree — I mean, if the narrative that people are presenting is that millions of Americans have suddenly become racists and misogynists and hateful, I don’t agree with that. I mean, yes, there are complexities, obviously. But the reason he’s — the vast majority of his echo is because there are millions of people around this nation who are looking for an alternative to corporate America. And look at the state of Michigan, for example. One of the reasons Bernie and Donald Trump did well is because there was huge anger in the Midwest against NAFTA, and there is fear about the TPP.

So, let’s talk about the real political substance. We agree that there’s a difference, but I think — I think what’s missing here is the fact that this is a false choice. Yes, we agree there’s a difference between Clinton and Trump, but offering those two as choices and say, “Pick one,” is a false choice for America. You know, you have America, which is the wealthiest country in the history of humanity, and poverty is skyrocketing. The vast majority of people cannot even weather a $1,000 unexpected financial bill. So, you know, we’re talking about people who are struggling to maintain a foothold into survival. Who is going to represent them? And we have to start somewhere. And we can’t make this false argument that it’s about this presidential election, because if it was about the presidential election, then why don’t we have the strongest candidate against Trump? We don’t have it, because the establishment does not believe in promoting that agenda.

REBECCA TRAISTER: I want to go back to your argument that the DNC rigged this, basically. I mean, you didn’t use the word “rigged,” so I don’t want to put a word in your mouth. But —

KSHAMA SAWANT: Well, they rigged it. You can say that.

REBECCA TRAISTER: OK, OK, all right. It’s interesting looking at all the emails that were hacked and that have been released. And one of the things that struck me is that, of course, there was the horrendous sort of discussion of using Bernie’s faith against him. You know, it was very obvious that people within the DNC didn’t like Bernie Sanders. It doesn’t come as a huge surprise to me. I think the DNC was not operating well throughout this — throughout this primary season. But what I didn’t find, actually, was any evidence that there was any systemic rigging. I mean, Hillary Clinton won millions of more votes than Bernie Sanders over the course of these primaries. And there — yeah, there are all kinds of arguments about why and whether it should have gone that way. But, to me, there is — I have found no persuasive evidence.

I found evidence that people in the DNC did not like Bernie, that people in the party did not like Bernie. He hadn’t — you know, he recently joined the party. That’s very true, and I understand why it’s troublesome. But I haven’t seen any evidence that the process itself was rigged or that there was any actual — they couldn’t — they didn’t get it — there was nothing in all those emails about what they were going to do to stop this guy, who, yes, they were saying they didn’t like, but I think the idea that the DNC, a rather ineffectual organization, had an impact on what was a democratic — a deeply flawed process, that I wish we did differently in this country — but she won. By a lot.

KSHAMA SAWANT: I think — I think that if you are having your ear to the ground and listening to the millions of people, and not just the people outside — I mean, I’m not a member of the Democratic Party. You don’t have to take it from me. Take it from the 700 to 1,000 delegates of the Democratic Party that walked out on Wednesday. These are people, ordinary activists, of the Democratic Party, who have put their blood, sweat and tears into building the party because they’re fighting for social change. And for decades, they’ve wanted to believe that this party represents them. And they walked out because they don’t see this party as representing them.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to have to leave it there, but, of course, this conversation will continue, and I hope you’ll both come back with us to continue talking about this as we carry on covering this election through November, and, of course, the issues well beyond. That does it for the show. Rebecca Traister and Kshama Sawant, thank you so much for joining us. I want to say special thanks to our crew here at PhillyCAM.

RUBY BECKETT: I’m Ruby Beckett.

ANIS TAYLOR: Anis Taylor.

JENNIFER BURTON: Jennifer Burton.

JIHAD ALI: Jihad Ali.

CONNIE KOMM: Connie Komm [phon.]

PETE CELONA: Pete Celona.

DONALD BUTLER: Donald Butler.

JOSE HERNANDEZ: Jose Hernandez.

LAURA DEUTCH: Laura Deutch.

ANDREA SPRUILL: Andrea Spruill.

DAN HOITO: Dan Hoito [phon.].

RYAN SAUNDERS: Ryan Saunders.

KYSHA WOODS: Kysha Woods.

GRETJEN CLAUSING: Gretjen Clausing. And this is PhillyCAM.

Posted in USAComments Off on Kshama Sawant vs. Rebecca Traister on Clinton, Democratic Party and Possibility of a Female President ”video”

Hillary Clinton and Her Hawks


As Hillary Clinton begins her final charge for the White House, her advisers are already recommending air strikes and other new military measures against the Assad regime in Syria.

The clear signals of Clinton’s readiness to go to war appears to be aimed at influencing the course of the war in Syria as well as US policy over the remaining six months of the Obama administration. (She also may be hoping to corral the votes of Republican neoconservatives concerned about Donald Trump’s “America First” foreign policy.)

Last month, the think tank run by Michele Flournoy, the former Defense Department official considered to be most likely to be Clinton’s choice to be Secretary of Defense, explicitly called for “limited military strikes” against the Assad regime.

And earlier this month Leon Panetta, former Defense Secretary and CIA Director, who has been advising candidate Clinton, declared in an interview that the next president would have to increase the number of Special Forces and carry out air strikes to help “moderate” groups against President Bashal al-Assad. (When Panetta gave a belligerent speech at the Democratic National Convention on Wednesday night, he was interrupted by chants from the delegates on the floor of “no more war!”

Flournoy co-founded the Center for New American Security (CNAS) in 2007 to promote support for US war policies in Iraq and Afghanistan, and then became Under Secretary of Defense for Policy in the Obama administration in 2009.

Flournoy left her Pentagon position in 2012 and returned to CNAS as Chief Executive Officer.  She has been described by ultimate insider journalist David Ignatius of the Washington Post, as being on a “short, short list” for the job Secretary of Defense in a Clinton administration.

Last month, CNAS published a report of a “Study Group” on military policy in Syria on the eve of the organization’s annual conference.  Ostensibly focused on how to defeat the Islamic State, the report recommends new US military actions against the Assad regime.

Flournoy chaired the task force, along with CNAS president Richard Fontaine, and publicly embraced its main policy recommendation in remarks at the conference.

She called for “using limited military coercion” to help support the forces seeking to force President Assad from power, in part by creating a “no bombing” zone over those areas in which the opposition groups backed by the United States could operate safely.

In an interview with Defense One, Flournoy described the no-bomb zone as saying to the Russian and Syrian governments, “If you bomb the folks we support, we will retaliate using standoff means to destroy [Russian] proxy forces, or, in this case, Syrian assets.”  That would “stop the bombing of certain civilian populations,” Flournoy said.

In a letter to the editor of Defense One, Flournoy denied having advocated “putting US combat troops on the ground to take territory from Assad’s forces or remove Assad from power,” which she said the title and content of the article had suggested.

But she confirmed that she had argued that “the US should under some circumstances consider using limited military coercion – primarily trikes using standoff weapons – to retaliate against Syrian military targets” for attacks on civilian or opposition groups “and to set more favorable conditions on the ground for a negotiated political settlement.”

Renaming a “No-Fly” Zone

The proposal for a “no bombing zone” has clearly replaced the “no fly zone,” which Clinton has repeatedly supported in the past as the slogan to cover a much broader US military role in Syria.

Panetta served as Defense Secretary and CIA Director in the Obama administration when Clinton was Secretary of State, and was Clinton’s ally on Syria policy. On July 17, he gave an interview to CBS News in which he called for steps that partly complemented and partly paralleled the recommendations in the CNAS paper.

“I think the likelihood is that the next president is gonna have to consider adding additional special forces on the ground,” Panetta said, “to try to assist those moderate forces that are taking on ISIS and that are taking on Assad’s forces.”

Panetta was deliberately conflating two different issues in supporting more US Special Forces in Syria. The existing military mission for those forces is to support the anti-ISIS forces made up overwhelmingly of the Kurdish YPG and a few opposition groups.

Neither the Kurds nor the opposition groups the Special Forces are supporting are fighting against the Assad regime.  What Panetta presented as a need only for additional personnel is in fact a completely new US mission for Special Forces of putting military pressure on the Assad regime.

He also called for increasing “strikes” in order to “put increasing pressure on ISIS but also on Assad.” That wording, which jibes with the Flournoy-CNAS recommendation, again conflates two entirely different strategic programs as a single program.

The Panetta ploys in confusing two separate policy issues reflects the reality that the majority of the American public strongly supports doing more militarily to defeat ISIS but has been opposed to US war against the government in Syria.

poll taken last spring showed 57 percent in favor of a more aggressive US military force against ISIS. The last time public opinion was surveyed on the issue of war against the Assad regime, however, was in September 2013, just as Congress was about to vote on authorizing such a strike.

At that time, 55 percent to 77 percent of those surveyed opposed the use of military force against the Syrian regime, depending on whether Congress voted to authorize such a strike or to oppose it.

Shaping the Debate

It is highly unusual, if not unprecedented, for figures known to be close to a presidential candidate to make public recommendations for new and broader war abroad. The fact that such explicit plans for military strikes against the Assad regime were aired so openly soon after Clinton had clinched the Democratic nomination suggests that Clinton had encouraged Flournoy and Panetta to do so.

The rationale for doing so is evidently not to strengthen her public support at home but to shape the policy decisions made by the Obama administration and the coalition of external supporters of the armed opposition to Assad.

Obama’s refusal to threaten to use military force on behalf of the anti-Assad forces or to step up military assistance to them has provoked a series of leaks to the news media by unnamed officials – primarily from the Defense Department – criticizing Obama’s willingness to cooperate with Russia in seeking a Syrian ceasefire and political settlement as “naïve.”

The news of Clinton’s advisers calling openly for military measures signals to those critics in the administration to continue to push for a more aggressive policy on the premise that she will do just that as president.

Even more important to Clinton and close associates, however, is the hope of encouraging Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, which have been supporting the armed opposition to Assad, to persist in and even intensify their efforts in the face of the prospect of US-Russian cooperation in Syria.

Even before the recommendations were revealed, specialists on Syria in Washington think tanks were already observing signs that Saudi and Qatari policymakers were waiting for the Obama administration to end in the hope that Clinton would be elected and take a more activist role in the war against Assad.

The new Prime Minister of Turkey, Binali Yildirim, however, made a statement on July 13 suggesting that Turkish President Recep Yayyip Erdogan may be considering a deal with Russia and the Assad regime at the expense of both Syrian Kurds and the anti-Assad opposition.

That certainly would have alarmed Clinton’s advisers, and four days later, Panetta made his comments on network television about what “the next president” would have to do in Syria.

Posted in USAComments Off on Hillary Clinton and Her Hawks

“Eat, Pray, Starve”: Greg Grandin on Tim Kaine, Hillary Clinton and the US Role in Honduras


On Wednesday night, Hillary Clinton’s running mate, Virginia Senator Tim Kaine, delivered a prime-time speech in which he spoke about the nine months he spent with Jesuit missionaries in Honduras in 1980. To talk more about the significance of Tim Kaine’s time in Honduras, we speak with Greg Grandin, professor of Latin American history at New York University. His most recent article for The Nation is headlined “Eat, Pray, Starve: What Tim Kaine Didn’t Learn During His Time in Honduras.”

Posted in South AmericaComments Off on “Eat, Pray, Starve”: Greg Grandin on Tim Kaine, Hillary Clinton and the US Role in Honduras

How the Australian, British, and US Governments Shamelessly Helped Kill Countless People in Indonesia in 1965

Asia-Pacific Research 

The Hague-based International People’s Tribunal has ruled that the Indonesian regime that replaced Indonesian President Sukarno committed crimes against humanity in 1965. The governments of Australia, Britain, and the United States have also been pronounced guilty as complicit partners in the massacre of 500,000 to 1000,000 people or more in Indonesia. People were murdered in Indonesia due to their principles, political ideology, ethnic backgrounds, and opposition to foreign influence. Albeit the ruling is an important historical acknowledgment, the assistance that the Australian, British, and US governments provided to the coup and played in the massacres is not a secret.

Asia-Pacific Research presents these excerpts from the Australian journalist John Pilger’s book The New Rulers of the World, which was published by Verso in 2002, in the interest of providing the historical background about the massacres that took place in Indonesia. Reading them will educate one on the despicable and criminal roles that Australia, Britain, and the US played. ”There were bodies being washed up on the lawns of the British consulate in Surabaya, and British warships escorted a ship full of Indonesian troops down the Malacca Straits so that they could take part in this terrible holocaust,” for example Pilger writes. In his work John Pilger also notes that the US was directly involved in the operations of the death squads and helped compile the lists of people to be murdered while the Australian, British, and US media were used as propaganda tools to whitewash the coup and bloodbaths in Indonesia. A key point, however, that is emphasizes is that the underlying economic motivations and plunder hidden behind the ideological discourse of the Cold War that really motivated the massacres in Indonesia. – Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Asia-Pacific Research Editor, 22 July 2016.

 Indonesians preparing to die in a mass grave

Excerpts from The New Rulers of the World (Verso)

John Pilger, 2002

… according to a CIA memorandum, Prime Minister Harold Macmillan and President John Kennedy had agreed to ‘liquidate President Sukarno, depending on the situation and available opportunities’. The CIA author added, ‘It is not clear to me whether murder or overthrow is intended by the word liquidate.’

Sukarno was a populist, the founder of modern Indonesia and of the non-aligned movement of developing countries, which he hoped would forge a genuine ‘third way’ between the spheres of the two superpowers. In 1955, he convened the ‘Asia-Africa Conference’ in the Javanese hill city of Bandung. It was the first time the leaders of the developing world, the majority of humanity, had met to forge common interests: a prospect that alarmed the western powers, especially as the vision and idealism of nonalignment represented a potentially popular force that might seriously challenge neo-colonialism. The hopes invested in such an unprecedented meeting are glimpsed in the faded tableaux and black-and-white photographs in the museum at Bandung and in the forecourt of the splendid art deco Savoy Hotel, where the following Bandung Principles are displayed:

I – Respect for fundamental human rights and the principles of the United Nations Charter.

2 – Respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all nations.

3 – The recognition of the equality of all peoples.

4 – The settlement of disputes by peaceful means.

Sukarno could be a democrat and a demagogue. For a time, Indonesia was a parliamentary democracy, then became what he called a ‘guided democracy’. He encouraged mass trade unions and peasant, women’s and cultural movements. Between 1959 and 1965, more than 15 million people joined political parties or affiliated mass organisations that were encouraged to challenge British and American influence in the region. With 3 million members, the PKI was the largest communist party in the world outside the Soviet Union and China. According to the Australian historian Harold Crouch, ‘the PKI had won widespread support not as a revolutionary party but as an organisation defending the interests of ‘the poor within the existing system’. It was this popularity, rather than any armed insurgency, that alarmed the Americans. Like Vietnam to the north, Indonesia might ‘go communist’ .

In 1990, the American investigative journalist Kathy Kadane revealed the extent of secret American collaboration in the massacres of 1965-66 which allowed Suharto to seize the presidency. Following a series of interviews with former US officials, she wrote, ‘They systematically compiled comprehensive lists of communist operatives. As many as 5,000 names were furnished to the Indonesian army, and the Americans later checked off the names of those who had been killed or captured.’ One of those interviewed was Robert J Martens, a political officer in the US embassy in Jakarta. ‘It was a big help to the army,’ he said. ‘They probably killed a lot of people and I probably have a lot of blood on my hands, but that’s not all bad. There’s a time when you have to strike hard at a decisive moment.’ Joseph Lazarsky, the deputy CIA station chief in Jakarta, said that confirmation of the killings came straight from Suharto’s headquarters. ‘We were getting a good account in Jakarta of who was being picked up,’ he said. ‘The army had a “shooting list” of about 4,000 or 5,000 people. They didn’t have enough goon squads to zap them all, and some individuals were valuable for interrogation. The infrastructure [of the PKI] was zapped almost immediately. We knew what they were doing . . . Suharto and his advisers said, if you keep them alive you have to feed them.’

Having already armed and equipped much of the army, Washington secretly supplied Suharto’s troops with a field communications network as the killings got under way. Flown in at night by US air force planes based in the Philippines, this was state-of-the-art equipment, whose high frequencies were known to the CIA and the National Security Agency advising President Johnson. Not only did this allow Suharto’s generals to co-ordinate the killings, it meant that the highest echelons of the US administration were listening in and that Suharto could seal off large areas of the country. Although there is archive film of people being herded into trucks and driven away, a single fuzzy photograph of a massacre is, to my knowledge, the only pictorial record of what was Asia’s holocaust.

The American Ambassador in Jakarta was Marshall Green, known in the State Department as ‘the coupmaster’. Green had arrived in Jakarta only months earlier, bringing with him a reputation for having masterminded the overthrow of the Korean leader Syngman Rhee, who had fallen out with the Americans. When the killings got under way in Indonesia, manuals on student organising, written in Korean and English, were distributed by the US embassy to the Indonesian Student Action Command (KAMI), whose leaders were sponsored by the CIA.

On October 5, 1965, Green cabled Washington on how the United States could ‘shape developments to our advantage’. The plan was to blacken the name of the PKI and its ‘protector’, Sukarno. The propaganda should be based on ‘[spreading] the story of the PKI’s guilt, treachery and brutality’. At the height of the bloodbath, Green assured General Suharto: ‘The US is generally sympathetic with and admiring of what the army is doing.” As for the numbers killed, Howard Federspiel, the Indonesia expert at the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research in 1965, said, ‘No one cared, as long as they were communists, that they were being butchered. No one was getting very worked up about it.’

The Americans worked closely with the British, the reputed masters and inventors of the ‘black’ propaganda admired and adapted by Joseph Goebbels in the 1930s. Sir Andrew Gilchrist, the Ambassador in Jakarta, made his position clear in a cable to the Foreign Office: ‘I have never concealed from you my belief that a little shooting in Indonesia would be an essential preliminary to effective change.’ With more than ‘a little shooting’ under way, and with no evidence of the PKI’s guilt, the embassy advised British intelligence headquarters in Singapore on the line to be taken, with the aim of ‘weakening the PKI permanently’ .

Suitable propaganda themes might be: PKI brutality in murdering Generals and [Foreign Minister] Nasution’s daughter . . . PKI subverting Indonesia as agents of foreign Communists . . . But treatment will need to be subtle, e.g. (a) all activities should be strictly unattributable, (b) British participation or co-operation should be carefully concealed.

Within two weeks, an office of the Foreign Office’s Information Research Department (IRD) had opened in Singapore. The IRD was a top-secret, cold war propaganda unit headed by Norman Reddaway, one of Her Majesty’s most experienced liars. It would be salutary for journalists these days to study the critical role western propaganda played then, as it does now, in shaping the news. Indeed, Reddaway and his colleagues manipulated the press so expertly that he boasted to Gilchrist in a letter marked ‘secret and personal’ that the story he had promoted – that Sukarno’s continued rule would lead to a communist takeover – ‘went all over the world and back again’ . He described how an experienced Fleet Street journalist agreed ‘to give exactly your angle on events in his article … . i.e. that this was a kid glove coup without butchery.’

Roland Challis, the BBC’s South-East Asia correspondent, was a particular target of Reddaway, who claimed that the official version of events could be ‘put almost instantly back to Indonesia via the BBC’. Prevented from entering Indonesia along with other foreign journalists, Challis was unaware of the extent of the slaughter. ‘It was a triumph for western propaganda,’ he told me. ‘My British sources purported not to know what was going on, but they knew what the American plan was. There were bodies being washed up on the lawns of the British consulate in Surabaya, and British warships escorted a ship full of Indonesian troops down the Malacca Straits so that they could take part in this terrible holocaust. It was only much later that we learned the American embassy was supplying names and ticking them off as they were killed. There was a deal, you see. In establishing the Suharto regime, the involvement of the IMF and the World Bank was part of it. Sukarno had kicked them out; now Suharto would bring them back. That was the deal.’

With Sukarno now virtually powerless and ill, and Suharto about to appoint himself acting president, the American press reported the Washington-backed coup not as a great human catastrophe, but in terms of the new economic advantages. The massacres were described by Time as ‘The West’s Best News in Asia’. A headline in US News and World Report read: ‘Indonesia: Hope . . . where there was once none’. The renowned New York Times columnist James Reston celebrated ‘A gleam of light in Asia’ and wrote a kid-glove version that he had clearly been given. The Australian Prime Minister Harold Holt, who was visiting the US, offered a striking example of his sense of humour: ‘With 500,000 to a million communist sympathisers knocked off,’ he said approvingly, ‘I think it’s safe to assume a reorientation has taken place.’

Holt’s remark was an accurate reflection of the complicity of the Australian foreign affairs and political establishment in the agony of its closest neighbour. The Australian embassy in Jakarta described the massacres as a ‘cleansing operation’. The Australian Ambassador, KCO Shann, enthused to Canberra that the Indonesian army was ‘refreshingly determined to do over the PKI’, adding that the generals had spoken approvingly of the reporting on Radio Australia, which he described as ‘a bit dishonest’.’ In the Prime Minister’s Department, officials considered supporting ‘any measures to assist the Indonesian army … cope with the internal situation’.

In February 1966, [British] Ambassador Gilchrist wrote a report on the scale of the massacres based on the findings of the Swedish Ambassador, who had toured central and eastern Java with his Indonesian wife and had been able to speak to people out of earshot of government officials. Gilchrist wrote to the Foreign Office: ‘The Ambassador and I had discussed the killings before he left [on the tour] and he had found my suggested figure of 400,000 quite incredible. His enquiries have led him to reconsider it a very serious under-estimate. A bank manager in Surabaya with twenty employees said that four had been removed one night and beheaded . . . A third of a spinning factory’s technicians, being members of a Communist union, had been killed … The killings in Bali had been particularly monstrous. In certain areas, it was felt that not enough people [emphasis in the original] had been killed.’

On the island of Bali, the ‘reorientation’ described by Prime Minister Holt meant the violent deaths of at least 80,000 people, although this is generally regarded as a conservative figure. The many western, mostly Australian, tourists who have since taken advantage of cheap package holidays to the island might reflect that beneath the car parks of several of the major tourist hotels are buried countless bodies.

The distinguished campaigner and author Carmel Budiardjo, an Englishwoman married to a tapol and herself a former political prisoner, returned to Indonesia in 2000 and found ‘the trauma left by the killings thirty-five years ago still gripping many communities on the island’. She described meeting, in Denpasar, fifty people who had never spoken about their experiences before in public. ‘One witness,’ she wrote, ‘who was 20 years old at the time calmly told us how he had been arrested and held in a large cell by the military, 52 people in all, mostly members of mass organisations from nearby villages. Every few days, a batch of men was taken out, their hands tied behind their backs and driven off to be shot. Only two of the prisoners survived . . . Another witness, an ethnic Chinese Indonesian, gave testimony about the killing of 103 people, some as young as 15. In this case, the people were not arrested but simply taken from their homes and killed, as their names were ticked off a list.’


‘In the early sixties,’ he said, ‘the pressure on Indonesia to do what the Americans wanted was intense. Sukarno wanted good relations with them, but he didn’t want their economic system. With America, that is never possible. So he became an enemy. All of us who wanted an independent country, free to make our own mistakes, were made the enemy. They didn’t call it globalisation then; but it was the same thing. If you accepted it, you were America’s friend. If you chose another way, you were given warnings, and if you didn’t comply, hell was visited on you. But I am back; I am well; I have my family. They didn’t win.’

Ralph McGehee, a senior CIA operations officer in the 1960s, described the terror in Indonesia from 1965 – 66 as a ‘model operation’ for the American-run coup that got rid of Salvador Allende in Chile seven years later. ‘The CIA forged a document purporting to reveal a leftist plot to murder Chilean military leaders,’ he wrote, ‘[just like] what happened in Indonesia in 1965.’ He says Indonesia was also the model for Operation Phoenix in Vietnam, where American-directed death squads assassinated up to 50,000 people. ‘You can trace back all the major, bloody events run from Washington to the way Suharto came to power,’ he told me. ‘The success of that meant that it would be repeated, again and again.’


Indonesia, once owing nothing but having been plundered of its gold, precious stones, wood, spices and other natural riches by its colonial masters, the Dutch, today has a total indebtedness estimated at $262 billion, which is 170 per cent of its gross domestic product. There is no debt like it on earth. It can never be repaid. It is a bottomless hole.

Posted in USA, Europe, Far EastComments Off on How the Australian, British, and US Governments Shamelessly Helped Kill Countless People in Indonesia in 1965

Nazi Zio-Wahhabi Links: Wahhabi General Meets Nazi Officials 


A well-connected retired general in the Saudi  zio-Wahhabi military has traveled to Nazi regime, in the latest indication of a growing link between the illegal Nazi state and Saudi Zio-Wahhabi family which has come to light in recent months.

Zionist puppet Anwar Eshki made the visit earlier in the week, meeting with Nazi  foreign ministry director general Dore Gold Yoav Mordechai and a number of the Nazi Knesset members, the daily Ha’aretz reported.

Eshki and Gold raised an uproar first in June 2015 when they held a publicized joint event in Washington, after meeting privately several times over the preceding year.

Gold attended the event a few days before assuming the role of director general of the Nazi foreign ministry.

Nazi legislator Esawi Freige, who organized Eshki’s meeting with his fellow members of Knesset, shed some light on the trip. “The Saudis want to open up to Israel,” he said.

“This is a strategic step for them. They said they want to continue what former Egyptian President Anwar Sadat started. They want to get closer to Israel. This is clearly evident,” Fregie noted.

He was referring to the former Egyptian president’s negotiations with the Nazi regime, which culminated in the Sadat–Nazi Peace Treaty in 1979.

Haaretz said that during the meeting with the parliamentarians, ”Eshki encouraged dialog in Israel on Saudi Arabia’s Arab Peace Initiative”.

The proposal was unveiled in 2002, offering normalized ties with the illegal Nazi regime by 22 Zionist puppet Arab regime’s in return for Nazi army withdrawal from the illegally occupied West Bank.

During an interview with the Qatari news channel Al Jazeera in April, Eshki said ” Riyadh would open an embassy in Tel Aviv if Israel accepted the Saudi initiative”. He also said the Saudis were not interested in “Israel becoming isolated in the region.”

Back in May, Zionist newspaper Arutz Sheva reported that Saudi Arabia and its Persian Gulf allies [sic], namely Jordan and Egypt, had been sending messages to the Nazi regime through various emissaries, including former British PM Tony Blair.

They had asked Tel Aviv to resume Middle East negotiations under new terms, which included changes to the Saudi initiative, the paper said.

Most Arab governments have no diplomatic relations with the Nazi regime. Even so, reports have indicated that several of them, including Saudi Zio-Wahhabi regime, have had secret relations with Tel Aviv.

Last November, the Associated Press reported that Nazi regime was set to open a “permanent mission” in the UAE.

In May, the Middle East Eye news portal reported that Nazi regime and some Zionist puppet Arab regime’s, including the UAE, Egypt, and Jordan, were planning to overthrow Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and replace him with former leader of the Fatah movement Mohammad Dahlan.

Zionist Sisi Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry traveled to Jerusalem al-Quds for talks with Nazi leaders earlier this month.

The minister outraged many Egyptians for visiting Nazi Prime Minister Benjamin Naziyahu’s family, during which the two watched the Euro 2016 soccer final.

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, Saudi ArabiaComments Off on Nazi Zio-Wahhabi Links: Wahhabi General Meets Nazi Officials 

Gary Spedding – Sabbos Goy or Israeli Agent?

By Gilad Atzmon 

“We in the Palestinian Solidarity Movement Have a Problem With anti-Semitism,” writes Gary Spedding, a pro Palestinian ‘lobbyist’ in the Israeli outlet Haaretz. Spedding claims to be a Palestinian solidarity activist but his activism is better described as that of an ‘Israeli agent.’ Spedding’s article provides us with an extraordinary view of Left duplicity and its disastrous role in the solidarity movement.

“For me,” writes Spedding, “being equipped to recognize and call out anti-Semitism can only strengthen my Palestine advocacy.” And why? Because “having a clear definition of anti-Semitism helps to reassure the Jewish community.” The first question that comes to mind is why a ‘pro’ Palestinian wants to ‘reassure the Jewish community?’ If Spedding really wants to appease the Jews he should join AIPAC or enlist in the IDF’s Unit 300.

Pro Palestinian pretender Spedding doesn’t want us to use “anti-Semitic Jewish power tropes” he doesn’t want us to ‘vilify’ those “Jews who do identify with Zionism.” The obvious next question is, ‘what in hell makes Spedding think that he is a Palestinian solidarity activist?’ This guy is a text book ultra Zionist merchant, probably an Hasbara agent.

Spedding’s criticism of the solidarity movement is identical to the British Jewish Lobby’s campaign against Corbyn. “Some activists have tried to hide their intentions, again playing semantics, by replacing the word ‘Jew’ with ‘Zionist.’ It’s now ‘Zionists control the media’ or ‘Zionists already decided who the next US president will be’ instead of ‘the Jews.” For once, I completely agree with Spedding. Instead of referring to ‘Zionist power’ and ‘Zionist control,’ which are, in fact, misleading terms, we must be honest and straightforward and refer more properly to the ‘Jewish lobby’, ‘Jewish power’ and ‘Jewish interests.’

In total congruence with ardent Zionist Alan Dershowitz, Spedding argues that “Anti-Zionist Jews are also not immune from being complicit in, and promoting, anti-Semitism. If a Jewish person is repeating an anti-Semitic trope it doesn’t suddenly make it kosher for others to repeat.”

Spedding confesses, “when people like me raise concerns about anti-Semitism we are often told that we are ‘useful idiots’ for the Zionists and their agenda.” Well, yes, Spedding is an idiot and a very useful one. He tells us everything we need to know about the dysfunctional Palestinian solidarity movement and the deceitful Left. He helps us to spot the enemy within.

Spedding meticulously repeats the Hasbara guidelines: “We must also stop using the Israel – Nazi Germany analogy.” He support his inane call by quoting Israeli Zionist political commentator, Noam Sheizaf: “Saying someone is a Nazi means he represents the ultimate evil – something that shouldn’t be negotiated or compromised with, but only fought.”

Spedding needs to understand that for many of us Israel, its Lobby, the Neocons and their Zionist interventionist wars do represent the ultimate evil.

Spedding continues, “Activists should walk away from rhetoric that encourages the conflation of right-wing Zionism/Israel’s policies with Judaism and Jewish identity.” Spedding forgot to mention my name here. I claim some of the credit for this ‘conflation’ and I am proud of it. Israel defines itself as the Jewish State, its tanks are decorated with Jewish symbols. Accordingly, each of Israel’s crimes and its Lobby must be interpreted in light of Jewish culture, Jewish identity, Judaism and Jewish heritage!

Spedding insists that “Palestine activists should stop obsessing over identifying whether someone is Jewish or not, with the assumption that Jews must be given a litmus test on whether they’re pro-Israel, and thus assumed to be untrustworthy.” I wonder if Spedding would communicate the same advice to an anti Nazi group in the 1930’s. Would he advise the group not to be suspicious of supporters who, for some peculiar reason, identify politically as ‘Aryans?’

“We on the left” says the presumptive Israeli agent, “must stop procrastinating about anti-Semitism.” And the reason: “The Jewish community is an oppressed group.” I couldn’t agree more. Jews are amongst the poorest people, despite the fact that they are amongst the hardest working people. Jews make up 99% of the West’s population; but their representation in the media, politics, banking and academia is imperceptible. The Left must bring this discrimination to an immediate end. Jews must be proportionally represented once and for all.

Spedding continues, “by tackling anti-Jewish oppression on the left we actually strengthen our movement and allow it to grow.” Corbyn tried to do just that and saw his party reduced to dust. Instead of fighting Jewish power and emancipating his Party from it, Corbyn tried to appease Labour’s Jewish paymasters and the Jewish Lobby. The outcome was disastrous. The British Left is now a nostalgic interest.

Spedding ends his horrendous rant by addressing his comrades: “I urge my fellow activists to be sensitive to the concerns of Jewish individuals and communal groups whenever concerns about anti-Semitism are raised.” I recommend the complete opposite approach. Those who air the concerns of anti-Semitism, people like Spedding, Max Blumenthal, JVP and others, should be presumed to be tribal activists, Israeli agents and/or controlled opposition operatives.

Gary Spedding comes just short of admitting to being guilty of all the above.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Gary Spedding – Sabbos Goy or Israeli Agent?

Meet Fethullah Gulen, Deep State Plotter


Image result for Fethullah Gulen PHOTO

Fethullah Gulen



Since the failed coup attempt in Turkey on July 15th, the name of exiled Turkish cleric Fethullah Gulen is on everyone’s lips. So who is Fethullah Gulen? Well, that depends who you ask…

Posted in TurkeyComments Off on Meet Fethullah Gulen, Deep State Plotter

Shoah’s pages