US made willful decision to create ISIL: Ex-head of US Defense Intelligence Agency

Image result for PLANTU CARTOONS
Press TV 

The former director of the US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) has said that the rise of the ISIL terrorist group in Syria was a “willful decision” made by Washington.

An internal DIA study released recently shows Washington knew that the actions of “the West, (Persian) Gulf countries and Turkey” in Syria may create a Takfiri group like the ISIL.

Michael Flynn, the former head of the DIA, has described the study as important and confirmed its findings.

In an interview with Al Jazeera TV, he said he had studied a DIA memo in 2012 predicting the West’s backing of ISIL in Syria, adding it was very clear intelligence.

When the interviewer asked whether the administration turned a blind eye to his analysis, Flynn said, “I don’t know that they turned a blind eye, I think it was a decision. I think it was a willful decision.”

Asked if it was a willful decision to support an insurgency, he responded, “It was a willful decision to do what they’re doing.”

He also said he had even argued against sponsoring foreign militants in Syria, noting the reason behind the rise of the ISIL was the US and its allies sponsoring terrorists in Syria to pressure Damascus.

Observers say that the US and its allies helped create and train the terrorist organizations to wreak havoc in Muslim countries.

The ISIL militants have seized large swathes of land in Syria and Iraq. They have been carrying out heinous crimes against all communities in both neighboring Arab states.

Elsewhere in his remarks, Flynn admitted that Washington was well aware of the chaos Iraq would face following its withdrawal in 2011.

US warplanes have been conducting airstrikes against ISIL in Iraq since early August 2014. Some Western states have also participated in some of the strikes in Iraq.

Since late September 2014, the US and some of its Arab allies have been carrying out airstrikes against ISIL inside Syria without any authorization from Damascus or a UN mandate.

Posted in Middle East, USAComments Off on US made willful decision to create ISIL: Ex-head of US Defense Intelligence Agency

A new victory for the Cuban revolution

Proletarian issue 67 (August 2015

Medicos cubanos VEJA

After re-establishing diplomatic relations with the United States, the lifting of the blockade, among other matters, will be indispensable for the normalisation of relations.
Statement by the Revolutionary Government of CubaOn 1 July 2015, the President of the Councils of State and of Ministers of the Republic of Cuba, General Raúl Castro Ruz, and the President of the United States of America, Barack Obama, exchanged letters through which they confirmed their decision to re-establish diplomatic relations between the two countries and open permanent diplomatic missions in the respective capitals as from 20 July 2015.

On that same day, the official ceremony to open the Cuban embassy in Washington will be held, which will be attended by a Cuban delegation presided over by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla, and made up by outstanding representatives of Cuban society.

As Cuba and the United States take this formal step, they ratified their intention to develop respectful and cooperative relations between both peoples and governments, based on the principles and purposes enshrined in the United Nations Charter and international law, particularly the Vienna Conventions on Diplomatic and Consular Relations.

The government of Cuba has decided to re-establish diplomatic relations with the United States in the full exercise of its sovereignty and with an invariable commitment to its ideals of independence and social justice, and of solidarity with the just causes of the world, while reaffirming each and every one of the principles for which our people have shed their blood and run every risk under the leadership of the historical Leader of the Revolution, Fidel Castro Ruz.

The re-establishment of diplomatic relations and the opening of embassies completes the first stage of what will be a long and complex process towards the normalisation of bilateral relations, in which it will be necessary to solve a number of issues derived from policies that were implemented in the past and that are still in force and affecting the Cuban nation and its people.

There can be no normal relations between Cuba and the United States as long as the economic, commercial and financial blockade continues to be fully implemented, causing damage and scarcities to the Cuban people. The blockade is the main obstacle to the development of our economy; it is a violation of international law and affects the interests of all countries, including those of the United States.

In order to normalise relations, it will also be indispensable for the United States government to return to Cuba the territory illegally occupied by the Guantánamo naval base; cease the radio and television broadcasts, which violate international regulations and are harmful to our sovereignty; stop the implementation of programmes aimed at promoting internal subversion and destabilisation and compensate the Cuban people for all the human and economic damages caused by the United States’ policies.

As the Cuban government recalls the issues that are still to be resolved between our two countries, it recognises the decisions adopted so far by President Obama to remove Cuba from the list of state sponsors of international terrorism; to encourage the Congress of his country to lift the blockade and to begin taking steps to modify the implementation of aspects of this policy by making use of his executive powers.

Likewise, as part of the process towards the normalisation of relations, it will be necessary to build the foundations of a kind of relations that have never before existed in the history between our countries, particularly since the military intervention of the United States, 117 years ago, during the independence war that Cuba waged for almost three decades against Spanish colonialism.

These relations should be based on the absolute respect for our independence and sovereignty; the inalienable right of every state to chose its political, economic, social and cultural system, without any form of interference; and sovereign equality and reciprocity, which are principles of international law that cannot be relinquished.

The government of Cuba reiterates its willingness to maintain a respectful dialogue with the government of the United States and develop civilised coexistence relations, based on respect for the differences that exist between both governments and cooperation in areas of mutual benefit.

Cuba shall continue to be involved in the process to update its economic and social model in order to build a prosperous and sustainable socialism, to move towards the development of the country and to consolidate the achievements of the revolution.

Havana, 1 July 2015

Posted in South AmericaComments Off on A new victory for the Cuban revolution

Venezuela under attack as next election approaches


Proletarian issue 67 (August 2015)

Obama sanctions

The imperialists and their local stooges are once more pulling out all the stops to sabotage the economy and subvert the people’s will in the hopes of bringing to an end the revolutionary movement towards socialism that is being led by the government of Nicolás Maduro.
The revolutionary government of Venezuela recently announced that, in accordance with the constitution, the country will hold parliamentary elections on 6 December this year.

In this context, the imperialist yellow press has even further ramped up its attacks on President Nicolás Maduro and the gains made by the Venezuelan people in the course of the Chavista revolution, in the hope that the electoral process, held in the midst of a difficult economic situation, can serve to derail the country’s march towards socialism.

Of course, such attacks are not new or unexpected. Every country seeking to advance along the road of anti-imperialism and socialism has faced, and faces, similar attacks. In Venezuela’s case, aggressive interference by imperialism accompanied every election that was contested by the late President Hugo Chávez, and has been ramped up to fever pitch since his death. Hence the media hysteria and political and economic sabotage that was in evidence at the last presidential election, when Comrade Nicolás Maduro first stood in place of his fallen leader.

A typical example of this imperialist propaganda – in reality a form of psychological warfare – was carried by Fox News Latino on 14 May. In an article entitled: ‘Venezuela continues to deteriorate in lead-up to parliamentary elections’, Andrew O’Reilly claimed that the government of President Maduro is corrupt and dictatorial, and stated that “analysts say his administration continues to try and silence critics and shut down unrest ahead of the crucial parliamentary elections later this year – one that experts say could decide the fate of the struggling country.”

The ‘proof’ offered for this allegation of corruption and dictatorial methods was that Venezuelan National Assembly President Diosdado Cabello has filed a lawsuit against three newspapers that republished a highly libellous Spanish newspaper article. The article alleged, without a shred of evidence, that Cabello and other members of the Venezuelan government were involved in the illegal drugs trade – lies which have been concocted and spread by US imperialist intelligence agencies in pursuit of their regime-change agenda.

This civil action in defence of his reputation, according to the warped logic of Fox News, constitutes “the latest in a series of crackdowns on free speech in a country reeling from economic, political and civil unrest”.

We can think of many countries where the putting forward the idea that taking out a lawsuit against three newspapers for making wild and unsubstantiated allegations constituted a ‘crackdown on free speech’ would bring loud and uncontrollable laughter. Of course, when it comes to discussion of those countries where free speech really is denied or violently punished – such as Israel, Saudi Arabia or Ukraine – our gallant newsgatherers report only democracy or the (perfectly understandable) need to protect ‘national security’.

As ever, Fox’s propaganda piece was embellished by the presence of an ‘expert’ quote – in this case, from Chris Sabatini, a professor at New York’s Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA), who said: “Given the lack of institutions in Venezuela, the political polarisation and the high levels of mistrust in the government, it looks like things are not going to end well for Venezuela.”

The aim here – again, not a new one – is to try and establish in the minds of readers and viewers the idea that the right-wing opposition (organised under the laughable title of the ‘Democratic Unity Roundtable’, [MUD]) is all set for a victory at the polls, so that if and when the coalition led by the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) wins again, and MUD reacts violently (as it has done before), this anti-worker intimidation by its fascistic followers can be presented as a ‘popular uprising’.

Last year, anti-government riots by such pro-imperialist elements led to the deaths of many innocent Venezuelans. They were organised mainly by right-wing paramilitaries, leading rich kids and some gullible and misled sections of the masses in an attempt to destabilise the country.

In February, Leopoldo Lopez, a former mayor and key opposition leader in the area of Caracas, the country’s capital, was arrested for organising those riots. More riots followed his arrest, which left 43 people dead, many more wounded, and many working-class neighbourhoods disrupted and vandalised by burning barricades.

Of all this anti-democratic violence, Mr O’Reilly had nothing to say, stating instead that the continued incarceration of Lopez and “a few dozen protesters” (read murderers and coup plotters) was proof that the government is guilty of arbitrarily arresting its political opponents.

Mr O’Reilly’s dirty little article went on brazenly to state that “Rampant corruption is one of the main worries cited by many observers in the run-up to Venezuela’s parliamentary elections.” What ‘rampant corruption’, and which ‘observers’, one might very well ask?

We were further told that the watchdog group “Transparency International ranked Venezuela as one of the most corrupt countries on the planet – putting them as the 161st least corrupt [a rather obtuse way of saying that it is very corrupt]country out of 175 nations. It cited the country’s political institutions, judiciary and police as being the most affected by corruption.” And the proof offered in support of this? Again, none!

However, a cursory look at Transparency International’s internet home page reveals that it was set up in the early nineties by retired World Bank official Peter Eigen, who claims to have seen “corruption’s impact during his work in East Africa” and, together with nine like-minded altruists, to have “set up a small organisation to take on the taboo: Transparency International was established with a Secretariat in Berlin, the recently-restored capital of a reunified Germany”.

In other words, this ‘independent watchdog’ is really nothing more than yet another arms-length agency of imperialism, in whose eyes the highest level of ‘corruption’ and ‘lack of transparency’ is doubtless refusing the orders of the IMF and the World Bank and endeavouring to serve the interests of the vast majority of one’s own people. For example, with the exception of Singapore, all its ‘top ten’ supposedly ‘least corrupt’ countries are in western Europe or North America, whereas the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK – a country where people’s rights are so badly trampled that they have universal free housing, health care, education and pensions, alongside guaranteed socially-useful jobs) is ranked last, alongside the dysfunctional state of Somalia.

Let us now look at what we know to be happening in Venezuela, where the primaries (the process of candidate selection) for both sides have now finished.

June’s opposition primaries held by MUD were notable for empty voting stations and elite backroom deal-making. The opposition held primaries in only 33 circuits in eleven states, accruing 543,723 votes. Meanwhile, the primaries held by the PSUV had reportedly surpassed that number by 9.00am.

In those same 33 circuits, the PSUV managed to double MUD’s turnout with 1.3 million voters crowding the polls from the early hours of the morning until 10.00pm. Indeed, the time limit for voting had to be extended from the planned 6.00pm cut-off in order to accommodate the huge numbers anxious to show their support for the revolution. Venezuelans waited in line for hours for their chance to cast a ballot for PSUV candidates in all 87 circuits of the country’s 23 states.

Unlike the PSUV, which allowed voters to choose 100 percent of its parliamentary candidates, the MUD leadership had handpicked 75 percent of its 168 candidates. The PSUV had fielded for selection a list of candidates that was 60 percent female; of those selected to go into the December elections, 30 percent are women. A mere 10 out of MUD’s 110 primary candidates were female, on the other hand, and, if proof were needed of which class this unholy alliance represents, its prospective candidates are obliged to pay a hefty registration fee.

While all the bourgeois international commentators are predicting that the December elections will see a decisive rout for the party of Chávez, a recent study by the private polling firm Hinterlaces has found that approximately 62 percent of Venezuelans would prefer the socialist party to continue governing.

The historic turnout of 3,162,400 Venezuelans voting in the internal parliamentary primaries of the governing PSUV flies in the face of those ‘news’ moulders who are trying to convince anyone us all that the party has lost popular support and that the revolution is crumbling. (See ‘PSUV parliamentary primary sees historic grassroots turnout’ by Lucas Koerner,, 29 June 2015)

The result in December will reveal the real support for Maduro and his party in the country, as will the numbers of those who are prepared to stand with the PSUV government in the acute struggle against the US-instigated and inspired violence that we can expect to follow another electoral victory for the revolution.

As the Venezuelan people enter this next period of intense imperialist sabotage, international solidarity with them and their revolutionary government is more vital than ever.

Hands off Venezuela!

Posted in VenezuelaComments Off on Venezuela under attack as next election approaches

Hypocritical imperialist double-dealing in Syria

NOVANEWSProletarian issue 67 (August 2015)
Radical and moderate Syrian rebels Middle East Monitor


While local stooges are working overtime to help imperialism topple the Syrian government, it is the Syrian army that truly combats Islamic State, not the RAF.
The admission that British pilots have been embedded with US-led coalition forces engaged in bombing raids in Syria – in flagrant contravention of parliament’s decision to the contrary in 2013 – makes a mockery of ‘democracy’, even in its truncated, bourgeois form.

A bombing campaign in violation of Syria’s national sovereignty, with the avowed aim of attacking the Islamic State terrorists, but in truth aimed at the destruction of Syrian infrastructure, may look to Obama and Cameron like a smart way to achieve the regime change so long denied them. But whilst Her Majesty’s loyal opposition in Westminster may choose to fall for this phoney ‘war against terror’, the steadfast Syrian people know how to distinguish friends from enemies, having spent over four years struggling against all the agencies of imperialist subversion – not least Islamic State itself.

The murder of 38 tourists, mostly British, on a beach in Sousse, Tunisia was seized on by Cameron as the perfect opportunity to stampede public opinion into acquiescing to a possible British air war against Syria. The fact that the attack occurred in North Africa, not the Middle East, did not deter Cameron from asserting that IS poses “an existential threat” to the West and that its members in Syria are plotting “terrible attacks” on British soil.

So, having for years flooded the media with stories about what a ‘bloodthirsty tyrant’ President Assad is, and what heroic ‘freedom fighters’ are the various armed gangs arrayed against his government, the British government now feigns injured innocence when those British citizens whom it has itself helped to ‘radicalise’ take the war propaganda at face value and fly out to join IS … and when all the assistance lavished upon the so-called ‘moderate opposition’ forces within Syria ends up feathering the nest of what we are now encouraged to identify as Public Enemy Number One.

Labour and Tory: joint warmongers

Back in 2013, the Commons refused to support British bombing of Syria, but the government hopes to reverse this now. Defence secretary Michael Fallon declared: “It is a new Parliament and I think new Members of Parliament will want to think very carefully about how we best deal with ISIL, and the illogicality of ISIL not respecting the borderlines.”

Fallon complained that there is an “illogicality” about having to respect international borders whilst IS ignores them. His ‘logic’ is clear: first create your Frankenstein’s monster, then gee it up to violate all borders, then complain that you cannot destroy the monster without yourself trampling over borders – but all in the interests of democracy and good governance, of course.

At one point, Fallon even appeared to be flagging up a new bombing campaign against Libya as well, though “only … where we think there is an imminent threat … to British lives or, for example, to British hostages”.

Not to be outdone, Labour’s acting leader Harriet Harman led speculation that the Sousse outrage might have been planned in Syria, grovelling to the Tories that Labour would look “very, very seriously” at whatever the government proposed. Labour’s shadow defence secretary Vernon Coaker likewise declared that “we stand ready to work with the government to defeat ISIL and will carefully consider any proposals that the government decide to bring forward”. (See ‘Labour signals it could back government over Syria bombing’ by Ben Riley-Smith,, 2 July 2015)

How Erdogan sold Turkey to the Muslim Brotherhood

The border most freely violated by Islamic State and all the other terror gangs is that between Syria and Turkey. Ankara has transformed the border area into a permanent armed camp, extending a vital lifeline to the IS terrorists.

Without that constant lifeline, the terror bases in Raqqa and elsewhere in the north would not last long – lacking as they do the sympathy of the vast majority of Syrians and surviving only by the imposition of a permanent reign of terror.

In the run-up to the Turkish elections in June, there were dozens of attacks upon the progressive Kurdish People’s Democratic Party (HDP), culminating in two bomb attacks in Diyarbakir that killed three people and wounded over 180. The suspect arrested over the attack is reported to be an IS fighter of Turkish origin with ties to Syria, reinforcing the HDP’s earlier suggestion that all the attacks were connected with IS.

This is just one more proof of the degree to which Erdogan’s witches’ brew of neo-liberal economics and islamist flirtation is destabilising Turkish society, confronting it with a much more real ‘existential threat’ than that supposedly faced by Britain. AKP’s setback at the polls, depriving it of a majority (and hence the ability to change the constitution) and scrabbling to form a coalition government, was in part a reflection of the revulsion felt by many at seeing Turkey threatened with relegation to the status of an islamist auxiliary and imperialist proxy.

According to one report, over 1,000 Turks have joined IS, with over a hundred coming from one single neighbourhood in Ankar. According to the US-based Liberation News website: “IS went so far as to set up a public donation stand collecting money for the war in Syria. It was reported that the stand was used for signing up new recruits.

Further: “on 14 August, in Dilova, a town in Kocaeli, a city in northwest Turkey, a group of 10 young men left for Syria, leaving behind a note which read: ‘We are going to Syria and we will not be back until Turkey becomes a state of Islam.’ Speaking to Turkish daily SoL, one of the residents of Dilova said: ‘We recognise the IS guys. They have been in our neighbourhood for over a year and a half. They have IS stickers on their cars. We realised who they really were after watching their actions on TV.’

So institutionalised has Turkish assistance to Islamic State become that oil stolen from Syrian refineries can be piped over to Turkey from Syrian villages near the border at Hatay. An opposition party deputy in Hatay, Ali Ediboglu, reckons that “as of June 2014, the amount of smuggled Syrian oil sold by ISIS in Turkey reached $800 million”.

Ediboglu told Liberation News: “They have laid pipes from villages near the Turkish border at Hatay. Similar pipes exist also at Kilis, Urfa and Gaziantep (border cities in Turkey). They transfer the oil to Turkey and parlay it into cash. They take the oil from the refineries at zero cost. Using primitive means, they refine the oil in areas close to the Turkish border and then sell it via Turkey.” (‘AKP loses parliamentary majority in the general elections in Turkey’ by Taylor Goel,, 12 June 2015)

Anglo-American imperialism, chief recruiting officer for Islamic State

Crucial as is the role of Turkey and the other reactionary states in the region in prolonging the agony of a war which imperialism cannot win but dares not relinquish, it is Washington and London themselves that are the ultimate recruiting officers for counter-revolution.

It is reported that 6,000 Syrians have so far been found to volunteer for a “politically moderate military force” (mercenary army) to be trained up by US military advisers. Whilst the ostensible purpose of the force is to attack IS, events on the ground are already making it clear who the real beneficiaries of that training will be.

Navy Captain Scott Rye confessed that there were “complications vetting volunteers and bringing them out of Syria for the training”. Many of these would-be traitors, willing to sell their homeland for up to $400 a month, were clearly a sorry bunch, having to be rejected as “unfit for training”. Bemusedly, Captain Rye confided that one group of recruits “all quit at the same time after training for several weeks”, a development which he said was “unusual” … “I would deem it a one-time event”.

The Captain denied a report that the group pulled out rather than sign a face-saving contract promising not to fight the Assad government. Just where the newly-trained up group have now gone is unknown – perhaps to help IS firm up its ‘existential threat’ against Britain? (‘US military pays Syrian rebels up to $400 per month: Pentagon’ by David Alexander, Reuters, 22 June 2015)

Syria stands firm

Meanwhile, the burden of the real war against Islamic State continues to be shouldered by the Syrian government, army and people. The last word on this should go to an inhabitant of Aleppo, driven almost to distraction by the horrors heaped upon Aleppans by the West-backed terror gangs, yet still standing resolutely with the long-suffering Syrian nation in her war of liberation from imperialist subversion.

I apologise that I’m very upset, mostly not from the attackers and whoever is supporting them in Turkey over here (and Israel and Jordan in the south); but mainly from the liars in that conference in Britain or at the UN, who keep lying and lying, piles and tons of lies, about ‘freedom’ and ‘barrel bombs’, and live in their perfumed and ironed suits and ties, happy with their PhD degrees in stupidity and fooling the world, having no problem in obtaining clean water, electricity, warm food, and the other services that we are suffering over here to obtain something of. 

Those people travel in first-class airlines, and live in five-star hotels, and are ready to come on TV channels to weep upon the ‘Syrian people’ and blame the ‘regime’, while turning a blind eye upon all the terrorists they are funding and supporting. I wish these people, whether they were Arabs or westerners, muslims or christians, Syrians or others … I wish them Hell! And to taste and suffer the same pain they caused to innocent people. 

The Syrian army has defended the city, and all the lies on the media claiming the terrorists’ victories are nothing but rumours and gossip. President Bashar al-Assad had gifted Aleppo yesterday with about $15.5m as an urgent aid to the city.” (‘Aleppo resident: “Scenes of support for SAA and NDF in Aleppo last night”’,, 3 July 2015)

Victory to the Syrian government, army and people!

Death to imperialism and its lackeys!

Posted in USA, SyriaComments Off on Hypocritical imperialist double-dealing in Syria

Imperialist looting of Ukraine is ramping up

Proletarian issue 67 (August 2015)

Image result for USA AND ukraine WAR  photo

So long as the fascist junta remains in place in Kiev, it seems that every part of Ukraine’s considerable wealth is up for sale to the imperialists – at rock bottom prices naturally – from the land that feeds the people to the very organs that keep them alive. 
Whilst the pro-imperialist junta in Kiev digs in its heels, and the agonising stalemate drags on, preparations are under way in Ukraine to sell and privatise everything – even the land people stand on.

Although on paper there are restrictions on land sales to foreigners, in practice vast tracts of farmland are being readied for absorption by imperialist agribusiness, with Ukrainian agro-holding companies buying up land in preparation for lease or sale to global players like Monsanto, Cargill, Dupont, Exxon and Raytheon, whose interests are pushed by the US-Ukraine Business Council.

One of the largest Ukrainian agro-holding companies, AgroGeneration, is chaired by Michael Bleyzer. This capitalist does not content himself solely with the harvesting of vast profits from his position as a fifth columnist for imperialism, but has also some very decided opinions about the political and military landscape required so that profit-taking may proceed unhindered.

Warning darkly that “a large segment of the population in Kharkiv oblast is so discouraged by events and by the constant bombardment of Russian propaganda that they could be supportive of a Russian invasion or an attempt to establish a so-called People’s Republic”, Bleyzer is demanding a ‘Social Stabilisation Fund’ for Kharkov, Dnepropetrovsk, Zaporozhia, Kherson, Nikolaev and Odessa. (Black earth and the struggle for Ukraine’s future’ by Andrey Panevin,, 25 June 2015)

For his treacherous services, Bleyzer has reportedly taken $10m from the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development in 2011 (of which the US is a major shareholder) and $50m from the US government’s Overseas Private Investment Corporation in 2012. Meanwhile, small and medium farmers face the prospect of mass expropriation as the credit lines dry up and the monopolists move in.

Traffic in organs

To rub home the fact that in today’s Ukraine literally everything is for sale, the ministry of health has presented Kiev’s rigged parliament, the Rada, with a draft law on organ transplants. This law says that: 1. people will have to opt out of posthumous donation, rather than opting in; 2. private clinics will be authorised to perform the transplants; and 3. whilst you are still alive you can sell your organs to anyone you like.

Put these three together and you have completely legalised the commercial traffic in organs – a business that has hitherto lurked in the shadows.

Given the context of the present war, with its death squads, torture, kidnappings and forced signatures, the implications of this law are grim indeed. Nothing could better express the sick fascist character of Ukrainian society under the jackboot – as ever, given maximum aid and succour by imperialism. (See ‘Ukraine moves to legalise for profit organ harvesting’,, 9 July 2015)

European disquiet

Encouraged by ‘President’ Poroshenko’s mentors in the West, the fascist junta in Kiev continues to stonewall, refusing to talk to the twin People’s Republics of Lugansk and Donetsk about implementing the peace accords that the junta signed up to under Minsk II. Yet with every day that passes without talks, the less muffled become the voices of disquiet raised in Europe. With the Greek crisis calling into question the very future of the imperialist European Union itself, discord is heard right at the Franco-German core of the Union.

The erstwhile French defence secretary, Jean-Pierre Chevenement, wrote recently in Le Monde Diplomatique that whilst the Minsk II formula is straightforward enough – “the passing of an electoral law by the Rada; local elections in the Donbass; constitutional reform; a law on decentralisation; further elections; and finally Ukraine regaining control of its border with Russia” – it is Kiev that insists upon inventing obstacles to peace.

For example, “on 17 March, the Rada voted to overturn this sequence by making the ‘withdrawal of armed groups’ a precondition. The Ukrainian government’s block on the political component of Minsk II threatens to turn the Ukrainian crisis into a frozen conflict.

This senior, if somewhat maverick, member of the French establishment went on to blame the EU for not standing up to the USA, noting that: “The real issue in the Ukrainian crisis is whether Europe can assert itself as an independent actor in a multipolar world or will take a permanently subordinate role to the US,” and suggesting that, “the crisis could have been avoided if the EU had, in launching its Eastern Partnership in 2009, framed the negotiation of the association agreement with Ukraine compatibly with the objective of the 2003 strategic EU-Russia partnership: creating ‘a single economic space from Lisbon to Vladivostok’. It would have been necessary to take into account the close link between the Ukrainian and Russian economies. Had it done so, the EU would have avoided being used by proponents of an eastward expansion of Nato.

Chevenement also complained that German Chancellor Merkel is “far too closely aligned with the US” over Ukraine, accusing her of giving up on Germany’s “traditional Ostpolitik towards Russia” in the hope of sneaking a competitive advantage over its neighbours by accessing a captive cheap labour pool in the Ukraine. In short, he said, “Germany must convince its European partners that it is not just the US’s proxy in Europe”. (‘No need for this cold war’, 7 July 2015)

Meanwhile, contrary voices are complaining that Germany and the EU are not slavish enough to Nato and Washington; that they don’t spend enough on defence and that they are lukewarm in supporting moves against Russia. One such commentator has acknowledged that Merkel “has managed to keep all 28 EU countries united over the sanctions against Russia”, but then goes straight on to whinge that “that is not the same thing as Berlin supporting US efforts to boost the security of the Baltic states or providing training and non-lethal weapons for the Ukrainian army”.

The very ‘Ostpolitik’ which Chevenement urges as an alternative to submission to US diktat is seen by this waspish commentator as a deadly temptation to be resisted at all costs. “There is a longing among some of Germany’s elites to go back to the old days of Ostpolitik, when Germany drove a rapprochement with Russia while Moscow used that relationship to weaken Europe and undermine the transatlantic alliance. Implicit in that eastern policy was a suspicion – if not criticism – of the United States, despite Washington being Europe’s security guarantor.” (‘Europe’s strategic indifference over Greece and Ukraine’ by Judy Dempsey,, 9 July 2015)

The reality is that Washington’s reckless brinksmanship over the Ukraine, driven on by the capitalist crisis, is serving to expose ever sharper contradictions both within the EU itself and between the EU and its stateside ‘security guarantor’. In a recent interview with the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, Russian President Vladimir Putin neatly summed up the game that the US is playing with Europe.

“For example, the Americans do not want Russia’s rapprochement with Europe. I am not asserting this, it is just a hypothesis. Let’s suppose that the United States would like to maintain its leadership in the Atlantic community. It needs an external threat, an external enemy to ensure this leadership. Iran is clearly not enough – this threat is not very scary or big enough. Who can be frightening? And then suddenly this crisis unfolds in Ukraine. Hypothetically speaking, of course.” (‘Vladimir Putin, interview’ by Luciano Fontana and Paolo Valentino, 7 June 2015)


As the war grinds on and Washington finds it harder to keep its European allies on message, morale within the Ukraine army and officialdom likewise wears thinner, and there has been quite a crop of high-profile defections.

On 22 June, retired Major General Alexander Kolomiyets, a former aide to Ukraine’s defence minister, went over to the side of the Donbass resistance, following on the heels of the former chief of the Lugansk customs service Oleg Chernousov. Brothers Alexey and Yuri Miroshnichenko, both intelligence officers based in the Paris embassy, had likewise thrown in the towel and gone back to Lugansk earlier in the month.

Most recently, two senior traffic officers, Vitaly Balbekov and Alexey Kobzar, returned to offer their services to the People’s Republic. “We came under the influence of our commanders who ordered us to leave Donetsk. They promised it would be two weeks. We found ourselves in Mariupol. Two weeks, a month and a year passed. Over that time we understood we had made a mistake and decided to return home to our native city where we were born, grew up and lived all our lives and where we have family and relatives,” Balbekov told journalists. (‘Two Ukrainian traffic officers defect to side of DPR’,, 3 July 2015)

Victory to the Donbass resistance!

Nato out of Ukraine!

Posted in USA, Europe, UkraineComments Off on Imperialist looting of Ukraine is ramping up

Fourteen Incredible Facts About 9/11



Image result for PLANTU CARTOONS

By Kevin Ryan |

As the 14th anniversary of 9/11 approaches, it’s important to remind people that we still don’t know what happened that day. What is known about 9/11 is that there are many incredible facts that continue to be ignored by the government and the mainstream media. Here are fourteen.

  1. An outline of what was to become the 9/11 Commission Report was produced before the investigation began. The outline was kept secret from the Commission’s staff and appears to have determined the outcome of the investigation.
  2. The 9/11 Commission claimed sixty-three (63) times in its Report that it could find “no evidence” related to important aspects of the crimes.
  3. One person, Shayna Steiger, issued 12 visas to the alleged hijackers in Saudi Arabia. Steiger issued some of the visas without interviewing the applicants and fought with another employee at the embassy who tried to prevent her lax approach.
  4. Before 9/11, the nation’s leading counter-terrorism expert repeatedly notified his friends in the United Arab Emirates of top-secret U.S. plans to capture Osama bin Laden. These treasonous leaks prevented Bin Laden’s capture on at least two separate occasions.
  5. Former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger was caught stealing documents from the National Archives that had been requested by the 9/11 Commission. The Commission had previously been denied access to the documents but the White House reluctantly agreed to turn them over just as Berger was trying to steal them..
  6. The official story of the failed air defenses on 9/11 was changed several times and, in the end, paradoxically exonerated the military by saying that the military had lied many times about its response. The man who was behind several of the changing accounts was a specialist in political warfare (i.e. propaganda).
  7. Military exercises being conducted on the day of 9/11 mimicked the attacks as they were occurring and obstructed the response to the attacks. NORAD commander Ralph Eberhart sponsored those exercises, failed to do his job that day, and later lied to Congress about it (if the 9/11 Commission account is true).
  8. third skyscraper collapsed late in the afternoon on 9/11. This was WTC 7, a 47-story building that the government’s final report says fell into its own footprint due to office fires. The building’s tenants included U.S. intelligence agencies and a company led in part by Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney. Meetings were scheduled there to discuss terrorism and explosives on the morning of 9/11.
  9. News agencies, including BBC and CNN, announced the destruction of WTC 7 long before it happened. One BBC reporterannounced the collapse while viewers could see the still-standing building right behind her in the video. Years later, after claiming that it had lost the tapes and then found them again, BBC’s answer to this astonishing report was that everything was just “confusing and chaotic” that day. Of course, one problem with this is that the news agencies predicted the exact building, of the many damaged in the area, that would collapse. Another big problem is that no one could have possibly predicted the collapse of WTC 7 given the unprecedented and unbelievable official account for how that happened.
  10. Construction of the new, 52-story WTC 7 was completed two years before the government knew what happened to the first WTC 7. In fact, when the new building was completed in 2006, the spokesman for the government investigation said, “We’ve hadtrouble getting a handle on building No. 7.” The construction of the new building, without regard for how the first one was destroyed, indicates that building construction professionals in New York City did not believe it could ever happen again.
  11. Ultimately, building construction codes were not changed as a result of the root causes cited by the National Institute for Standards and Technology for destruction of the World Trade Center (WTC) buildings. This fact shows that the international building construction community does not believe that the WTC buildings were destroyed as stated in the official account.
  12. AMEC, the company that just finished rebuilding the exact spot where Flight 77 was said to hit, was put in charge of cleanup at the WTC and the Pentagon. The man who ran the company, Peter Janson, was a long-time business associate of Donald Rumsfeld.
  13. The response of the U.S. Secret Service to the 9/11 attacks suggests foreknowledge of the events in that the agency failed to protect the president from the obvious danger posed by terrorists.
  14. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission notified the FBI of suspected 9/11 insider trading transactions. That evidence was ignored and the suspects were not even questioned by the FBI or the 9/11 Commission.

There are, of course, many more incredible facts about 9/11 that continue to be ignored by authorities and much of the media. Let’s hope that the next major terrorist attack results in legitimate reporting and unified calls for truth before fourteen years have passed.

Posted in USAComments Off on Fourteen Incredible Facts About 9/11

Which U.S. Senators Want War on Iran

Image result for PLANTU CARTOONS
By David Swanson 

Let’s do the count:

Senators rallying and whipping their colleagues to support the Iran agreement: 0.

Senators admitting that Iran has had no nuclear weapons program and has never threatened or been a threat to the United States: 0.

Senators pushing the false idea that Iran is a nuclear threat but indicating they will vote to support the agreement precisely in order to counter that threat: 16
(Tammy Baldwin, Barbara Boxer, Dick Durbin, Dianne Feinstein, Kirsten Gillibrand, Martin Heinrich, Tim Kaine, Angus King, Patrick Leahy, Chris Murphy, Bill Nelson, Jack Reed, Bernie Sanders, Jeanne Shaheen, Tom Udall, Elizabeth Warren)

Republican (and “Libertarian”) senators indicating they will try to kill the agreement, thereby moving the United States toward a war on Iran: 54.
(All of them.)

Democratic senators inspired during the repulsive Republican debate Thursday night to announce that they will try to kill the deal (and would rather have a war): 1.
(Charles Schumer.)

Democratic senators who haven’t clearly stated a position: 29.

The number of those 29 who would have to join Schumer to kill the agreement and set the United States on a path toward self-isolation, international disgrace, and disastrous illegal immoral catastrophic war that will make Iraq and Afghanistan look like diplomacy: 12.

Can we keep the agreement protected from such a fate? Of course we can. We’ve been stopping a war on Iran for many years now. We stopped it in 2007. Such things never enter U.S. history books, but wars are stopped all the time. In 2013, the push for a massive bombing campaign on Syria was hard and absolutely bipartisan, yet public pressure played the key role in stopping it.

Now we have the White House on our side for godsake. When Obama wants a horrible corporate trade agreement fast tracked or a supplemental war spending bill rammed through or a “healthcare” bill passed, he twists arms and offers bribes, he gives rides on his airplane, he sends cabinet secretaries to do PR events in districts. If he really wants this, he’ll hardly need our help. So one strategy we need to keep after is making clear he knows we expect this of him.

Senator Sanders has a gazillion fans now, and something like all but 3 of them believe he is a hero for peace. If you’re a Bernie supporter, you can urge him to rally his colleagues to protect the Iran agreement.

In states like Virginia where one senator is taking the right position and one is keeping quiet, urge the first one (Kaine) to lobby the other one (Warner).

Would-be senators like Alan Grayson who want people to think of them as progressives but who have been pushing to kill the deal since before Schumer slithered out from under his rock, should be hounded everywhere they show their faces.

Schumer himself should not be permitted to appear in public without protest of his warmongering.

Just as in the summer of 2013, most senators and house members are going to be at public events in the coming weeks. Email and call them here. That’s easy. That’s the least anyone can do. And it had an impact last time in 2013. But also find out where they will be (senators and representatives both) and be there in small or large numbers to demand NO WAR ON IRAN.

The most expensive weapons system they’ve got (“missile defense”) has been using the mythical Iranian threat as a ridiculous justification for picking your pocket and antagonizing the world in your name for years and years. But Raytheon wanted those missiles to hit Syria, and Wall Street believed they would.

The Israel lobby has much of Congress bought and paid for. But the public is turning against it, and you can shame its servants.


In the long run, it’s useful to remember that lies do not set us free.

If both proponents and opponents of the agreement depict Iran falsely as a nuclear threat, the danger of a U.S. war on Iran is going to continue, with or without the deal. The deal could end with the election of a new president or Congress. Ending the agreement could be the first act of a Republican president or a Schumerian Democratic Leader.

So, don’t just urge the right vote while pushing the propaganda. Oppose the propaganda as well.

Posted in USA, IranComments Off on Which U.S. Senators Want War on Iran

Hillary’s Libyan Torturers

Image result for PLANTU CARTOONS
By Daniel McAdams | Ron Paul Institute Remember when then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was so intent on a US attack on Libya that she disregarded the US Intelligence Community, the Pentagon, and even her colleagues in the Obama Administration to force her “humanitarian intervention”? Clinton was so distrusted by the Pentagon that they opened up their own lines of communication with Libyan officials — they knew she was feeding them and the State Department boldfaced lies.

Even members of Hillary’s own party in Congress were skeptical of her claims.

Gaddafi’s son and presumed heir, Saif, told then-Rep. Dennis Kucinich (an RPI Board Member) that Hillary was using false information to justify the coming US attack on his country. (Thankfully, Mr. Kucinich understood his Constitutional obligation to act as member of an equal branch of government and did his own investigation of Hillary’s claims.)

Saif told Kucinich that Hillary’s “information” about Libya was:

[L]ike the WMDs in Iraq. It was based on a false report. Libyan airplanes bombing demonstrators, Libyan airplanes bombing districts in Tripoli, Libyan army killed thousands, etc., etc., and now the whole world found there is no single evidence that such things happened in Libya.

Hillary’s rebels, according to Saif were, as a Washington Times article reports, “not freedom fighters” but rather jihadists whom he described as “gangsters and terrorists.”

Hillary got her war. The Washington Post, ever the lickspittle in the service of the US regime, shortly after the attack praised Hillary’s great foresight in forcing the US war on Libya:

Seven months later, with longtime U.S. nemesis Moammar Gaddafi dead and Libya’s onetime rebels now in charge, the coalition air campaign has emerged as a foreign policy success for the Obama administration and its most famous Cabinet member, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

What a success! Libya is now in the hands of ISIS and various Islamist terror gangs. The population is devastated. Saif was right: they were a bunch of terrorist jihadists.

Gaddafi’s other son, Saadi, is currently being held by “Libyan Dawn,” an al-Qaeda group that has emerged since the US “liberation” and has taken control of key parts of Libya. This week we see in a new video that Hillary’s humanitarian freedom fighters have taken to torturing Saadi Gaddafi in the must un-humanitarian manner (warning, graphic). Hillary’s humanitarians are a bunch of torturing thugs, and it’s all there on the tape. Will she be challenged on this? Don’t bet on it.

Meanwhile, another group of Hillary’s extremists have sentenced Saif to death in a mass trial with scores of others from the previous government. The trials were so bad they were even condemned by the International Criminal Court, which would also like to get its hands on Saif. The defendants had little access to legal council in what was a textbook show trial.

Hillary Clinton squealed with joy when Muammar Gaddafi was sodomized with a knife and murdered by her rebels. Is she likewise giggling somewhere as Gaddafi’s son has his feet beaten to a pulp with a metal rod while he is bound and slapped in the face and his other son is sentenced to death in a trial with no semblance to actual rule of law?

This is human rights, Hillary-style.

Posted in USA, LibyaComments Off on Hillary’s Libyan Torturers

Saudi Zio-Wahhabi ‘ISIS’: Strike America in its own home and Beyond,



Saudi Zio-Wahhabi Al-Qaeda’s branch in Yemen, which officials have called the terror group’s most dangerous affiliate, has issued two threatening new communiques praising recent lone-wolf style attacks against the West and calling for more of them.


The letter, according to a translation, states, “America is first.” “We urge you to strike America in its own home and beyond,” says a letter attributed to Ibrahim al-Asiri, the master bomb-maker with Saudi Zio-Wahhabi al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP).

Posted in USA, YemenComments Off on Saudi Zio-Wahhabi ‘ISIS’: Strike America in its own home and Beyond,

I$raHell might be hit by rockets if US attacks Iran


By Jim W. Dean

“No policy has threatened to tear the American Jewish community apart as much as the Iran deal,” Greg Rosenbaum said.

Obama lays down the word...Was Obama reminding these leaders about how the US Aegis destroyer was crippled by a unarmed Russian flyover.Was Obama reminding these leaders about how the US Aegis destroyer was crippled by an unarmed Russian flyover?

[ Editors Note:  Obama lays some tough love on the twenty Jewish organization leaders in the White House meeting. The quotes we have were from the attendees, and subject to being taken out of context, a trick at which the Lobby folks are long time experts.

That said, these changes in policy are often let out a bit at a time, and every word of the President will be carefully analyzed for signaling shifts in US policy toward Israel for trying to kill the Iran agreement.

Obama knows the Jewish community is split, and this will be made public to the NeoCons in Congress. It is an irony that there is more loyalty to America in the Jewish community than in the Republican Congress, which is solidly with Netanyahu for rolling the dice to use the US military to pound Iran down for them.

The quote of “Israel would bear the brunt of a US military strike”, has to be that of the case where, with no agreement and Iran’s proceeding with a weapons program, Obama is committed to preventing that. But the above quote is important for something that might not be evident to most.

The unsaid here is that Israel could not prevent a retaliation strike by Iran, and more… that the US also could not — or might choose not to protect Israel from it. If these quotes are accurate, I would have loved to have seen the faces of the attendees… Jim W. Dean ]

[ Update: Obama fired another salvo at the Iran-deal critics in a speech at the American University. The second article is below the first. “By killing this deal, Congress would not only pave Iran’s pathway to a bomb, it would accelerate it,” he said. ]

Chairman of the National Jewish Democratic Council, Greg Rosenbaum

Chairman of the National Jewish Democratic Council, Greg Rosenbaum

–  First published  …  August 05,  2015  –

President Barack Obama has reportedly warned American Jewish leaders that Tel Aviv would be possibly struck by rockets in case of a US military strike against Iran, urging them not to sabotage the nuclear agreement.

“Israel would bear the brunt of a US military strike” against Iran, Obama told leaders of major Jewish organizations in the US, who were present at a meeting in the White House on Tuesday.

The meeting was part of an effort by the Obama administration to gain support for the agreement reached between Iran and the P5+1 group — the United States, Britain, France, China, Russia and Germany – in the Austrian capital of Vienna on July 14.

The chairman of the National Jewish Democratic Council, Greg Rosenbaum, who was one of 20 leaders who met with Obama, told Israel Radio on Wednesday that the president warned them rockets would possibly fall on Tel Aviv if a nuclear agreement with Iran was blocked.

“He [Obama] said military action by the United States against Iran’s nuclear facilities is not going to result in Iran deciding to have a full-fledged war with the United States,” Rosenbaum quoted Obama as saying in the meeting.

Despite criticisms, President Obama has repeatedly insisted that diplomacy works better than military action regarding Iran’s nuclear program.

However, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has strongly opposed the July 14 agreement.

On Tuesday, Netanyahu tried to convince the leaders of the Jewish community that the nuclear agreement “paves Iran’s path to the bomb.”

“This is a time to stand up and be counted. Oppose this dangerous deal,” Netanyahu said in a webcast organized by Jewish groups in North America.

“I don’t oppose this deal because I want war. I oppose this deal because I want to prevent war. And this deal will bring war. It’ll spark a nuclear arms race in the region and it will feed Iran’s terrorism and aggression,” he added.

Rosenbaum further said that the Jewish community is at “almost a fratricide” over the issue.

“No policy has threatened to tear the American Jewish community apart as much as the Iran deal,” he said.

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the biggest Israeli lobby group in the US, is deploying hundreds of lobbyists on Capitol Hill to try to convince lawmakers to vote against the agreement. Congress will vote on the accord in September.


President Obama blasts Iran nuclear agreement critics

…from Press TV

US President Barack Obama has blasted those who are still speaking against the conclusion of nuclear negotiations between Iran and the world powers.

“Many of the same people who argued for the war in Iraq are now making the case against the Iran nuclear deal,” he said on Wednesday.

“More than a decade later, we still live with the consequences of the decision to invade Iraq,” Obama added.

He criticized his opponents during a speech at American University.

Those who call for a ‘better deal’ are ignorant of the Iranian society or just not being straight with the American people,” he said. “Let’s not mince words: the choice we face is ultimately between diplomacy or some form of war.”

Obama also called on Congress not to block the agreement as American lawmakers are set to vote on it next month.

“By killing this deal, Congress would not only pave Iran’s pathway to a bomb, it would accelerate it,” he said.

In a meeting with American Jewish leaders on Tuesday, the US president also warned about the consequences of the failure of the nuclear accord.

Obama reportedly told the Jewish leaders that Tel Aviv would be possibly struck by rockets in case of a US military strike against Iran. He was referring to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who is in favor of military option.

“Israel would bear the brunt of a US military strike” against Iran, he said.

Iran and the P5+1 group — the United States, Britain, France, China, Russia and Germany –  reached a conclusion on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in the Austrian capital of Vienna on July 14.

According to the text of the agreement, Iran will be recognized by the United Nations as a nuclear power and will continue its uranium enrichment program.

Iran sanctions are set to be removed in exchange for some limitations on the country’s nuclear energy program.

Posted in USA, IranComments Off on I$raHell might be hit by rockets if US attacks Iran

Shoah’s pages


April 2017
« Mar