‘It’s Madness! US opposes ISIS in Iraq, supports them in Syria’

NOVANEWS
Posted by: Sammi Ibrahem, Sr

ISIS is one of just a few whack job groups supported by the US, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

This coalition wants to destroy Syria and they’re willing to use any means which includes supporting, training and arming ISIS and groups like it – in Syria.

When they show up with advanced tactics, training and weapons in Iraq, suddenly they’re a problem.

But actually it’s not a problem at all because it gives the US a chance to re-ignite its activities in Iraq.

But here’s something no one is talking about…

Beheadings.

Barbaric, shocking, insane.

Guess what government performed NINETEEN of them in the first half of this month (August 2014) alone>

US ally and oil pimp Saudi Arabia.

 

Posted in Syria, USA0 Comments

ISIS ist zu 100% eine CIA-Operation

NOVANEWS

Die Medien labern uns seit neuesten voll über den Terror der ISIS im Irak, wie gefährlich diese Mörderbande ist und warum deshalb Berlin Waffen und Bundeswehrsoldaten in den Irak schicken muss. Merkel hat den Terror der ISIS im Irak als Völkermord bezeichnet. “Es ist ein schreckliches Gräuel. Man kann von einem Völkermord und Barbarei sprechen”, sagte sie in einem am Mittwoch veröffentlichten Interview von CDU.TV. Als die ISIS in Syrien gewütet hat und Zivilisten dort abschlachtete, sagte sie aber nichts dazu, da war es kein Völkermord, sondern es waren Freiheitskämpfer die Syrien von einem bösen Diktator befreien. Genau wie Obama nichts über die Gräueltaten sagte, denn es ging um den Sturz von Baschar al-Assad in Damaskus. Jetzt plötzlich will Washington sogar mit Assad kooperieren und die ISIS gemeinsam bekämpfen. Die Blöd-Zeitung brachte am Mittwoch die Schlagzeile “Wagt Obama den Pakt mit dem Teufel Assad?” Was die Medien nicht erzählen, wer hat die ISIS überhaupt erschaffen? Es war die CIA!!! Das war der wirkliche Pakt mit dem Teufel. Einer der Beweise dafür, der Oberkriegshetzer US-Senator John McCain traf sich mit den Anführer der ISIS in Syrien im Mai, wie das folgende Foto zeigt.

Treffen zwischen John McCain und ISIS-Anführer Baghdadi

Es ist sogar so, der Anführer der ISIS wurde aus amerikanischer Gefangenschaft durch Obama freigelassen, im Zusammenhang mit dem Truppenrückzug aus dem Irak vergangenes Jahr. Weitere Terroristen kamen frei und die CIA stellte eine Truppe aus ihnen zusammen, bewaffnete sie und schickte sie nach Syrien, um gegen die syrische Armee zu kämpfen. Die Waffen kamen aus der Türkei und das Geld aus Saudi Arabien, Hauptquartier ist die US-Botschaft in Ankara. Die radikalen Islamisten bedankten sich dafür, eroberten eine Stadt nach der anderen im Norden Syriens, errichteten ihre Terrorherrschaft und haben das Kalifat ausgerufen, dass sich von Syrien bis in den Irak erstreckt. Jetzt wo sie die Ölfelder rund um Mosul im Nordirak erobert haben, ist die ISIS von einem Freund zu einem Feind geworden und sie werden aus der Luft vom US-Militär mit Bomben bekämpft.

Wieder haben die Amerikaner das Problem zuerst erschaffen, um es jetzt bekämpfen zu müssen. Genau wie in Afghanistan. Sie gründeten in den 80-Jahren die Al-Kaida und machten Osama Bin Laden zum Anführer, damit diese Terrortruppe die Sowjetbesatzer als ihre Stellvertreter bekämpft. Die Mujaheddin waren damals Helden im glorreichen Krieg gegen die Kommunisten, Hollywood machte Filme über sie wie “Rambo III”, die Anführer wurden sogar von Präsident Reagan im Weissen Haus empfangen und man widmete den Start der Raumfähre Columbia zu ihren Ehren. Dann wurden die Amerikaner selber Besatzer in Afghanistan und führen schon seit 13 Jahren einen Krieg gegen genau die, die sie vorher überhaupt erst ermöglicht haben. Das gleiche Spiel läuft jetzt mit der ISIS ab.

Es ist nicht zu fassen. US-Verteidigungsminister Chuck Hagel hat die ISIS sogar als extreme Bedrohung für die Vereinigten Staaten bezeichnet. “Es ist weit mehr als eine Terrorgruppe“, sagte Hagel am vergangenen Donnerstag im Pentagon. ISIS verbinde seine Ideologie mit einer hoch entwickelten militärischen Schlagkraft und verfüge zudem über riesige Finanzmittel, sagte er. Ach ja? Woher hat die ISIS diese Schlagkraft und die finanziellen Mittel? Doch von den Amerikanern selber und von Washingtons Alliierten Saudi Arabien. Erst durch die Enthauptung des amerikanischen Journalisten James Foley und weil das Video dieser Szene um die Welt ging, plötzlich ist die ISIS der Feind. Als diese Mörder aber in Syrien die Köpfe von Christen und Alawiten abgeschlagen oder sie mit Kopfschuss und Kreuzigung hingerichtet haben, da war das in Ordnung.

Der Pentagon-Chef Hagel antwortete sogar auf die Frage, ob der “Islamische Staat” so gefährlich sei wie das Terrornetzwerk Al-Kaida: “Das ist jenseits von allem, was wir kennen.” Der Kriegsminister schloss nicht aus, auch Luftangriffe gegen ISIS-Stellungen in Syrien in Betracht zu ziehen. “Wir denken über alle Optionen nach“, sagte er. Dabei sind die Al-Kaida und die ISIS ihre Kinder. US-Generalstabschef Martin Dempsey erklärte, die Organisation könne nicht besiegt werden, ohne ihren Arm in Syrien ins Kalkül zu ziehen. Das heisst wie bereits gesagt, sie müssen mit dem “bösen Diktator” Assad zusammenarbeiten, den sie eigentlich mit der ISIS entfernen wollten. Wieder hat Washington ein Monster als Werkzeug für einen “Regimewechsel” erschaffen, dass sie nun bekämpfen müssen, weil diese tollwütigen Hunde nicht nur in Syrien wüten, sondern auch im Nachbarland Irak.

Aber es geht weiter. Wie wenn ich ein Déjàvu erlebe, wiederholt sich die Geschichte. Die ISIS hat die Vereinigten Staaten direkt bedroht und gesagt, “wir werden euch alle in eurem Blut ertränken“. Das heisst, es sind Anschläge in den USA selber angekündigt worden. Für mich bedeutet das, wird können mit einem weiteren 9/11 rechnen, mit noch einem inszenierten Angriff auf sich selber. Washington benötigt wieder die Ausrede, “wir sind von radikal islamischen Terroristen attackiert worden“, um seine Kriegslust weltweit ausleben und die eigene Bevölkerung mit Angst unterdrücken zu können. Die Schockwirkung von 9/11 hat mittlerweile nachgelassen oder viele Amerikaner wissen eh, die ganze offizielle 9/11-Story ist eine Lüge. Also muss ein neues Schockereignis her, diesmal mit der ISIS als Sündenbock, ihre Schöpfung genau wie die Al-Kaida.

Rick Brennan, führendes Mitglied und Berater der Denkfabrik RAND Corporation, geht mit der Angstmacherei noch weiter und sagte: “ISIS stellt nicht nur eine Bedrohung für den Irak und Syrien, sondern auch für Jordanien, Israel, Palästina, Libanon, Ägypten und im grossen Masse auch der ganzen internationalen Gemeinschaft dar. Sie ist ein viel grössere Gefahr wie es die Al-Kaida jemals darstellte. Wenn wir dieses Krebsgeschwür nicht bekämpfen, wird es sich ausbreiten und in eine ernsthafte Bedrohung in den kommenden Jahren sich entwickeln“. Wir sehen wieder einen klaren Fall von “Problem, Reaktion und Lösung”. Man erschafft ein Problem, um die gewünschte Lösung umsetzen zu können.

Warum musste die ISIS als neue Terrororganisation gezeugt und in die Welt gesetzt werden? Weil die Al-Kaida mit der angeblichen Ermordung von Osama Bin Laden durch die Navy SEALS in Pakistan ausgedient hatte. Dabei ist er im Dezember 2001 eines natürlichen Todes gestorben und sie hielten das Phantom eines Oberbösewicht 10 Jahre lang aufrecht. Diese ganze Lügengeschichte wurde 2011 beendet, denn Obama musste als “Bin Laden Töter” und Held für seine Wiederwahl dastehen. Jetzt muss ein neuer Feind her, um die ganze Kriegs-, Waffen und Sicherheitsmaschinerie am Laufen zu halten. Amerika ohne einen bedrohlichen Feind geht gar nicht, also muss er künstlich geschaffen werden, noch bösartiger und grausamer als der vorherige. Es wird sogar behauptet, El Baghdadi war ein Mossad-Agent mit Namen Elliot Shimon.

Das schlimme daran ist, die voll verblödeten Europäer glauben wieder die Lüge der Amerikaner und meinen, die ISIS ist echt. Ich meine echt insofern, sie ist mit Kämpfern, Waffen und Geld einfach so vom Himmel gefallen und operiert eigenständig in Syrien und Irak. Unglaublich wie wieder die Verarsche abläuft, dabei ist die ISIS die neue Al-Kaida und zu 100% eine CIA-Operation!

Posted in USA0 Comments

Pew poll: More US sympathy for I$raHell than Palestinians

NOVANEWS

seinfeld

34% of Americans empathize with I$raHell ‘a lot,’ 32% empathize ‘some’; 11% strongly sympathize with Palestinians

Times of Israel

More Americans express sympathy for Israel than for the Palestinians, according to a new survey conducted last week and whose findings were released on Thursday, two days after a ceasefire between Israel, Hamas and other Gaza-based terror groups went into effect.

A poll released by the Pew Research Center for People & the Press found that 34 percent of Americans sympathize with Israel “a lot,” as well as 32 percent who sympathize “some,” versus 11percent who sympathize “a lot” with the Palestinians and another 35 percent who sympathize with them “some.” 37 percent sympathize with both sides, while 18 percent sympathize with neither.

As has been common with recent surveys of American public opinion surrounding the conflict in Gaza, responses break down differently along partisan lines.

Seventy-seven percent of Republicans expressed “a lot” or “some” sympathy for Israel, versus 66 percent of independents and 62 percent of Democrats. By contrast, only 29 percent of Republicans expressed “a lot” or “some” sympathy for the Palestinians, while independents were at 50 percent and Democrats at 57 percent.

There were likewise partisan divides on opinions of President Obama’s handling of the Middle East situation. Just 10 percent of Republicans thought he was favoring Israel too much, versus 45 percent who said he favored the Palestinians too much and 32 percent who said he struck the proper balance.

Independents were somewhat more favorable, with 17 percent saying he had overly favored Israel, 22 percent that he had favored the Palestinians too much, and 45 percent saying he had struck the right balance.

Democrats were by far the most supportive of the president’s policy, with 12 percent saying he favored Israel too much, 6 percent saying he favored the Palestinians too much and a whopping 71 percent saying that he was striking the right balance.

Young people were the most optimistic about the two sides reaching a peaceful two-state solution, with 53 percent of 18-29 year olds saying they thought it was possible, versus 42 percent who did not. This compared with a negative overall sentiment among adults, with just 43 percent saying such a solution was possible versus 48 percent saying that it was not.

Each successively older age cohort was successively less optimistic that a solution could be reached.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, USA, ZIO-NAZI0 Comments

Colonization by Bankruptcy: The High-stakes Chess Match for Argentina

NOVANEWS

 

Global Research

If Argentina were in a high-stakes chess match, the country’s actions this week would be the equivalent of flipping over all the pieces on the board.  David Dayen, Fiscal Times, August 22, 2014

Argentina is playing hardball with the vulture funds, which have been trying to force it into an involuntary bankruptcy. The vultures are demanding what amounts to a 600% return on bonds bought for pennies on the dollar, defeating a 2005 settlement in which 92% of creditors agreed to accept a 70% haircut on their bonds. A US court has backed the vulture funds; but last week, Argentina sidestepped its jurisdiction by transferring the trustee for payment from Bank of New York Mellon to its own central bank. That play, if approved by the Argentine Congress, will allow the country to continue making payments under its 2005 settlement, avoiding default on the majority of its bonds.

Argentina is already foreclosed from international capital markets, so it doesn’t have much to lose by thwarting the US court system. Similar bold moves by Ecuador and Iceland have left those countries in substantially better shape than Greece, which went along with the agendas of the international financiers.

The upside for Argentina was captured by President Fernandez in a nationwide speech on August 19th. Struggling to hold back tears, according to Bloomberg, she said:

When it comes to the sovereignty of our country and the conviction that we can no longer be extorted and that we can’t become burdened with debt again, we are emerging as Argentines.

. . . If I signed what they’re trying to make me sign, the bomb wouldn’t explode now but rather there would surely be applause, marvelous headlines in the papers. But we would enter into the infernal cycle of debt which we’ve been subject to for so long.

The Endgame: Patagonia in the Crosshairs

The deeper implications of that infernal debt cycle were explored by Argentine political analyst Adrian Salbuchi in an August 12th article titled Sovereign Debt for Territory: A New Global Elite Swap Strategy.” Where territories were once captured by military might, he maintains that today they are being annexed by debt. The still-evolving plan is to drive destitute nations into an international bankruptcy court whose decisions would have the force of law throughout the world. The court could then do with whole countries what US bankruptcy courts do with businesses: sell off their assets, including their real estate. Sovereign territories could be acquired as the spoils of bankruptcy without a shot being fired.

Global financiers and interlocking megacorporations are increasingly supplanting governments on the international stage. An international bankruptcy court would be one more institution making that takeover legally binding and enforceable. Governments can say no to the strong-arm tactics of the global bankers’ collection agency, the IMF. An international bankruptcy court would allow creditors to force a nation into bankruptcy, where territories could be involuntarily sold off in the same way that assets of bankrupt corporations are.

For Argentina, says Salbuchi, the likely prize is its very rich Patagonia region, long a favorite settlement target for ex-pats. When Argentina suffered a massive default in 2001, the global press, including Time and The New York Times, went so far as to propose that Patagonia be ceded from the country as a defaulted debt payment mechanism.

The New York Times article followed one published in the Buenos Aires financial newspaper El Cronista Comercial called “Debt for Territory,” which described a proposal by a US consultant to then-president Eduardo Duhalde for swapping public debt for government land. It said:

[T]he idea would be to transform our public debt default into direct equity investment in which creditors can become land owners where they can develop industrial, agricultural and real estate projects. . . . There could be surprising candidates for this idea: during the Alfonsin Administration, the Japanese studied an investment master plan in Argentine land in order to promote emigration. The proposal was also considered in Israel.

Salbuchi notes that ceding Patagonia from Argentina was first suggested in 1896 by Theodor Herzl, founder of the Zionist movement, as a second settlement for that movement.

Another article published in 2002 was one by IMF deputy manager Anne Krueger titled “Should Countries Like Argentina Be Able to Declare Themselves Bankrupt?” It was posted on the IMF website and proposed some “new and creative ideas” on what to do about Argentina. Krueger said, “the lesson is clear: we need better incentives to bring debtors and creditors together before manageable problems turn into full-blown crises,” adding that the IMF believes “this could be done by learning from corporate bankruptcy regimes like Chapter 11 in the US”.

These ideas were developed in greater detail by Ms. Krueger in an IMF essay titled “A New Approach to Debt Restructuring,” and by Harvard professor Richard N. Cooper in a 2002 article titled “Chapter 11 for Countries” published in Foreign Affairs(“mouthpiece of the powerful New York-Based Elite think-tank, Council on Foreign Relations”). Salbuchi writes:

Here, Cooper very matter-of-factly recommends that “only if the debtor nation cannot restore its financial health are its assets liquidated and the proceeds distributed to its creditors – again under the guidance of a (global) court” (!).

In Argentina’s recent tangle with the vulture funds, Ms. Krueger and the mainstream media have come out in apparent defense of Argentina, recommending restraint by the US court. But according to Salbuchi, this does not represent a change in policy. Rather, the concern is that overly heavy-handed treatment may kill the golden goose:

. . . [I] n today’s delicate post-2008 banking system, a new and less controllable sovereign debt crisis could thwart the global elite’s plans for an “orderly transition towards a new global legal architecture” that will allow orderly liquidation of financially-failed states like Argentina. Especially if such debt were to be collateralized by its national territory (what else is left!?)

Breaking Free from the Sovereign Debt Trap

Salbuchi traces Argentina’s debt crisis back to 1955, when President Juan Domingo Perón was ousted in a very bloody US/UK/mega-bank-sponsored military coup:

Perón was hated for his insistence on not indebting Argentina with the mega-bankers: in 1946 he rejected joining the International Monetary Fund (IMF); in 1953 he fully paid off all of Argentina’s sovereign debt. So, once the mega-bankers got rid of him in 1956, they shoved Argentina into the IMF and created the “Paris Club” to engineer decades-worth of sovereign debt for vanquished Argentina, something they’ve been doing until today.

Many countries have been subjected to similar treatment, as John Perkins documents in his blockbuster exposé Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. When the country cannot pay, the IMF sweeps in with refinancing agreements with strings attached, including selling off public assets and slashing public services in order to divert government revenues into foreign debt service.

Even without pressure from economic hit men, however, governments routinely indebt themselves for much more than they can ever hope to repay. Why do they do it? Salbuchi writes:

Here, Western economists, bankers, traders, Ivy League academics and professors, Nobel laureates and the mainstream media have a quick and monolithic reply: because all nations need“investment and investors” if they wish to build highways, power plants, schools, airports, hospitals, raise armies, service infrastructures and a long list of et ceteras . . . .

But more and more people are starting to ask a fundamental common-sense question: why should governments indebt themselves in hard currencies, decades into the future with global mega-bankers, when they could just as well finance these projects and needs far more safely by issuing the proper amounts of their own local sovereign currency instead?

Neoliberal experts shout back that government-created money devalues the currency, inflates the money supply, and destroys economies. But does it? Or is it the debt service on money created privately by banks, along with other forms of “rent” on capital, that create inflation and destroy economies? As Prof. Michael Hudson points out:

These financial claims on wealth – bonds, mortgages and bank loans – are lent out to become somebody else’s debts in an exponentially expanding process. . . . [E]conomies have been obliged to pay their debts by cutting back new research, development and new physical reinvestment. This is the essence of IMF austerity plans, in which the currency is “stabilized” by further international borrowing on terms that destabilize the economy at large. Such cutbacks in long-term investment also are the product of corporate raids financed by high-interest junk bonds. The debts created by businesses, consumers and national economies cutting back their long-term direct investment leaves these entities even less able to carry their mounting debt burden.

Spiraling debt also results in price inflation, since businesses have to raise their prices to cover the interest and fees on the debt.

From Sovereign Debt to Monetary Sovereignty

For governments to escape this austerity trap, they need to spend not less but more money on the tangible capital formation that increases physical productivity. But where to get the investment money without getting sucked into the debt vortex? Where can Argentina get funding if the country is shut out of international capital markets?

The common-sense response, as Salbuchi observes, is for governments to issue the money they need directly. But “printing money” raises outcries that can be difficult to overcome politically. An alternative that can have virtually the same effect is for nations to borrow money issued by their own publicly-owned banks. Public banks generate credit just as private banks do; but unlike private lenders, they return interest and profits to the economy. Their mandate is to serve the public, and that is where their profits go. Funding through their own government-issued currencies and publicly-owned banks has been successfully pursued by many countries historically, including Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Germany, China, Russia, Korea and Japan. (For more on this, see The Public Bank Solution.)

Countries do need to be able to buy foreign products that they cannot acquire or produce domestically, and for that they need a form of currency or an international credit line that other nations will accept. But countries are increasingly breaking away from the oil- and weapons-backed US dollar as global reserve currency. To resolve the mutually-destructive currency wars will probably take a new Bretton Woods Accord. But that is another subject for a later article.

Posted in South America0 Comments

Venezuela: Maduro in Chávez’s Shoes

NOVANEWS

VENEZUELA-CHAVEZ-BIRTHDAY-ANNIVERSARY

By FRANCO VIELMA – MISION VERDAD,

A politically refined reading on the presidency of Nicolás Maduro starting with a recognition of the morass of circumstances he has had to face as the country’s leader.

Source: Mision Verdad

To begin with, and with no desire to rain on a flood, Maduro took the place of someone who possessed an absolute leadership previously unknown throughout the country’s political history. Without seeking it, he put himself in Chávez’s shoes, as Chávez himself was the one to put him in that role. That circumstance already implies a comparison with Chávez, and politically implies understanding the national dynamic between the ambiguity and confusion in the great vacuum left by the Comandante.

On the other hand, there is the well-known circumstance of specific attacks on the economy and destabilization of the country, guarimba barricades, threats of sanctions, and constant international attacks. Maduro has been on the receiving end of an absurd amount of internal attacks by Chavismo factions (the same four opinionated critics who used to attack Chávez so much) who have contributed a great deal to the ultraright’s script, debilitating  Maduro’s image and eviscerating Chavismo. Maduro’s situation is complex, as it would be for anyone who assumed the role of conducting the Chavismo Revolution without the physical presence of Chávez.

Without a doubt, the legacy of Maduro’s recent but extremely turbulent presidency is based on constructing a leadership with its own characteristics: its own attributes, its own styles, its own errors, its own incongruities, in a context of structures, as well as new circumstances. But there is something we must not ignore about what Maduro has in fact done: his emphasis on maintaining the political connection identifying Chávez’s work, and this in spite of the contradictions, as even Chávez himself had them. The sociopolitical outcome of Maduro’s leadership can be appreciated by basically examining the sensitive elements of issues that Chávez never dealt with or did inconsistently, correcting Chávez’s mistakes, elaborating on what Chávez did or continuing what Chávez left unfinished. The elements that stand out and are worth knowing about are:

  • In 30 years of intermittent currency control, under a system of redistributing dollars gained through petroleum revenues through subsidized pricing to individuals, never, repeat, never, not even during 15 years under Chávez, has there been a large-scale referral process involving the General Treasury of the Republic or the nation of reporting or accusations of currency fraud.The largest source of corruption in the country, heretofore untouchable, is now at the epicenter of hundreds of cases referred to the courts by Cencoex [The National Foreign Trade Center] involving billions of dollars in fraud committed by corrupt businesses and officials. Cadivi’s bloodletting is the preamble to the first and only large-scale legal case of corporate fraud in 100 years of petroleum profits in Venezuela. It is a case that no one would have brought – except for Maduro.
  • During the Fourth Republic, the only prisoners who became involved in politics were from the Left, including Chávez. It was a time when there really were political prisoners. During the era of the Chávez presidency, the coup-mongering Democratic Coordination leadership and later the MUD [Mesa de la Unidad Democrática, The Democratic Unity Roundtable] were allowed to enact fascism, coups, petroleum sabotage, and destabilization with impunity. Throughout this period there was never a notable political prisoner arrested for crimes openly committed.When Maduro became President, Leopoldo López was his most notable counterpart, reaching a higher position than even Capriles in the opposition. López began to use his enormous political licence as a licence to kill openly and with impunity. He challenged Maduro to imprison him, and now he is being held. We must ask ourselves how many opposition politicians, coup-mongers and murderers on the scale of Leopoldo Lopez were imprisoned during the Chávez era.

    How many? We could say that the circumstances were not the same, but obviously the circumstances surrounding Maduro are not at all easy. Another question we must ask ourselves: Is Nicolás Maduro weak, or is he being underestimated by the right and some other Chavists?

  • Any member of the country’s commune movement knows, and can testify, that there has been a radical change in the Government’s political will to leverage and accelerate (without it becoming by Government decree) the consolidation of the Communes. There have been huge advances over just the last year. The communes, a political legacy of Chávez and part of his fundamental idea of revolutionary transformation, have been dormant, mired in bureaucracy and considered vestigial. Maduro has taken on the task and the situation is changing.
  • Maduro has proposed to transform the Government, the way it is run and the mechanisms for attending to the people’s demands. Candidates for Cabinet posts are not just part of a political moment, but part of a sustained and perennial process that Maduro has proposed as a formula to revitalize the Government, and transform it in terms of political efficiency. Reviewing goals, strategies, management methodologies and even officials’ job descriptions has been an ongoing task.The old State has been an enormous counterweight to the Revolution’s politics, and to transform it first it must be demolished by its parts: the interest groups, cliques, factions, conclaves, overlords and patronages within the very same Government. Some may think this will lead to disputes, conflicts of interest and even fragmentation in leadership. In any event, one has to have the guts to seriously take on this political demand, to no longer coexist with bureaucracy and corruption. The solution to these structural vices is systemic, and only possible with an essential change in the conscience of the leadership, but there are reforms to be made in the Government as well. Maduro is taking them on.
  • Creating economic equilibrium implies rigorous regulation in the process of foreign currency allocation to avoid a bloodletting, an extremely delicate operation that was once “untouchable” because it directly affects importation and supply. Blackmail used to be the precursor to deregulation and corruption, but that is no longer the case. Economic equilibrium also consists in taking on the issue of gasoline, also supposedly “untouchable” because of the threat of social unrest. Maduro is inviting debate on this issue and is sure that the way will be enacted. Regarding the question of PDVSA [Petróleos de Venezuela S.A., the Venezuelan national oil company] sustainability in terms of balancing its resources given the exorbitant cost of subsidizing gasoline, it will be done, requiring leadership and political will. Maduro doesn’t appear to be a “put off until tomorrow” type. He’s been accused of being “pragmatic.” Others believe the importance of decisions varies with the will and consistency with which they are undertaken.
  • Overcoming two coups d’états straining one presidency is not small thing. Although Maduro counts upon consolidated Chavismo that has “matured” [Madurado] politically, all of Chavismo’s consistency would be a house of cards if he had not acted with the political intelligence and consistency he did during these difficult times. At this conjuncture, he consolidated his leadership.
  • The central orientation of the Government is also based on the sociopolitical orientation. In reinforcing the Social Missions System, the Chavismo projects’ egalitarian and inclusive structure was erected. Losing sight of this would be a political catastrophe for both the Revolution and the historical process. Maduro has understood this.In contrast to theories (including those from Chavistas themselves) such as containing “social costs,” Maduro has rather expanded prioritized attention to social matters, now with a strategy more directly focused on nodes of extreme poverty, which are structural and have been in existence during the more than 100 years of petroleum revenues. Maduro has taken on the social debt which Chávez had begun to pay.

Analyzing Maduro’s presidency as a political process in development implies recognition of the country’s own adverse circumstances, as well as the structural, sustained deficiencies of his Government. Expecting Maduro to eliminate corruption and bureaucrats with a stroke of the pen, is not only impossible but absurd. Expecting Maduro to not make any missteps is equally so. But there must be a reading of the substance of what’s happening. There are things underway that are of great value and meaning, that maybe because our own political myopia we are not analyzing and discussing thoroughly.

We who are taking on the responsibility for the Bolivarian Revolution as a collective process, without ceasing to be critical and aware, and maintaining the firm position that revolutionary cohesion must be unshakeable, also understand that the Maduro presidency and the revolutionary political leadership deserve our assistance, our effort, and our support.

Defeatist, fatalistic and demobilizing language contributes little to our historic task. Many believe Maduro must continue to surpass his contradictions, and continue to reorient his decisions and working teams, with an emphasis on giving a clear reading on what is happening in order to take on situations and critical issues in leading the country, but we are satisfied that there is a clear orientation.

Something Comandante Fidel Castro once said sums up all of Maduro’s important acts in Government: “Maduro has demonstrated the talent, integrity and energy that the great leader knew he had.” Fidel doesn’t play children’s games. That’s why he said that, and many of us are convinced that he is right.

Posted in Venezuela0 Comments

The Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend”: How the U.S. is Using ISIS as a Pretext for War Against Syria

NOVANEWS

Global Research

 

Absurdity beyond comprehension.

Washington supported the Free Syria rebels who aligned themselves with the terrorist group called Al-Nusra to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad,

Then the Syrian rebels and other groups in Iraq form another terrorist organization who call themselves the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

The consequences of Washingtons policies of aiding the Syrian rebels including ISIS have served a purpose. ISIS has spread to both Syria and Iraq gaining territory. ISIS has claimed it has executed 250 Syrian soldiers last weekend as they seized an airbase in the province of Raqqa.

Washington considers the advancement of ISIS a threat to its national security. As reported by the Associated Press, US surveillance planes were already deployed to pinpoint specific targets. The article titled US surveillance planes fly over Syria, officials say stated that

Two U.S. officials said Monday that Obama had approved the flights, while another U.S. official said early Tuesday that they had begun. The officials were not authorized to discuss the matter by name, and spoke only on condition of anonymity.

Army Gen. Martin Dempsey did not comment on surveillance flights currently in use but did say that Clearly the picture we have of ISIS on the Iraqi side is a more refined picture, said Dempsey, using one of the acronyms for the Islamic State group. The existence and activities of ISIS on the Syrian side, we have … some insights into that but we certainly want to have more insights into that as we craft a way forward. Obamas rationale is that ISIS is a direct threat to American citizens after the public execution of photojournalist James Foley. Republicans are willing to give the Obama administration an authorization to take military action against ISIS in Syrian territory. Historically, Both Republicans and Democrats have always agreed on foreign policy issues, especially when war is on the agenda:

Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee, ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, said Tuesday the administration has not yet shared with us what their plans are. He said he hoped the White House would go to the Congress with a request for an authorization to act.

I think its our responsibility as elected officials to let the American people know where we stand with respect to national security matters, Corker told MSNBC. For the American peoples sake, Congress should weigh in. Congress should be a part of it

Rest assured, Congress would vote for military action against Syria. They have an agenda that is multi faceted. First, it supports weapons manufacturers such as Boeing, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin and Raytheon in a time of war. An online guide to campaign contributions that influence politicians called opensecrets.org states that there were 227 Republicans and 188 Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives and 49 Democrats and 40 Republicans that received funding from the defense industry. Second, the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) has an interest in removing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad because of his diplomatic relations with several of Israels enemies including Iran.

Washington also has a keen interest of having a military presence in the Middle East to control the natural resources including oil and gas. Washington and its corporate partners want its military to stay in the Middle East for the long term. By supporting Israel (a U.S. watchdog in the region) and having their military bases in key areas in close proximity to oil producing facilities, it would guarantee the import of natural resources into US and European markets. China would then have limited capacity to obtain natural resources it needs for its economy. Now Washingtons favorite enemy, ISIS is in the picture. The Obama administration will obviously use this crisis as a way to prepare US forces for a future blitzkrieg against Assads forces. According to the Daily Beast, A mainstream media online news source stated the following:

One former senior U.S. diplomat who has consulted with the administration on the ISIS threat told The Daily Beast that he would expect Obama to be presented with an option similar to Vice President Joe Bidens favored policy from 2010 for Afghanistan known then as counter-terrorism plus. This kind of approach would be a drone and air campaign against ISIS targets in Syria. The United States has conducted drone and airstrikes in Yemen, Pakistan, Iraq, Somalia, and Afghanistan. But in all of these cases the host government has requested them. This week, Syrias foreign minister warned the United States not to enter Syrian air space

According to the Associated Press, Obama is concerned that if he orders airstrikes against ISIS, it would weaken the US position to topple the Assad government, because on the international stage it would solidify the fact that the U.S. and Syria has partnered to take out a common enemy Administration officials have said a concern for Obama in seeking to take out the Islamic State inside Syria is the prospect that such a move could unintentionally help embattled Syrian President Bashar Assad.

But it would also become an act of aggression on Syrian territory. The Obama administration has publically stated that it would not ask the Syrian government for permission to enter its air space. Why? Maybe Washington wants to raise tensions with the Assad government? A top Syrian official said Monday any U.S. airstrikes without consent from Syria would be considered an aggression the AP report said. It also stated the fact that The Islamic State is among the groups seeking Assads ouster, along with rebel forces aided by the U.S. So ISIS and the U.S. government has a common enemy?

Now let get this straight. Originally the Obama administration has repeatedly called for the removal of the Assad government. The Obama administration has consistently supported the Syrian rebels to remove Assad, but has failed because the Syrian government defeated the Western backed Free Syrian Army (FSA). Another question is why would the Syrian government allow the US to battle ISIS on its territory? Syria is more than capable of defeating ISIS as it did with the Syrian rebels. The Obama administration will not ask the Assad government for permission to launch airstrikes in Syria. Now lets see who the enemies of all parties involved are. First, the U.S. Governments enemy is clearly the Assad government who was recently re-elected by a majority of the people. ISIS is an enemy of the U.S. and the U.S. is an enemy of ISIS, especially after the brutal beheading of James Foley made it somewhat clear. Syrias enemy is the U.S. government who has destabilized many areas of Syria resulting in the deaths of at least 160,000 people. The US has aided the FSA which resulted in the creation of Al-Nusra and ISIS, all considered enemies of Syria. Now all terrorist organizations operating in Iraq and Syria are supposedly enemies of each other. Lebanons Daily Star reported this past May that:

Al-Nusra Front and ISIS have in recent months fought intense, bloody battles against each other, particularly in eastern Syria on the border with Iraq. We will follow the orders of… Ayman al-Zawahiri… to stop any attack from our side against ISIS, while continuing to respond whenever they attack Muslims and all that is sacred to them, Al-Nusra said in a statement.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend is hard to comprehend. Syria is the enemy of the U.S. government and its terrorist organizations it has supported over the years. In this case, who is the enemy and who is the friend? The U.S. does not have a real friend in this fight because it already has what it wants, instability. All parties are expendable as we clearly seen with U.S. airstrikes targeting ISIS in Iraq. Washington has friends in the Middle East, and that is Israel and the Gulf state dictatorships. Syria is back in the spotlight. Washington is determined to oust the Assad government and create a fragmented state as they did to Libya. By supporting Israel and its Gulf states allies including Turkey and Jordan militarily and economically, U.S. interests would be secure. In a sense, it is order out of chaos.

Posted in Syria, USAComments Off

What Ella Baker Taught Us About Ferguson And Gaza

NOVANEWS

by: Dorothy M. Zellner 

“In order for us as poor and oppressed people to become a part of a society that is meaningful, the system under which we now exist has to be radically changed.”– Ella Baker Credit: Creative Commons/Wikipedia

In late June I traveled to Jackson, Mississippi, for the fiftieth anniversary of the 1964 Freedom Summer, where some 1,000 of us met after decades and celebrated the heroism of young volunteers and local African Americans who struggled and died for the right to vote. We talked about the way forward to eradicate still-existing racism in the country and we called the names of all our dead, a list of men, women and children whom the nation has never mourned.

As a recruiter for Freedom Summer and staff member of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) fifty years ago, I had the honor of being approached by several volunteers whom I had helped select and who told me that going to Mississippi that faraway summer had forever changed their lives.

What propelled me into the civil rights movement in the first place as a young woman was the exhortation I had received from my secular Jewish progressive parents: that it is unethical to stand idly by while people are oppressed and suffering. What SNCC taught me was that I needed to act in my own community. It took me some time to put all of this together but finally, eleven years ago, I went to Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza for the first time. Based on what I saw with my own eyes and the anguish I felt in my own heart I became a Jewish activist against Israeli governmental policies of injustice and inequality.

It was only a few days after I got home from Mississippi this past June that a new assault on Gaza began, the third in seven years. I had already seen in my two visits to Gaza what the siege was like for Palestinians living in Gaza.

At the time of this writing, the death toll is horrifying: a staggering total of 2,114 Palestinians, of whom 506 are children, and 10,529 wounded. Four Israeli civilians and sixty-four soldiers have died. Can we even begin to imagine the horror all these families are experiencing? Despite several short ceasefires, “Operation Project Edge” continues and rockets continue to be fired.

And now in the midst of an already terrible summer, Ferguson happens. Another incident of violent racism in our country.

For me, the events in Ferguson and the events halfway around the world are linked. I am not saying they are the same. I am not even saying there are many parallels, but there are some similar lessons.

In 1969, Ella Baker, SNCC’s great mentor, pointed us in the direction of meaningful action when she said, “In order for us as poor and oppressed people to become a part of a society that is meaningful, the system under which we now exist has to be radically changed.” This means that we are going to have to learn to think in radical terms. I use the term radical in its original meaning – getting down to and understanding the root cause. Baker continued, “It means facing a system that does not lend itself to your needs and devising means by which you change that system.”

This is the crux.

We have not yet managed to understand the “root cause” of deaths like Michael Brown’s in our country. This is the work still ahead of us. I understand Ferguson to be one more example of the basic inequality that still exists in the U.S., where communities of color are still unrepresented in their police departments or their city governments and live amidst poverty and neglect.

Yes, certain aspects have changed in the South; these days you don’t take your life in your hands if you travel in an automobile in an interracial group, and you are unlikely to be arrested if, as an African American, you try to eat in a restaurant, and you did, up until recently when voter ID laws and other impediments were invented, have the right to register to vote. But by all other measures, specifically education, housing, jobs, poverty, and an unequal criminal justice system that retains more than two million people, mostly Black and Brown, in prison, we are a racist society. South and North, East and West. We have not attacked the “root cause”: a basically flawed economic and social system that sanctions exploitation and needs racism and division to survive.

And what, in my opinion, is the “root cause” of all the death and destruction in the Middle East? It isn’t Hamas, it isn’t who sent the rockets first, who killed which teenager first, and it isn’t who broke which ceasefire first. The underlying cause flows from the injustice of one group controlling the lives and future of another group. As long as Israel occupies Palestine, and as long as Palestinians resist (which, according to International human rights law, they have the right to do), confrontations and death will result. The root cause is the occupation, which itself flows from the previous dispossession of Palestinians from the land they inhabited for generations.

Though the situations are thousands of miles away from each other in different languages and different cultures, somehow or other we will all have to follow Miss Baker’s teaching: to look deeply, beyond the horror of the moment and our particular loyalties.

Because once we understand that there are root causes, we will be able to make effective efforts to change them.

Posted in Gaza, USA0 Comments

Marketing Death: How US Is Using Foley and McCain to Sell War

NOVANEWS
People hold a photograph of James Foley, the freelance journalist killed by the IS group, during a memorial service in Irbil, 350 kilometers (220 miles) north of Baghdad, Iraq
© AP Photo/ Marko Drobnjakovic

Another American citizen has been killed in Syria in the past week, albeit under completely different circumstances. Douglas McAuthur McCain was killed by ‘Free Syrian Army’ militants during a gunfight while fighting for Islamic State (IS), becoming the first American Islamist to die in Syria. This comes as the world is still reeling from the beheading of reporter James Foley, which was first broadcast last week. The deaths of Foley and McCain back-to-back provide the US with different justifications for the same objective – the bombing of Syria.

The Foley Factor

To begin with, Foley’s beheading last week drew global attention to the brutal tactics of IS, in an opportunity that was quickly seized by the US government. The presence of another American reporter, Steven Sotloff, and an unnamed female humanitarian activist in IS’s hands has added urgency to Obama’s promise that the US would “do everything we can to protect our people”. If it wasn’t for the notoriety of Foley’s violent execution, Americans would not be as concerned about the fate of their compatriots in Syria. Now, however, the Foley Factor has been pushed by US strategic communicators to argue that America must militarily intervene in Syria in order to destroy IS and save all American hostages in the country. This ‘humanitarian intervention’, despite the collateral civilian losses that it would likely entail, appeases both American and European liberals who are trumpeting war on supposed humanitarian grounds.

The McCain and al-Awlaki Connection

Douglas McCain’s death has thrown fuel on the fire for fans of the planned US bombing of Syria. The idea being established is that American extremists in Syria present an impending threat to the Homeland, as they can use the tactics they acquire in the battlefield to spread terror back home. The presence of foreign fighters in Syria is nothing new, however, as Damascus has been saying for years that thousands of them have flocked there from over 80 different countries, including Western ones. Using the publicity over McCain’s death, it is anticipated that the US will argue that it must strike against all other Americans currently in the warzone there, which would fulfill the desires of American conservatives and militant NATO hawks.

A precedent for this has already been established in 2011, when Anwar al-Awlaki and his teenage son, both American citizens, were assassinated by American drones in Yemen. Although his son’s killing was supposedly unintended collateral damage in a later strike, the US strongly maintained that al-Awlaki was a pressing threat to the US, despite only being engaged in Al-Qaeda propaganda operations at the time. One must keep in mind that Obama must sign off on every drone strike that occurs, and that his administration has defended the killing of American citizens abroad, such as al-Awlaki, as being legal under anti-terror justifications. Thus, if al-Awlaki could be killed for disseminating propaganda, then the US, following this logic, would obviously target Americans like McCain that are armed and actively partaking in jihad, especially on behalf of IS.

Constructing a new ‘Coalition of the Willing’

Foley and McCain’s deaths are increasingly forming the cornerstone of Washington’s new ‘Coalition of the Willing’ (COW), with each fatality attracting different constituent members. Folely’s death has been described as providing the impetus for a COW ‘humanitarian intervention’. Nations whose citizens are being held hostage by IS (such as the Turkish nationals that were captured in Mosul in June) have an interest in joining on these grounds. It can also soon turn out that the Turkish hostages have been transferred from Iraq to Syria, thus guaranteeing Turkish involvement in any future war against the country. IS or another related terrorist group could also provoke an incident in the Golan Heights, take a soldier hostage, and bring them into Syria, likely Damascus. This could invite the Israelis to bomb Syria with the same ferocity as they have been doing in Gaza. Additionally, it has been learned since Foley’s death that abductions are not always publicized in the media, so there could potentially be many more foreign citizens held hostage by IS that the world doesn’t know about. Pertinent information, whether real or fabricated, in these regards can be selectively released to justify the inclusion of various other members in the COW.

McCain’s death has prompted different nations to support the creation of a COW, specifically those who have nationals already waging jihad in Syria. If the US takes the lead in saying that it will kill its citizens fighting with IS in Syria, then the UK and France (which have seen many more of their citizens join terrorist forces there) will quickly jump aboard the campaign. This is a salient point because the three strongest NATO members would then be unified against Syria, which wasn’t the case during last year’s military standoff. As the military engines of the alliance, their support for war is crucial in transforming decisions into decisive action.

The Importance of International and Regional ‘Allies’

The US has underscored that it will only strike Syria if it has the support of its international and regional partners. This shouldn’t be understood as holding out hope that the US can be deterred, however, but should instead be seen as a force multiplier for any war that the US will launch, should it choose to, regardless of how many states join the COW. Internationally, this COW will likely encompass the same NATO states and more that have already been arming and equipping Iraq’s Kurds in recent months, such as the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Croatia, Canada, and Albania, thus making any war in Syria primarily another NATO war of conquest.

On the regional front, the US is all but assured the support of Turkey, Israel, Jordan, and the Gulf States, which are all rabidly opposed to Syria’s democratically-elected government. These countries are also close military partners of the US with a certain degree of interoperability, thus allowing the Pentagon to better ‘Lead From Behind’ (a slogan from the 2011 Libyan War) in any future war against Syria.  Israel may not even get actively involved, but Turkey and perhaps Jordan very well could. Qatar and the UAE could even assist with bombing runs in Syria, considering that both already have experience doing so in the region. Qatar bombed Libya during the 2011 war and the UAE is suspected of having done so last week. This demonstrates that both Gulf States have the ability and will to strike targets far away from their borders in pursuit of their national interests, and it is expected that the Saudis and Jordanians would open their airspace to facilitate this. Also, the Jordanians may even send a Bay of Pigs-like force towards Damascus if IS or the COW closes in on the capital from the north, in a classic flanking maneuver.

Concluding Thoughts

Foley and McCain’s deaths have been seen as a blessing by Washington’s decision makers, as they now enable its mouthpieces to attempt to justify a War in Syria using supposed ‘moral’ and ‘military’ reasons. The arguments are that the Foley incident shows that the US has an obligation to save the other Americans being held hostage in Syria, while McCain’s participation demonstrates that Americans fighting for IS must be assassinated before they bring their terror tactics back to the Homeland. These humanitarian and anti-terror arguments are attractive in assembling a new COW, and the US is expected call upon its NATO and Gulf allies to join it in attacking Syria. Ultimately, the entire episode of dead Americans in Syria is a tragic stroke of irony that shows how death is being marketed to beget even more death.

Posted in Syria, USAComments Off

“Obese Intelligence”: The NSA Search Engine. “Over 850 Billion Records about Phone Calls, Emails, Cellphone Locations, and Internet Chats”

NOVANEWS

Global Research

 

The Intercept was already getting the intelligence community excited with its revelations that the National Security Agency had decided to mimic inspector Google. Through creating a search engine in the manner of those pro-transparency pioneers, the intelligence community was turning the tables on the very idea of searchable information. Why keep it the operating preserve of the public? The search engine has, as it stands, over 850 billion records about phone calls, emails, cellphone locations, and internet chats.[1]

The revelations have a few implications, the most obvious one confirming the seamless transition between intelligence work on the one hand, and the policing function on the other. The distinction between intelligence communities whose interests are targeting matters foreign to the polity; and those who maintain order within the boundaries of a state in a protective capacity, prove meaningless in this form. The use of ICREACH makes it clear that the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Federal Bureau of Investigation are regular clients and users of the system.

A 2010[2] memorandum from the Chief of Liaison Support Group at the CIA titled CIA colleagues enthusiastically welcome NSA training speaks with praise about those NSA-ers embedded in CIAs workspaces. Indeed, it speaks very highly of the information sharing ethos of the NSA within the Intelligence Community, channelling Googles operating rationale within more secret spaces. Furthermore, in 2010, the relevant data base provided the NSA and second Party telephony metadata events to over 1000 analysts across 23 US Intelligence Community agencies.

Those keen on squirreling information into such a data base are no doubt thrilled by the prospects that it can be made available to the appropriate sources. ICREACH has become one of the largest, if not largest system for the internal processing and sharing of surveillance records within the United States. It is not, according to The Intercept, connected with the NSA database that stores data on Americans phone calls pursuant to s. 215 of the Patriot Act.

The difference between the two accumulated pools of data is one of scope: ICREACH is mammoth in reach, and positively defiant in its push against the law; the database gathered under s. 215 guidelines is minute in comparison, confined to the dangerously pertinent idea of combating terrorism and like threats. ICREACH exists outside the system of court orders, being a creature of Executive Order 12333. The document, instituted by President Ronald Reagan in 1981, was intended to add robustness to the intelligence gathering capabilities of the US intelligence community.

John Tye[3], formally of the US State Department, has wrestled with the way EO 12333 is used. He accepts its premise that it is primarily to target foreigners abroad, and collection happens outside the US. However, My complaint is not that theyre using it to target Americans, my complaint is that the volume of incidental collection on US persons is unconstitutional.

The idea of restraining intelligence gathering to pertinent, specific targeting has gotten increasingly old fashioned in the information banquet of the modern NSA community. Farming modern metadata provides a diet positively rich in carbohydrates, a deficient diet when it comes to nutrition, but excessive when it comes to those fats a lean intelligence, and policing service, should avoid.

The true fat stripping agent here is the law, with its targeted formulae that keeps intelligence agencies focused and relevant in their activities. The most humble analyst will use the law as a tool for gathering, and analysing good data. The slothful gatherer will prefer the short cuts, including the magical search term that avoids as much as it captures. Bugger the law and type in the search term.

The progenitor of this system was retired NSA director Gen. Keith Alexander. In a 2006 letter to John Negroponte, then Director of National Intelligence, Alexander outlined his ideas of a search tool that would allow unprecedented volumes of communications metadata to be shared and analysed. To what end? Prizing open a vast, rich source of information. Superbly dim in a sense information is not knowledge; and knowledge is not, on its own accord, information. The glaring point here is that the higher ups in the intelligence community have gotten the wrong end of the stick.

In 2007, ICREACH was launched, its purpose being to deliver the first-ever wholesale sharing communications database within the US Intelligence Community. It became, as spokesman from the US Office of the Director of National Intelligence Jeffrey Anchukaitis suggested, part of a fundamental pillar of the post-9/11 intelligence community the principle of sharing information between. Authorities, irrespective of legal distraction or distinction, could obtain data that would otherwise be stove-piped in any single office or agency.

The problems of such data-sharing processes is the mechanical presumption that they take place in a legal vacuum. On the one hand, members of the intelligence community are becoming the lounge lizards of bureaucracy. They hug metadata the way a viewer of cable channel television surfs the package of channels. Nothing is actually processed. What matters is having the package to begin with.

The other consequence is dangerous such sharing practices distribute sensitive material of citizens, both American and non-American, in a manner that mocks any legal restraint. According to Brian Owsley, who presided as federal magistrate judge between 2005 and 2013, there shouldnt be this buddy-buddy system back-and-forth. Time, it would seem, to burn the fat off the obese operator that is the modern US intelligence community.

Notes

Posted in USA0 Comments

Interview with St. Louis community leader Zaki Baruti

NOVANEWS

Zaki Baruti is the President-General of the Universal African People’s Organization. He sat down withLiberation for an interview last week.

Zaki Baruti of the Universal African People’s Organization leads a protest in Ferguson.

BB: People all over the world are watching St. Louis. How would you, as someone who has been centrally involved, characterize what is going on there?

ZB: I characterize it as justified, righteous outrage among many of the youth in the community, as well as the elders, at what happened to a young man, who was about to enter another new stage of his life and go to college. That’s a young man named Michael Brown who was brutally shot multiple times, over 8 times, by a killer cop whose identity we still do not have as of today.

That senseless murder has caused a major event that many of the authorities cannot put a complete handle on. I look at it as a righteous rebellion.

This Special Issue of Liberation is being distributed in Ferguson, St. Louis and around the country.Click to make a donation to support the costs of printing or order copies for your city.

Why do you think the rebellion has broken out?

ZB: The killing of Michael Brown is a small symptom of what is taking place across America where young Black man are brutalized by the police forces.

It’s also sad to say that in the city of Ferguson, in a city that is 63% Black, there are 53 commissioned officers and only 3 are Black. That speaks to a situation that is not peculiar to Ferguson — it is like that in many other cities. In the cities across America, our organization, the Universal African People’s organization, as well as the Coalition on Police Crimes and Repression, we say that the police forces should reflect the ethnic communities they patrol. But that’s not the case in Ferguson or St. Louis.

Ten years ago the Missouri General Assembly mandated that the Attorney General conduct yearly studies to see if we had an epidemic of DWB (Driving While Black.) And every year there are proven statistics that show that Black people are disproportionately stopped and arrested.

The frustrations of our youth are compounded by the fact of tremendous unemployment, poor educational system, families that have been split by the disproportionate incarceration of Black people — this is the country with the most prisoners in the world. We are also calling for financial investment, similar to what happened after World War II when they had the Marshall Plan to infuse dollars from the United States to rebuild the war torn cities in Europe. We’re saying the same thing has to be done for the cities here.

Are there organized forces taking the lead in St. Louis and Ferguson?

ZB: There are several key grassroots organizations that have consistently spoken truth to power and made efforts to organize our youth to address the issues of police brutality and harassment. In addition to the groups I represent, there is the Tauheed Youth Organization, led by a brother Anthony Shahid who has been working diligently. You have the New Black Panther Party on the ground there, Nation of Islam Mosque #28, the Organization for Black Struggle, the Moorish Science Temple.

But let me be clear: there are many spontaneous protests organized by youth who do not belong to any particular organization. Out of this struggle, we’re hoping to mobilize them into some form of organized movement in terms of attracting them to our organizations or any others that speak truth to power.

Why do you think building such organizations is so important?

ZB: To deal with the ills of this society people have to be organized. Therefore, our message is that everybody needs to belong to an organization — preferably one that is real strong and not afraid to deal with the issues of the day.

What is your message to people who are outside of St. Louis, and might be feeling powerless as to what to do?

ZB: One, we are planning a National Day of protest and support in the memory of Michael Brown. But not just him — also the brother Eric Garner who was just choked to death in New York, Oscar Grant, Amadou Diallo and so on. This will be a protest against police violence and we’ll be announcing a date soon.

We’ll be asking masses of people — 10,000 to 30,000 people — to come to the St. Louis area to support us in our just cause. And for those who cannot come to hold solidarity rallies in the communities where they live.

We also ask that people across the country search online for the office number of the St. Louis County Prosecutor Bob McCulloch, and bombard it with calls demanding that the officer be indicted and vigorously prosecuted with a conviction.

What has been the response of the prosecutor thus far?

ZB: At one of our demonstrations outside the St. Louis County Justice Center, where the prosecutor has his office, we were going to send a delegation of five people to meet with him. When he saw the list and saw my name on it, he said I could not come. Out of principle, the other people refused to meet with him also based on that. They cannot determine who is going to go and negotiated and represent our people.

For those who are hearing from the media that there is a looting and criminal element taking over at night in Ferguson, how would you respond to that?

ZB: It’s another falsehood. Although there was some of that — and I don’t call it “looting,” I call it the liberation of some of the goods that have been stolen from the people over the centuries — that has not been an ongoing situation. What has actually taken place is that a number of young people have come to the forefront daily, in the daylight and in the evening, to express their outrage. They have been by and large peaceful. All they have done is block the streets of the major thoroughfares, somewhat similar to what took place in Egypt at Tahrir Square and other places where there have been rebellions of the masses of people. The theme has been “enough is enough.”

As an elder, I’m in absolute agreement with it because it could as easily been my son or grandchildren. So we have to create an environment where these injustice do not occur any longer.

Posted in USA0 Comments

KEEP SHOAH UP AND RUNNING

Shoah’s pages

Join our mailing list

* = required field