Archive | April 1st, 2015

Jewish Family Values–Woman arrested at bar mitzvah for sexual abuse of teens




Ed note–just a little reminder for all those brain-cases out there who think there is some kind of ‘simpatico’ between Judaism and Christianity. How often do we hear about Muslim women engaging in such behavior, whether it is sexual abuse of minors or promoting sexual deviancy to the detriment of civilized society?



A 32-year-old woman was arrested for alleged sex crimes at a bar mitzvah in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Lindsey Ann Radomski reportedly exposed her breasts to several guests at the party before engaging in oral sex with a 15-year-old boy, reported. Radomski, who was charged with sexual abuse and sexual conduct with a minor, told authorities that she was intoxicated and did not remember the encounter with the teen.

Police said that after the 80 to 100 guests had left the party at a private home, Radomski invited several boys into a private room and let them fondle her breasts. After the other boys left the room, she performed oral sex on the 15-year-old.

She had previously exposed herself to adults and children at a backyard pool, police said.

Radomski is a yoga instructor and had recently undergone breast augmentation surgery.

Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Jewish Family Values–Woman arrested at bar mitzvah for sexual abuse of teens

Zio-Nazi Fighter Jets Join Zio-Wahhabi in War on Yemen

Posted by: Sammi Ibrahem, Sr
Yémen carte

Zio-Nazi fighter jets have taken part in the Thursday Zio-WHABBI-led airstrikes on Yemen, sources in Sanaa disclosed on Friday.

“This is for the first time that the Zionists are conducting a joint operation in coalition with Arabs,” Secretary General of Yemen’s Al-Haq Political Party Hassan Zayd wrote on his facebook page.

He noted that Prime Minister Naziyahu had issued direct orders for the Zio-Nazi air force to send fighter jets to the Zio-Wahhabi-led air raid on Yemen.

Zio-Wahhabi launched airstrikes against Yemen and killed, at least, 25 civilians early Thursday, one day after the US-backed Yemeni president fled the country.

Also, 15 more people were killed and injured in a second round of massive attacks by the Zio-Wahhabi fighter jets in the Northwestern Yemeni city of Sa’ada on Friday.

Yemen’s al-Massira TV reported that Zio-Wahhabi air force targeted the Yemeni’s civilians who were shopping in a market.

Five Persian Gulf States — Zio-Wahhabi regime, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait and I$raHell — backed by the US have declared war on Yemen in a joint statement issued earlier Thursday.

US President Barack Obama authorized the provision of logistical and intelligence support to the military operations, National Security Council Spokesperson Bernadette Meehan said late Wednesday night.

She added that while US forces were not taking direct military action in Yemen, Washington was establishing a Joint Planning Cell with Zio-Wahhabi to coordinate US military and intelligence support.

Riyadh claimed that it has bombed the positions of the Ansarullah fighters and launched attacks against the Sana’a airport and the Dulaimi airbase.

Despite Riyadh’s claims that it is attacking Ansarullah positions, Zio-Wahhabi warplanes have flattened a number of homes near Sana’a international airport. Based on early reports, Zio-Wahhabi airstrikes on Yemen have so far claimed the lives of 25 civilians with more deaths feared, Yemeni sources said.

Zio-Wahhabi aggression has received growing international condemnation as it is pushing the region and the world into an unprecedented fast-growing war as its ISIL mercenaries are on the brink of complete annihilation in Iraq and Syria.

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, Saudi Arabia, YemenComments Off on Zio-Nazi Fighter Jets Join Zio-Wahhabi in War on Yemen

Eastern Ukraine: Stolen Childhood in Donbass and a Dream about Peace

Global Research

Seven-year-old Maxim is my neighbour. He had to take refuge in a basement together with his family in the village of Vergulyovka, near Debaltsevo, where they were living last summer when the Ukrainian Army came and took the town. I have known Maxim’s mother since I was a child—her name is Olga too. We grew up in the same neighbourhood.

She told me that the windows and the roof of their house in Vergulyovka had been damaged. They are currently living at their grandmother’s place in their home town near Perevalsk. Olga is pregnant now, she is expecting in April. I visited them at her mother’s place and brought two bags of humanitarian aid as well, including baby food and nappies—all of which had been bought with the money sent by people from different countries. She was not expecting it and was quite surprised.

Maxim showed me his favourite toys: among them were two plastic tanks, and he also he bragged about pieces of shrapnel and an empty ammunition box which he had found. He said that he would like to become a soldier in the future—children seem to believe that the shelling will last forever. Nevertheless, when I asked Maxim to tell me about war, his mood suddenly changed. One of his strongest flashbacks was about fences shot full of holes. When questioned what he dreamt of, he answered: “About peace.”

The other day, I met a family from Chernukhino, LPR, who were living at their friends’ place in Perevalsk. They had been forced to stay in a basement during more than three weeks of the artillery shelling by the UAF. Eventually, their house was destroyed. The mother—Lilia Lavrova—said that they would like to rebuild their house.

Last time we visited this family twice, and we brought some food and clothes for them. Two amazingly cheerful children met us in the corridor:

Children in Donbass are special—after they have experienced heavy artillery bombardment, and spent weeks in the basements. They are children of war, who have been deprived of their childhood since almost a year. This is in fact the deliberate policy of the Ukrainian government towards the residents of this region.

Posted in UkraineComments Off on Eastern Ukraine: Stolen Childhood in Donbass and a Dream about Peace

A Yemeni’s Call for Help

Global Research

No one understands the horrors of US imperial wars better than victims experiencing it.

Overnight Tuesday, a Yemeni national emailed this call for help, saying:

“Dear Mr Stephen,

In the name of humanity and what you believe in, we call upon you to transfer our sufferings and make influential humanitarian INGOs, scholars, decision makers all over the world hear our children screams out of fears & listen to our sufferings due to this aggression led by arrogant dictators of Arabia who are bombarding our towns, destroying infrastructure and killing civilians.

Yemen prior to this aggression was dying and this brutal aggression would eliminate a whole country. We’re all humans. Poor country living with less than 2$ a day.

Please do anything you can for saving us. God bless you. I’m writing this while my 3 years daughter crying hearing sounds of air strikes.”

His call for help highlights US responsibility for daily terror-bombing horrors – the threat of death or serious injuries all Yemenis face. Civilians are as vulnerable as combatants.

Yemen is Obama’s war. He and Bush waged drone war since 2002 – killing many hundreds of mostly civilian victims.

A week ago, he launched proxy war on a nation wanting to live free from the scourge of US imperial dominance.

Saudi-led terror-bombing  followed. It continues daily. Scores of noncombatant civilians have been murdered in cold blood.

Perhaps many thousands will die before conflict ends. Yemen may end up raped like Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Donbass and Gaza. It may be turned to rubble the same way.

Reports indicate tens of thousands of Saudi forces massed along Yemen’s border ahead of a possible invasion.

Pakistan sent troops to support them. Houthi rebels continue battling diminishing numbers of forces loyal to ousted illegitimate president Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi – a US-installed stooge through a farcical election with no opponents.

Hadi’s foreign minister Riyadh Yasseen urged Saudis to invade “as soon as possible.”

Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Hossein Amir Abdollahian called Saudi airstrikes a “strategic mistake.”

He urged dialogue to resolve ongoing crisis conditions. “Iran and Saudi Arabia can cooperate to solve the Yemeni crisis,” he said.

Dozens are dying daily – including scores of civilians since conflict began.

A Yemeni health ministry official said shelling a Sanaa residential building killed 10 civilians.

Witnesses reported an airstrike on Yarim in central Yemen killing at least 10.

Conflict prevents ICRC medical and other essential to life supplies from being airlifted in.

Spokesperson Sitara Jabeen said

“(i)n Yemen today, we have a very serious humanitarian situation.”

“Hospitals are running at a low capacity. We need to bring in urgent medical supplies to sustain our stocks.”

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov issued a statement saying

“(w)e cannot allow (conflict) to degrade into a Sunni-Shiite confrontation.”

“Neither can we allow the situation to turn into an open conflict between the Arabs and Iran. We will do everything to prevent it.”

On Monday and Tuesday, US warships joined Saudi-led terror-bombing. Cruise missiles were launched against Houthi targets.

How much more directly involved Washington intends getting in its largely proxy aggression remains to be seen.

AP reported Yemeni civilians “shudder(ing) in fear and bristl(ing) with anger” during Saudi-led terror bombing.

Sanaa residents seek shelter. Few can sleep. Some “took to rooftops (to vent) anger or frustration, firing automatic weapons skyward toward the roar of warplanes,” said AP.

Schools, universities, government offices and most shops are closed. “Few cars venture onto the mostly deserted (Sanaa) streets.”

“We haven’t slept. One child screams and a second cries,” said a father of eight.

They spend nights sheltered in a basement best they can – unsure if they’ll live or die.

Overnight Tuesday, Sanaa, Aden, Taiz, Ibb, Shabwa and Dahle were terror-bombed.

Civilian and military sites were targeted. Residential homes were destroyed. Bodies remained buried under rubble.

One Sanaa resident said an explosion rocked a nearby residential area – killing at least eight, injuring others.

Critics call Houthis an Iranian proxy force. Tehran denies what it calls baseless allegations.

At the same time, it supports a political ally. It rejects military solutions. It urges diplomatic ones in all situations.

Before conflict erupted, former Iranian Majles (parliament) speaker Ali Akbar Nategh-Nuri said “(w)e witness today that our revolution is exported to Yemen, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq.”

Iranian General Hossein Salami compared Ansarollah Houthis to Lebanon’s Hezbollah “in a strategic area.”

Iran supports its allies. It has every right to do so. It fundamentally opposes war.

It rejects US-sponsored, Saudi-led ongoing terror-bombing. It urges resolving Yemen’s crisis diplomatically.

Posted in YemenComments Off on A Yemeni’s Call for Help

Psychological Warfare: US Fights ISIS…While Aiding ISIS


Washington: Peace broker or arms dealer?

Global Research

Image: An explosion following an air strike is seen in western Kobani neighbourhood (Reuters / Osman Orsal)

As the war against the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) rages on, the US has stepped up its air campaign, combining destructive bombs with anti-ISIS leaflets.

But while US propaganda efforts are ostensibly aimed at disrupting ISIS recruitment, overall US involvement has yielded mixed results at best.

On the one hand, Washington is engaging in a psychological campaign designed to dissuade potential ISIS fighters from joining up, with leaflets depicting grisly images of young men being sent into a meat grinder. On the other hand however, the US continues to exacerbate the situation in both Iraq and Syria by providing material support, both directly and indirectly, to the very groups whom they claim to be fighting.

While the US seems to be engaged in a psychological war against ISIS, it is equally involved in a systematic campaign of sabotage against those forces that are actually fighting ISIS on the ground. And so, as it often does, Washington is playing both sides of the conflict in order to achieve an outcome to its own political advantage, and to the detriment of Syria, Iran, and other interested parties.

The US psychological war against ISIS

Since the emergence of ISIS on the world stage, much has been made of the organization’s ability to recruit fighters, produce propaganda, and effectively get its message across to the young Muslims around the world. There have been countless news stories of Muslim youths from the West eagerly joining up to fight in far flung war zones like Syria and Iraq, seemingly translating their disaffection with their own lives into an ideological identification with ISIS extremism.

But beneath the surface of such ideological explanations is the fact, publicly acknowledged by many counter-terrorism experts, that ISIS propaganda, coupled with the financial benefits the organization offers, is responsible for some of the allure of joining the fight. And so, the US has launched a full scale psychological war for the “hearts and minds” of these naïve youths and poverty-stricken potential fighters.

The Pentagon confirmed that they had dropped tens of thousands of leaflets on the Syrian city of Raqqa in an attempt to dissuade potential recruits from joining ISIS. While this may seem a relatively harmless exercise in counter-propaganda, the reality is that it is at best a poorly conceived, and at worst utterly disingenuous, attempt to counteract ISIS recruitment. Were the US serious about eradicating the cancer of ISIS in Syria, US military officials would be coordinating with their Syrian counterparts in a comprehensive attempt to destroy the organization. For while the US Air Force drops leaflets, the Syrian Arab Army has been fighting ISIS on the ground for nearly three years, paying a very high price in blood to protect its country from the internationally constituted terror organization.

Reuters / U.S. Air Force / Staff Sgt. Perry Aston

US military planners understand perfectly that it is the Syrian military, not slick propaganda leaflets, which will carry the day in the war against ISIS in Syria. While perhaps useful for the public relations campaign back home, such leaflets will do little to change the tactical or strategic situation on the ground. The same goes for the recently announced expansion of the Center for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications, the State Department’s attempt at “counter-messaging” ISIS propaganda on social media and in cyberspace generally.

But, while the US presents itself as pursuing a comprehensive psychological war against ISIS, its military and covert actions tell a far different story.

Fighting ISIS by arming them?

The media has been abuzz in recent months with numerous accounts of US weapons and other supplies falling directly into the hands of ISIS, providing the terror group with invaluable material support at a time when it had suffered heavy losses in both Syria and Iraq. As Naeem al-Uboudi, the spokesman for one of the main groups fighting ISIS in Tikrit told the NY Times, “We don’t trust the American-led coalition in combating ISIS… In the past, they have targeted our security forces and dropped aid to ISIS by mistake.”

Indeed, these allegations are supported dozens of accounts of airdropped US weapons being seized by ISIS. As Iraqi MP Majid al-Ghraoui noted in January,

“The information that has reached us in the security and defense committee indicates that an American aircraft dropped a load of weapons and equipment to the ISIS group militants at the area of al-Dour in the province of Salahuddin… This incident is continuously happening and has also occurred in some other regions.”

Whether these incidents are simply honest mistakes by the vaunted US military with all its precision bombing capabilities, or they are indications of a more callous attempt to inflict casualties on all sides and prolong the regional war, either way they represent an abject failure of the US strategy against ISIS. But of course, the US policy failure goes much further than just mistakes on the battlefield. Rather, the entire policy of arming so-called “moderates” in Syria has led directly to the growth of ISIS into a regional power.

Since 2012, the US, primarily through the CIA, has been providing weapons and training to terrorists in Syria under the guise of arming “moderates.” Many of these allegedly moderate groups have in recent months been documented as having either disbanded or defected to ISIS, including the little publicized mass defections of former Free Syrian Army fighters. However it has happened, a vast arsenal of US-supplied weapons and other military hardware are now counted among the ISIS arsenal. So much for the US policy of ensuring the weapons don’t “fall into the wrong hands.”

So, while the US has proclaimed to be fighting ISIS and the al-Qaeda affiliated Nusra Front, they have been simultaneously arming and supporting many of the same forces which now make up much of the rank-and-file of these terror groups. With friends like these, who needs enemies?

A leaflet created by the United States Department of Defense to be dropped over Syria is shown after being released to Reuters by the Pentagon in Washington March 26, 2015 (Reuters / U.S. Department of Defense)

Washington: Peace broker or arms dealer?

Those who follow US foreign policy are likely unsurprised by these revelations of Washington providing arms and intensifying an already dangerous conflict. In Syria, the US has consistently argued that the Syrian government cannot be seen as a partner for peace, and so they must provide weapons to “moderates.” In Ukraine, where the US has a compliant and servile government that executes its diktats, Washington still supplies the arms, talking of peace and stability while exacerbating the war and human tragedy in East Ukraine.

Last week, the US House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed (348-48) a resolution to provide military support in the form of weapons to Ukraine. As Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY), the ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee stated, “The people of Ukraine are not looking for American troops. They are just looking for the weapons to defend themselves. They don’t have those weapons. We do.”

Indeed, it seems that US policy is to pursue “peace” at the barrel of a US-made, US-supplied gun. As Secretary of State John Kerry explained in his usual self-contradictory manner “To get peace, you have to defend your country,” a devilishly cynical statement from the man who, entirely without irony, explained in 2014 that “you don’t just invade another country on a phony pretext in order to assert your interests.” Perhaps, rather than invading countries, the Obama administration has decided to simply provide the weapons, training, and logistical and material support in order to assert its own interests.

While Syria and Iraq face an existential struggle against the wildfire that is the Islamic State, the United States arrives, gas can in hand, to make peace. As Ukraine slides deeper into civil war, the US provides all the ingredients for a witches’ brew of violence and bloodshed.

For all its talk of psychological war against ISIS, Washington has embraced an aggressive, multi-pronged approach that leaves little doubt as to the thinking of its strategic planners: the enemy of my enemy is both friend and enemy. As Tacitus famously said of the Romans, “They make a desert and call it peace.” So too do the Americans in the blood-soaked deserts of Syria and Iraq.

Posted in USA, Iraq, SyriaComments Off on Psychological Warfare: US Fights ISIS…While Aiding ISIS

The U.S. Blames Iran for the Consequences of Its Own Polices and the Mess It Created in the Middle East

Global Research
Map of Iran

A disgraced former U.S. general, who gave away top government secrets to get laid, has some opinion on the fight against the Islamic State in Iraq:

“I would argue that the foremost threat to Iraq’s long-term stability and the broader regional equilibrium is not the Islamic State; rather, it is Shiite militias, many backed by — and some guided by — Iran.”

With that logic the U.S. should help the Islamic State in its fight against militia who are backed by Iran.

Years ago the very same general created those sectarian Shia militias he now tries to sell as a threat. The Wolf Brigade, a Shia militia in Iraq created by the U.S., was under his direct command when it randomly tortured and killed Sunnis in Mosul. The sectarian war in Iraq is for a great part his personal doing:

[I]n order to advance to a still higher command and get his fourth star, Petraeus needed the support of Wolfowitz and the White House. The evidence that has emerged in recent years indicates he was involved in the key decisions to using Shi’a sectarian paramilitary forces for counterinsurgency operations in Sunni population centers.

It is the same general who created the new generation of warlords in Afghanistan under the deceiving label Afghan Local Police:

“This program mobilizes communities in self-defense against those who would undermine security in their areas,” Petraeus told congress in March 2011. “For that reason, the growth of these elements is of particular concern to the Taliban, whose ability to intimidate the population is limited considerably by it.”It turns out that while Petraeus was burnishing his bio with black book fodder for Paula Broadwell’s 2012 hagiographical All In: The Education of General David Petraeus, his “community watch” was becoming a village horror show for Afghan civilians in a number of ways—right under the noses of the U.S. Special Forces who armed and trained them, and who in many cases insisted on appointing their commanders, sometimes against the locals’ adamant opposition.

Petraeus is a specialist in creating violent militia. But wiping away his own sponsoring of sectarian forces Petraeus is now blaming the creation of al-Qaeda in Iraq and the Islamic State on Iran:

The current Iranian regime is not our ally in the Middle East. It is ultimately part of the problem, not the solution. The more the Iranians are seen to be dominating the region, the more it is going to inflame Sunni radicalism and fuel the rise of groups like the Islamic State.

Al-Qaeda in Iraq and the Islamic State were created in U.S. prisons in Iraq when Iraq was under U.S. occupation. Their creation had nothing to do with Iran.

While Petraeus sees the Islamic State still somewhat as an enemy of the United State it is clear that he is excusing their being as a somewhat natural answer to a perceived bigger role of Iran. But it was the U.S. that took down the anti-Iranian Taliban government in Afghanistan. It was the U.S. that took down the Sunni led anti-Iranian government in Iraq. It is the war the U.S. is waging against Syria that created the Jihadist forces there which then drew in Iran on the side of the Syrian government. That Iran’s role in the Middle East now looks bigger than fifteen years ago is the direct consequence of U.S. policies and military operations.

Like Tom Friedman Petraeus is blaming Iran for the consequences of polices he supported. Like Friedman, who even calls to arm the Islamic State, he shows sympathy for lunatic Jihadis by excusing their existence while blaming Iran.

There is little doubt where this late hand wringing over the fate of Iraqi Sunnis comes from. The Israel lobby and the neocons are afraid that the U.S. will make some kind of peace with Iran, at least on the issue of Iran’s nuclear industry. Any U.S. deal with Iran will diminish Israel’s position and it will lower the profits of U.S. weapon manufacturers. They want to prevent this and want to ally with the Sunni dictatorships and their bastard child Islamic State against Iran.

They should not worry so much. I doubt that the Obama administration is sincere in getting an agreement with Iran unless Iran offers an unconditional capitulation. The talks will end nowhere and the U.S. will blame Iran for U.S. intransigence. The Chinese government seems to also have the impression that the U.S. is stalling the talks:

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi told U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry on Friday that talks on Iran’s nuclear program must not fall at the last hurdle, and that all sides should meet each other half way.

“China is willing to increase communication with the United States on all levels, to together run the ‘last mile’ of the marathon that is the Iran nuclear talks.”

Blaming Iran for the sectarianism in Iraq -which the U.S. created- for the rise of radical Jihadists -who developed in U.S. prisons- and for the consequences of the U.S. wars in the wider Middle East is against all historical facts. Blaming Iran for the failure of the nuclear talks will be added to that collection.

Posted in USA, IranComments Off on The U.S. Blames Iran for the Consequences of Its Own Polices and the Mess It Created in the Middle East

American Hell for Yemen

Global Research

The U.S.-spawned whirlwind of carnage and destruction has wrecked the societies of Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia and Yemen, yet most Americans feel themselves blameless. “The people, the corporate media and the political system all accept that their government has the right to intervene in the affairs of other nations and that it is always right and moral in its claims.” They behave like zombified cogs in an imperial death machine.

The United States used the Al Anad airbase in Yemen as the staging area for drone attacks which killed some 1,000 people since 2009. Those crimes were committed under the guise of fighting terrorism but now that same place is the location of karmic justice for the American government and its ally, Saudi Arabia. United States Special Forces fled from Al Anad before it was overrun by Ansar Allah rebels, also known as the Houthis.

It is true that Saudi Arabia bombed Houthi positions and threatens to start a ground invasion with the help of Egypt. Both of these countries are American client states and would not contemplate these actions without having a green light from Washington.

The story of Yemen and the shifting international alliances which have brought it to civil war are somewhat complicated. The Houthis ousted the American and Saudi backed president Hadi who is now on the run. His predecessor, Ali Abdullah Saleh, was at one time also a Saudi favorite but is now leading the Houthi advance. While the details can be confusing, one thing is simple. American imperialism and the war of terror unleashed on that region are ultimately at fault and continue to destroy nation after nation.

In its zeal to have and maintain hegemony the United States resorts to brute force and supports others who do likewise. The result is dead bodies in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia and Yemen, but the decisions that lead to these crimes are endemic to American policies.

To say that Barack Obama and his Oval Office predecessors made a mess of the Middle East is the very definition of understatement. Because America’s goals are never benevolent its policies lurch from one awful decision to the next with human suffering being the only common denominator.

Washington used jihadists in Libya to overthrow the Gaddafi government only to have those same groups kill the American ambassador. Now the U.S. is fighting the same people it supported there just a few years ago. America fights with al Qaeda and ISIS in Syria but against those same two groups in Iraq. Washington eventually chose to accept the overthrow of Mubarak in Egypt but now supports the restoration of a dictatorial regime with another leader. The United States calls the president of Sudan a war criminal but now fights on the same side in Yemen. When imperialism is the intention, events will never turn out as predicted.

The chaos makes sense only when the true nature of American foreign policy is acknowledged. The shifting alliances and seemingly strange bedfellows are part of the longstanding doctrine of Manifest Destiny. Manifest Destiny asserts that the United States has the right to expand its reach anywhere it wants to. The term originally referred to the conquest of North America in the 19th century, but the thinking behind it is still a part of this country’s consciousness.

Most Americans know little or nothing about Yemen or Saudi Arabia, but still happily refer to themselves in the first person plural when speaking of their government. They ask, “What should ‘we’ do about Syria/Iraq/Yemen/Libya?”

While presidents go in and out of office, the people, the corporate media and the political system all accept that their government has the right to intervene in the affairs of other nations and that it is always right and moral in its claims. The numbers of Americans who question whether Barack Obama ought to be in the business of ousting the president of Syria or supporting the president of Ukraine are quite slim.

The examples of foolish decisions are endless. President Reagan made deals with Iran but then instigated an Iraqi attack on Iran. Later the U.S. attacked Iraq in two different wars. The destruction of that country led to a brutal sectarian war, and to the rise of the Houthis in Yemen.

Yemen is now the epicenter of imperialism run amuck. The Saudis fear that the Shi’a Houthis will be supported by their rival Iran, which the United States now wants to come to terms with in nuclear energy negotiations. Saudi Arabia is therefore on the side of Israel in attempting to scuttle any agreement. There is still no honor among all the thieves.

Whatever policy decisions Washington chooses to make will result in unintended consequences and more violence. Every escalation brings greater danger and America still has no rival for bringing destruction to millions of people. Violence and chaos have become not just the means to certain ends, but ends in and of themselves. That is just how America rolls.

Posted in USA, Saudi Arabia, YemenComments Off on American Hell for Yemen

Massive News-Suppression That’s Become History-Suppression

Global Research

While I have always been puzzled at why Americans endorse the existence of a religious and therefore discriminatory nation, Israel, and at why we give more of our tax-money to that nation than to any other; and while I would not pretend to be an authority on those matters; I was stunned on 31 March 2015 to read a news report at counterpunch, “American Historical Association Censors Ad for Book on Israel, Palestine & the US Keeping ‘Hidden History’ Hidden,” by Alison Weir, someone I’d never heard of before. She says there that AHA refuses to accept a paid advertisement for her historical book about the U.S.-Israel relationship — a historical matter that I have always found puzzling, and so was curious to know more about.

I write a lot against censorship in America’s ‘news’ reporting, but this matter concerns censorship in my own main profession, which is history (I’m only secondarily a journalist), and so it especially piqued my interest.

So, I clicked onto the link there to her book, Against Our Better Judgment: The Hidden History of How the U.S. Was Used to Create Israel, in order to see for myself what this was that AHA refuses to allow to advertise. I saw that the book, which was published a year ago, already has 216 customer-reviews, but none of the positive ones I saw there is very informative about what particularly interests me — the degree of accuracy of the author’s sourcing and allegations. So, I clicked especially onto the one-star, the most negative, reviews, and I saw no one citing a false factual allegation. The negative reviews weren’t any more informative to me than the positive ones were.

So, I clicked onto the inside-the-book, and started reading. I saw allegations that were new to me; and, looking at her footnotes, they seemed to me to be to credible sources.

However, before I would proceed further into this, I wanted to know something more about the author, to find whether she might be an anti-Semite, such as all-too-commonly are writing against Israel.

I came upon this youtube presentation by her, “TalkingStickTV – Alison Weir – The Hidden History of How the U.S. Was Used to Create Israel.” In that hour-long talk, she explained how her interest in the issue of Israel and the Palestinians had arisen starting in 2000, and she showed photos that she took in Gaza. She described the circumstances of her having gone there, as a journalist, to see the situation for herself. Nothing about her suggested to me that she was any sort of anti-Semite, or bigoted in any way. She went on to summarize the main evidence on which her book relies, all highly respected sources, such as this, which not only is a respected scholarly source, but the footnotes in it are likewise respected and mainstream sources. Basically, in her hour-long video talk, she made her case.

By now, I feel confident that AHA’s refusal to accept paid advertisements for her book is an outrage. I happen not to be a member of that association; but, if I were, I would quit in disgust. She is a historian; they are not.

For such ‘historians’ as those to be teaching ‘history’ at American colleges and universities is scandalous — evidence of a profoundly corrupt academic profession.

Alison Weir has a lot to teach American ‘historians.’ We should welcome her to teach it to us, not prohibit her from advertising her book to us.

Incidentally, I found her video talk to be highly informative — and not only about her, but, more importantly, about Gaza, Israel, and our own profoundly corrupt country.

Posted in LiteratureComments Off on Massive News-Suppression That’s Become History-Suppression

Iran Demands Lifting of Sanctions for ‘Irreversible’ Moves, Says Insider

Source in contact with negotiators says core issue in nuclear talks remains how and when sanctions will be lifted
Global Research

The Arak heavy water reactor in Iran has been an obstacle in nuclear talks (Wikicommons)

As the P5+1 and Iran agree to continue talks on a possible joint statement past a midnight deadline into Wednesday, the most contentious issue in Lausanne still appears to be how and when sanctions on Iran will be lifted.

Virtually all the details of the negotiating positions of the two sides remain cloaked in secrecy. However, Middle East Eye has learned from an informed source in contact with negotiators in Lausanne that the core issue remaining to be resolved is whether the P5+1 will end some sanctions as soon as Iran has taken what it is calling “irreversible’ actions to implement the agreement.

Iran has already made some significant concessions on the sanctions issue, the source revealed. Iran and the six-nation group, led by the US, have agreed that unilateral US and European sanctions as UN Security Council sanctions that related to Iran’s nuclear programme could be “suspended” rather than being lifted permanently at the beginning of the implementation of the agreement. The Iranian delegation is also not contesting that the UN Security Council resolutions that forbid assistance to Iran’s ballistic missile program and other military programs can stay in place, the source said.

But the remaining bone of contention is that the six-nation group has insisted on maintaining the entire legal system of sanctions in place, even after the sanctions have been suspended, until the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has reached the conclusion that Iran’s nuclear programme is entirely for peaceful purposes – a process that it admits could take many years. US and European officials have been telling journalists on background for months that maintaining the sanctions architecture in place is necessary to ensure not only that Iran implements the agreement fully but also that it has no ambitions to obtain nuclear weapons.

But Iran has pointed out to the US and European negotiating teams that it is being asked to carry out curbs on its nuclear programme that are effectively “irreversible”, and which should be reciprocated by the P5+1 with termination of some sanctions in each case, according to the source.

The source gave examples of Iranian concessions which Iran argues would be irreversible if implemented, including the redesign of the Arak heavy water reactor the elimination of its stockpile of low enriched uranium and the ratification of the Additional Protocol by the Iranian parliament. Iran is demanding that the agreement include language calling for the timely ending of sanctions in response to the actual implementation in each case.

Iran has agreed to redesign the Arak heavy water reactor, which the P5+1 had called a proliferation threat because of the roughly 10 kg of plutonium that it would produce annually.  The redesign that Iran has agreed to carry out would reduce the output of plutonium to 1 kg per year, according to the source in contact with the negotiators.  Therefore, expect the P5+1 to go beyond merely suspending sanctions to reciprocate the implementation of the agreement.

A senior Iranian official told the International Crisis Group last June that the redesign of the Arak reactor would involve the replacement of calandria, the existing vessel that holds the reactor core, with a smaller one.  The officials said it would take years for Iran to reverse that change and restore the original rector.

Frank Von Hippel of Princeton University, a former assistant director for international security in the White House Office of Science and Technology, confirmed in an interview with MEE that the agreed plan for redesigning the Arak Reactor does indeed involve the replacement of the calandria and is therefore, in practical term, “irreversible”.

Von Hippel also said the Iranian agreement to reduce its stockpile of low enriched uranium to a very low level, on top of the reduction in the number of centrifuges to roughly two-thirds of the present operational level, would take about three years to reverse.

Iranian negotiators are not that concerned about the P5+1 refusal to lift sanctions until Iran’s provides full information on the “Possible Military Dimensions”, according to the source.  “The PMD issue is not a problem,” the source said, because Iran is prepared to give the agency all the access it needs as part of the agreement.

The much more serious Iranian concern is the six nation group’s insistence that the IAEA must also verify the peaceful nature of the programme, as though the implementation of the agreement were not sufficient evidence.  Iranian negotiators have pointed out to Western diplomats that the IAEA could take up to 15 years to arrive at a final judgment, as it did in the case of South Africa, the source said.

A senior Iranian official told the International Crisis Group last November that IAEA officials, responding to Iran’s question about the time required, had refused to rule out the possibility that it would take more than ten years to complete its assessment of Iran’s case.

Posted in IranComments Off on Iran Demands Lifting of Sanctions for ‘Irreversible’ Moves, Says Insider

John Bolton’s love of bombs

John Bolton

By Lawrence Davidson

The year 1968: “No innocent civilians”

The year was 1968. I had just earned a master’s degree in history at Georgetown University, where I had also helped found the university’s chapter of the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). Unfortunately, there was no time to celebrate, because within days of getting the degree I was on a US Army bus, along with about 30 others, heading from Washington, DC to Fort Holabird in Baltimore. At that time there was a military conscription induction centre there and, according to my low conscription lottery number, my time had come.

At Holabird we piled into a classroom-like setting and were given a lecture by a rather over-muscled middle-aged sergeant with buzz haircut. He told us (I am paraphrasing from memory here) that “the Vietnam war was absolutely necessary. If the communists got their way the domino effect would see all of southeast Asia go red. There was no way you could negotiate with Hanoi and so it was time to increase the intensity of bombing over North Vietnam.”

I remember that he ended by telling us that “there were no innocent civilians in Vietnam – when they call their soldiers part of a people’s army, they mean it”. Only later did I realise he was extrapolating on the position laid out by the infamous General Curtis “Bomb Them Back to the Stone Age” Lemay. When the sergeant had talked himself out, he began distributing the written intelligence and aptitude tests that were part of the pre-induction process. As he was doing so he asked if there were any questions. I was the only one who raised his hand.

You have to keep in mind that I was 23 years old, a radical, and not afraid of authority figures. So I asked him: “Why should any of us here believe a word you say about this war when all you have given us are opinions standing in for facts?” He looked at me in a murderous way and said. “What is it about these forms that you don’t understand?” A good number of the boys (I was the oldest among the prospective inductees) in the room laughed – at me. What the heck can you expect from cannon fodder!

I eventually beat the conscription and forgot about the above incident. That is, until I read John Bolton’s 26 March 2015 op-ed “To stop Iran’s bomb, bomb Iran” in the New York Times (NYT).

The year 2015: Bolton’s bombs

John Bolton is a neo-conservative veteran of the George W. Bush era. His claims to fame, besides a real talent for temper tantrums, include serving as President Bush’s under secretary of state for arms control. In this capacity he undercut international efforts to limit such things as biological weapons. He also served as Bush’s ambassador to the United Nations. It would appear he was chosen for this post mainly because he despised the UN. Under George W. Bush the times were truly Orwellian. Finally – and this is what took me back to 1968 – Bolton’s op-ed demonstrated that he can’t tell the difference between his own opinion and fact.

Let’s analyse Bolton’s NYT op-ed.

First, Bolton is absolutely convinced that Iran will produce nuclear weapons. How does he know? Because “Iran’s steady progress toward nuclear weapons has long been evident.” To firm up his case he misleadingly tells us that “the president’s own director of national intelligence [James Clapper] testified in 2014 that they [economic sanctions] had not stopped Iran’s progressing its nuclear programme”. Yes, the quote is accurate, but Bolton’s use of it is not. As intelligence agencies, including those under Clapper, attest, the nuclear programme Iran has been working on since 2003 is not a weapons programme. Rather, it is one aimed at the production of energy and nuclear medical capabilities. Again, it should be emphasised that it is the consensus of all US intelligence agencies, dating from 2011, and not 2007 as Bolton asserts, that there is no evidence that Iran seeks to build nuclear weapons. Today there is no evidence that would cause a change of view.

However, Bolton is so obsessed with bombs that, in the case of Iran, there is no difference between any sort of nuclear programme and a weapons programme. And, he obviously feels his opinion is more “true” than the estimates of professional intelligence agencies. It is a blindspot he shares with the Republican Party and other certain political leaders, such as Binyamin Netanyahu. Of course, it is exactly to ensure that Iran’s “progress” stays focused on non-weapon use of nuclear power that the present negotiations between the P5 + 1 and Iran are directed. But Bolton will never be satisfied. He “knows” the Iranians are out for weapons. Maybe he is psychic.

Bolton is so obsessed with bombs that, in the case of Iran, there is no difference between any sort of nuclear programme and a weapons programme. And, he obviously feels his opinion is more “true” than the estimates of professional intelligence agencies.

Second, Bolton claims that taking the negotiation or diplomatic path with Iran has triggered a nuclear arms race in the region. How does he know this? The Saudis tell him so. The governing oligarchy in Riyadh has already said that if the Shia Iranians are building the bomb, they want nuclear weapons too. Like Bolton, the Saudis equate know-how with production. So, Bolton tells us that we can expect the Saudis to acquire nuclear weapons from Pakistan – and it is all Iran’s fault.

Hold on! Why shouldn’t it be Israel’s fault? Israel was the first country in the Middle East to actually build and stockpile nuclear weapons. In Bolton’s mind, apparently, that’s different. Bolton tells us “other states in the region understood… that Israel’s nukes were intended as a deterrent, not as an offensive measure. Iran is a different story.” This is a proposition for which Bolton offers no proof. Given Israel’s continuous history of aggressive expansion, just what is the Israeli stockpile deterring? After all, holding a nuclear weapon over other people’s heads while you conquer Arab land seems a very offensive use of “deterrence”. And sure “Iran is different story”. It doesn’t even own a nuclear weapon, much less a stockpile.

Third, John Bolton has an answer for all of this. Being a neo-conservative who cut his teeth on undermining arms control, the answer is that “only military action like Israel’s 1981 attack on Saddam Hussein’s Osirak reactor in Iraq or its 2007 destruction of a Syrian reactor… can accomplish what is required”. He goes on to detail the targets and the ultimate goal of his proposed aggression:

Rendering inoperable the Natanz and Fordow uranium-enrichment installations and the Arak heavy-water production facility and reactor would be priorities. So, too, would be the little-noticed but critical uranium-conversion facility at Isfahan…The United States could do a thorough job of destruction, but Israel alone can do what’s necessary. Such action should be combined with vigorous American support for Iran’s opposition, aimed at regime change in Tehran.

What this scenario actually proves is that Bolton has little capacity to think his schemes through. By his own admission such a bombing adventure would only “set back its [Iran’s] programme three to five years”, meanwhile killing thousands, making a dangerous enemy of Iran for years to come and, last but not least, risking a war in the Persian Gulf that would seriously disrupt the world’s flow of oil. And let’s not forget that such an attack would, at the very least, disrupt Iran’s fight against “Islamic State”, which is supporting an important US interest.

As for Israel, Bolton is exaggerating. The Zionist state does not have the capacity to “do what’s necessary”. The distance between the two countries is prohibitive, and even if Israeli warplanes could get to Iran and back (say by refueling in, of all places, Saudi Arabia), the operation would take multiple sorties, during which the Israel stands to lose a good number of planes and pilots. In fact, Netanyahu has sought to prepare the Israeli air force for an attack on Iran only to have his own military officers strongly object.

Sloppy thinking

John Bolton’s op-ed to the New York Times is just a mess – a dangerous flight of fancy based on skewed opinions rather than hard evidence and facts. In what must have been a very weak moment while writing this piece, he actually admits that there is a “lack of palpable evidence” for his case. He then moves right ahead as if the absence of evidence and facts just do not matter.

And what are the facts? Well, the Iranians do have a certain level of nuclear know-how which has been turned toward energy production and medical use. They do not have a nuclear bomb and have repeatedly said they don’t want a nuclear bomb. They have stated that they have religious objections to moving in that direction and know that the use of such a weapon would be a suicidal act. Western governments, pressured by Zionist and other special interests, have decided that the Iranians are not trustworthy, and so draconian economic sanctions have been implemented. Now, negotiations to put in place mechanisms to ensure that the Iranians stay true to their word appear near completion.

However, just like that hard-nosed sergeant back in 1968, Bolton dismisses negotiations. Like the analytically deficient non-commissioned officer at the induction centre, he is much more comfortable with death and destruction. And indeed, given Bolton’s influence on the right, his public advocacy of a nuclear attack on Iran in 2009, and his having become a foreign policy advisor for presidential candidate Ted Cruz, he might be judged the most dangerous man in the US – if it wasn’t for the fact that he has so much competition: all those Republican leaders in Congress beating their breasts and swearing that they are going to destroy the president’s one positive effort to make the world safer; the sharks at AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs Committee] who are determined, for the sake of Israel, to make war on Iran right down to the last American soldier; and untold millions of Christian Zionists who see any conflagration in the Middle East as a good thing because it brings closer the annihilation for which they positively yearn.

What is the New York Times doing publishing this nonsense? It seems to me when you accept a piece for an op-ed page it should be recognised as having been thought through and demonstrating some relation to reality. And, you should certainly make sure that it does not represent, as Robert Parry put it, an “incitement to murder and violation of international law”.

I guess the New York Times editors disagree.

Posted in USAComments Off on John Bolton’s love of bombs

Shoah’s pages