Archive | April 20th, 2015

Armenians 1915: The Genocide Controversy


by Dr: Richard Falk

Armenia: The Genocide Controversy

Of the many current concerns associated with historic wrongs, none is more salient these days than the long simmering tensions between modern Turkey and the Armenian diaspora (and the state of Armenia). And none so convincingly validates the assertion of the great American novelist, William Faulkner: “The past is never dead. It’s not even past.” This year being the centenary of the contested events of 1915 makes it understandable that was simmering through the decades has come to a boil, with the anniversary day of April 24th likely to be the climax of this latest phase of the unresolved drama.

The Armenian red line for any move toward reconciliation has been for many years a formal acknowledgement by the Turkish government that the killings that occurred in 1915 should be regarded as ‘genocide,’ and that an official apology to the descendants of the Armenian victims should be issued by the top political leaders in Turkey. It is not clear whether once that red line is crossed, a second exists, this one involving Armenian expectations of reparations in some form or even restorations of property and territory. For now the battleground is over the significance of granting or withholding the G word from these momentous happenings. The utterance of this word, alone, seems the only key capable of unlocking the portals leading to conflict resolution, but it is a key that Turks across the political spectrum refuse to use.

What has recently raised the temperature on both sides is the clear alignment of Pope Francis with the Armenian demands. At a solemn mass in St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome on April 12th that was devoted to the centenary of the Ottoman killings of Armenian Christians Francis quoted with approval from the 2001 joint declaration of Pope John Paul II and the Armenian religious leader Karenkin II to the effect that these massacres in 1915 were “widely considered the first genocide of the 20th century.”

The pope’s reliance upon an earlier declaration by a predecessor pontiff was interpreted by some Vatican watchers as a subtle indication of ‘restraint,’ showing a continuity of view in the Catholic Church rather than the enunciation of a provocative new position. Others equally reliable commentators felt that situating the label of genocide within a solemn mass gave it more authority than the earlier declaration with the 1.1 billion Catholics around the world, with likely more public impact.

The unusual stature enjoyed by this pope who is widely admired the world over as possessing the most influential voice of moral authority, exerting a powerful impact even on non-Catholics, lends added significance to his pronouncements on sensitive policy issues. There are some in the Catholic community, to be sure, who are critical of this latest foray into this conflict about the application of the word genocide at a delicate time. For instance, the respected Vatican expert, Marco Politi, said that Pope Francis’s comment were typical of this pope who “uses language without excessive diplomatic care.”

For these very reasons of salience, one supposes, the Turkish response has been strident, involving some retreat from the more forthcoming statements made just a year ago by the then Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. In an apologetic and conciliatory speech addressed directly to the Armenian community Erdoğan in 2014 said:

“May Armenians who lost their lives in the early twentieth century rest in peace, we convey our condolences to their grandchildren.” His language in 2015 reverts to a much harsher tone, in a pushback to Francis declaring that religious leaders make a ‘mistake’ when they try to resolve historical controversies. In an effort to constructive, Erdoğan restates the long standing Turkish proposal to open the Ottoman archives and allow a joint international commission of historians to settle the issue as to how the events of 1915 should most accurately be described, and specifically whether the term genocide is appropriate.

Both Erdoğan and the current prime minister, Ahmet Davutoğlu, continue to regard the core issue to be a historical matter of establishing the factual reality. The Turkish position is that there were terrible killings of the Armenians, but at a level far below the 1.5 million claimed by Armenian and most international sources, and mainly as an incident of ongoing warfare and civil strife in which many Turks also lost their lives, and hence it was an experience of mutual loss, and not ‘genocide.’

The almost internationally uncontested historical narrative is that the essential factual questions have settled: the Ottoman political leaders embarked on a deliberate policy of mass killings of the Armenians living in what is now modern Turkey. From this international consensus, the Armenians claim that it follows that Armenian victimization in 1915 was ‘genocide,’ the position endorsed and supported by Pope Francis, the European Parliament, and about 20 countries, including France and Russia. As might have been expected the NY Times jumped on the bandwagon by publishing a lead editorial with the headline, “Turkey’s Willful Amnesia,” as if was a matter of Ankara forgetting or a dynamic of denial, rather than is the case of selective perception, nationalism, and fears about the fragility of domestic political balance that explain Turkey’s seemingly stubborn adherence to a discredited narrative.

Yet there are weighty problems here, as well. The conclusion of ‘genocide’ is ambiguous. Not only did no such crime, labeled as such, exist in 1915, but there was not even the concept crystallyzed in this manner. Indeed the word was not coined until 1944 by Rafael Lemkin in his book Axis Rule in Occupied Europe, written in reaction to the crimes of the Nazis. Lemkin’s text does indirectly lend support to the Armenian insistence that only by acknowledging these events as genocide is their true reality comprehended. Consider this often quoted passage from Lemkin’s book: “I became interested in genocide because it happened so many times in history. It happened to the Armenians, then after the Armenians, Hitler took action.”

From a Turkish perspective, it is notable that the Nuremberg Judgment assessing Nazi criminality avoids characterizing the Holocaust as genocide, limiting itself to crimes against peace and crimes against humanity. If in 1945 there was no legal foundation for charging surviving Nazi leaders with genocide, how can the crime be attributed to the Ottoman Turks, and how can the Turkish government be reasonably expected to acknowledge it.

Also in the Nuremberg Judgment there is a clear statement to the effect that criminal law can never be validly applied retroactively (nulla poena sine lege). This principle is also embedded in contemporary international criminal law. That is, if genocide was not a crime in 1915, it cannot be treated as a crime in 2015. Yet from an Armenian perspective, this issue of criminality is tangential, and is not the ground on which the Turkish narrative rests. Both sides seem to agree that what is at stake is whether or not to characterize the events as ‘genocide,’ regardless of whether genocide was a distinct crime in 1915.

But here ambiguity abounds on this issue of criminality. The preamble of the Genocide Convention (1950) includes language compatible with the wider import of Armenian contentions: “Recognized in all periods of history that genocide has inflicted great losses on humanity.” In effect, that the reality of genocide long preceded the conclusion of the treaty. And even the premise of prior criminality is reinforced by Article 1: “The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace, or time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and punish.” By using the word ‘confirm’ it would appear that the crime of genocide preexisted the use of the word ‘genocide’ invented to describe the phenomenon, and thus no persuasive jurisprudential reason is present to oppose redescribing the events of 1915 as an instance of genocide.

Such a discussion of the pros and cons of the legalities is far from the end of the debate. The pressure to call what happened to the Armenians as genocide is best understood as a pycho-politicalcampaign to achieve an acknowledgement and apology that is commensurate with the magnitude of the historical wrong, and possibly to set the stage for a subsequent demand of reparations.

The insistence on the label ‘genocide’ seeks to capture total control of the moral high ground in relation to the events by authoritatively associating the tragic experience of the Armenians with the most horrendous events experienced by others, and most particularly by the Jewish victims of Nazism. In this sense, although Nazis were not indicted at Nuremberg for genocide, the whole political effort to criminalize genocide as a crime was in reaction to the Holocaust, lending an initial credibility to the ‘never again’ pledge. In other words, only by calling the events of 1915 genocide can the issues of guilt and responsibility be resolved in accord with the Armenian narrative with sufficient gravitas.

The Armenian claim is thus not to be understood as primarily expressive of a criminal law perspective, but reflects the key contention that what took place resembled what is prohibited by the Genocide Convention, and thus in this extra-legal sense is appropriately called ‘genocide,’ which functions as a way of concluding that the Armenians were victimized by the worst possible type of human behavior. And further, that no other word conveys this assessment as definitively as does ‘genocide,’ and hence the Armenian insistence is non-negotiable. Any step back from this posture would be interpreted as a further humiliation, thereby dishonoring the memory of those who suffered and opening the wounds of the past still further.

At present, both sides are locked into these contradictory positions. No way forward is apparent at present. Each side is hardening their positions, partly in retaliation for what they perceive to be the provocation of their adversary in the controversy. Erdoğan’s relatively conciliatory tone of 2014 has been replaced on the Turkish side by a relapse into defensiveness and denial, and the revival of the largely discredited nationalist version of the events in 2015 as a mutual ordeal.

The Armenian campaign, in turn, has intensified, taking advantage of the centenary mood, and now given the strongest possible encouragement by Pope Francis. In this setting, it is to be expected that Armenians will mount further pressure on the U.S. Government, considered a key player by both parties, to abandon its NATO-oriented reluctance to antagonize Turkey by officially endorsing the view that what happened in 1915 should be acknowledged by Turkey as genocide. Barack Obama had assured the Armenian community during his presidential campaign that he believed that Armenians were victims of genocide in 1915 but has to date refrained from reiterating this position in his role as president.

The contextualization of this tension associated with the redress of a historical grievance is also an element in the unfolding story. There appears to be an Israeli role in deflecting Turkish harsh criticism of its behavior in Gaza by a show of strong support for the Armenian campaign. Then there is the peril in the region especially faced by Christians, the Yazidis (an ancient syncretist religion drawing on Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Nestorian Christianity and Islam, and believed by many Iraqi to be devil-worshipers) and non-Muslims, especially at risk from ISIS and other extremist groups seeking to ‘purify’ areas under their control in the Middle East.

In this picture also is the rise of Islamophobia in Europe, as well as the moral panic created by the Charlie Hebdo incident and other post-9/11 signs that religiously induced violence is continuing to spread Westwards. When Pope Francis visited Turkey last November there was reported an agreement reached with Erdoğan that the Vatican would combat Islamophobia in Europe while Turkey would oppose any persecution of Christian minorities in the Middle East.

I have known well prominent personalities on both sides of this Armenian/Turkish divide. More than twenty years ago I endorsed the Armenian position in talks and some writings. In more recent years, partly as a result of spending several months in Turkey each year I have become more sympathetic with Turkish reluctance to apologize and accept responsibility for ‘genocide.’ Among other concerns is the credible anxiety that any acknowledgement of genocide by Turkish leaders would unleash a furious right-wing backlash in the country imperiling social order and political stability.

Aside from such prudential inhibitions there are on both sides of the divide deep and genuine issues of selective perception and identity politics that help maintain gridlock through the years, with no breakthrough in sight. Augmenting pressure on Turkey as is presently occurring is likely to be counter-productive, making the Turkish hard line both more mainstream and inflexible. Indicative of this is the stand of the main opposition leader, Kemal Kiliçdaroğlu (head of the CHP) who seldom loses an opportunity to oppose the governing party on almost every issue, when it comes to the Armenian question is in lockstep solidarity with Erdoğan.

I see no way out of this debilitating impasse without finding a way to change the discourse. It serves neither the Armenians nor the Turks to continue this public encounter on its present path. The Turkish proposal for a historical joint commission is a bridge to nowhere as either it would reinforce the existing consensus and be unacceptable or the gridlock and be unacceptable. What might be more promising would be a council of ‘wise persons’ drawn from both ethno/religious backgrounds, and perhaps including some third parties as well, that would meet privately in search of shared understanding and common ground.

A Turkish columnist, writing in this same spirit, proposes renewing the Erdoğan approach of 2014 by moving beyond sharing the pain to making an apology, coupled with offers of Turkish citizenship to the descendants of Armenians who were killed or diplaced in 1915.[See Verda Özer, “Beyond the Genocide Debate,” Hürriet Daily News, April 17, 2015] One possible formula that might have some traction is to agree that if what was done in 1915 were to occur now it would clearly qualify as ‘genocide,’ and that was done one hundred years ago was clearly genocidal in scale and intent. Perhaps, with good will and a realization that both sides would gain in self-esteem by a win/win outcome, progress could be made. At least it seems worth trying to use the resources of the moral imagination to work through with all possible good will a tangle of issues that has so long seemed intractable.

Posted in Europe, Campaigns, TurkeyComments Off on Armenians 1915: The Genocide Controversy

Zio-Wahhabi (ISIS) releases new propaganda and beheading video


Also featuring body parts which they claim are the result of enemy airstrikes


Entitled  “Defiant Response to the Bombing of Tyrants,“ the video was reportedly filmed in Nineveh Governorate of Iraq and allegedly shows images of destruction including body parts and remains of victims, including children, in areas under control by Zio-Wahhabi ISIS. 

A young man dressed up in an orange jumpsuit is shown being interrogated before he was beheaded in an uncharacteristic Zio-Wahhabi ISIS way, using a large curved sword. 

WARNING: Graphic


Posted in IraqComments Off on Zio-Wahhabi (ISIS) releases new propaganda and beheading video

NATO Increasingly Surrounds the “Russian Threat”. “War is Good for Business”

Global Research

On Saturday, April 18th, the Commander of the U.S. Army in Europe, Ben Hodges, told Britains Telegraph that There is a Russian threat, and that The best insurance we have against a showdown is that NATO stands together.

Ever since the Soviet Unions military alliance, the Warsaw Pact, dissolved in 1991, NATO has expanded eastward to Russias borders, and now it is preparing to admit yet another nation on Russias border: Ukraine. This eastward expansion broke (and breaks, since its continuing) a verbal agreement which had produced the termination of the Warsaw Pact (the Soviet Unions equivalent of Americas NATO alliance).

In February 1990, U.S. President George H.W. Bush sent his Secretary of State, James Baker, to Moscow to negotiate with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev an end to the Cold War. According to Jack Matlock, the U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union then, Baker offered Gorbachev the following deal:

Assuming there is no expansion of NATO jurisdiction to the East, not one inch, what would you prefer, a Germany embedded in NATO, or one that can go independently in any direction it chooses.

Baker knew that Russia, after Hitlers invasion of Russia in June 1941 (Operation Barbarossa), feared, more than anything, the possibility that an independent Germany would build a nuclear-weapons force and use it against Russia. According to Ray McGoverns account of the meeting, Gorbachev wasted little time agreeing to the deal.

McGovern, a retired high official of the CIA, blames U.S. President Bill Clinton for breaking that verbal agreement. Gorbachev had gotten nothing in writing from Baker on it, but acted on Bakers verbal promise. No one has explained why, but the presumption has always been that Baker made clear to Gorbachev that congressional Republicans would have blocked approval of any deal to limit future NATO expansion. Hardly anyone, at that time, would have expected a Democratic Party initiative to expand NATO after its supposed reason-for-existence had ended; but, this is what happened, when the conservative, pro-Wall-Street, Democrat, Bill Clinton, won the White House. (Bill Clinton ended Democratic President Franklin Delano Roosevelts Glass-Steagall Act regulation of Wall Street, and then, aided by Wall Street, became enormously wealthy himself with his Foundation. He used liberal rhetoric to hide his conservative objectives, so as to be able to win votes in the Democratic Party.)

McGovern writes,

“Clinton bragged about proposing NATO enlargement at his first NATO summit in 1994, saying it ‘should enlarge steadily, deliberately, openly.’ He never explained why.

This move on Clintons part assured Clinton, in retirement, the support of his Foundation not only by Wall Street but also now by the defense industry, for which NATO serves as the international marketing arm. Expanding NATO means expanding the sales of U.S.-made tanks, bombers, etc.

So: this is the reason why the U.S. lied to Gorbachev, and why U.S. President Barack Obama in February 2014, continued further along Clintons path, by overthrowing the neutralist Ukrainian government and replacing it with a racist-fascist, or ideologically nazi, rabidly anti-Russian government, bent on Russias destruction, which has subsequently been bombing the region of Ukraine, Donbass, that had voted 90% for the man whom Obama overthrew, and that would, if the residents there survive within Ukraine, strongly oppose the construction of nuclear-weapons sites aimed against next-door Russia.

McGovern says:

“Clintons tough-guy-ism toward Russia was, in part, a response to even more aggressive NATO plans from Clintons Republican opponent Bob Dole, who had been calling for incorporating Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary as full members of NATO and had accused Clinton of dragging his feet on this. Clinton was not about to be out-toughed. Those three countries joined NATO in 1999, starting a trend. By April 2009, nine more countries became members, bringing the post-Cold War additions to 12 equal to the number of the original 12 NATO states. Ukraine would make that 13.

Here is the percentage-breakdown of the nations that are selling the most weapons:

Screen Shot 2015-04-03 at 3.11.05 PM

The S&P Aerospace and Defense Index stood at 2,451.18 on 20 January 2009 when Obama was inaugurated, and is at 8,692.26 as of 17 April 2015. Thats 3.55 times what it was at the start. The S&P 500 Index on 20 January 2009 was at 805.22, and on 17 April 2015 was 2,081.18; thats 2.58 times what it was at the start. So: during Obamas Presidency thus far, defense stocks have gained 38% more than the total market has.

So, now we understand what Ben Hodges is selling when he sells the ‘Russian threat.’ The competition to be hired by ‘defense’ firms is intense, and he does what he must to win in his chosen field.

Posted in USA, Europe, RussiaComments Off on NATO Increasingly Surrounds the “Russian Threat”. “War is Good for Business”

Mandarin for the Warlords: The Harvard School of Empire Building

Global Research

Harvard professor Joseph Nye, a former senior Pentagon functionary, is one of the longest serving and most influential advisers to US empire building officials. Nye has recently re-affirmed the primacy of the US as a world power in his latest book, Is the American Century Over? And his article, ‘The American Century will survive the Rise of China’ (Financial Times, 3/26/15, p. 7). These publications are in line with his earlier book, Bound to Lead, and his longstanding view that the US is not a declining world power, that it retains ‘supremacy’ even in the face of China’s rise to global power.

Nye’s views of US world supremacy have served to encourage Washington to wage multiple wars ; his view of US economic power has allowed policy-makers to ignore fundamental weaknesses in the US economy and to overestimate US power, based on what he dubs, ‘soft’ and ‘military’ power.

In tackling Professor Nye’s work, we are not dealing with a ‘detached academic in the ivory tower’ – we are taking on a high level political influential, a hardline military hawk, whose views are reflected in the forging of strategic decisions and whose arguments serve to justify major government policies.

First, we will proceed through a critical analysis of his theoretical assumptions, historical arguments and conceptual framework. In the second part of this essay, we will consider the political consequences, which have flowed from his analysis and prescriptions. In the conclusion, we shall propose an alternative, more realistic, analysis of US global power, one more attuned to the real international position of the US in the world today.

Nye’s Analysis is Ossified in His Distorted Time Warp

Nye’s segmentation of power into three spheres – economic, military (hard), and diplomatic/cultural (soft), overlooks the inter-relation between them. What he dubs as ‘soft power’ usually relies on ‘hard power’, either before, during or after the application of ‘soft power’. Moreover, the capacity to influence by ‘soft power’ depends on economic promise or military coercion to enforce ‘persuasion’. Where economic resources or military threats are not present, soft power is ineffective.

Nye’s argument that military power is co-equal with economic power is a very dubious proposition. Over the medium run, economic power buys, expands and increases military power. In other words, economic resources are convertible into military as well as ‘soft power’. It can influence politicians, parties and regimes via trade, investments and credit in many ways which military power cannot. Over time, economic power translates into military power. Nye’s claims of persistent US military superiority in the face of its admitted economic decline is ephemeral or time bound.

Nye’s argument about the continued ascendancy of US global power ‘for the next few decades’ is a dubious, static view – ignoring a long-term, large-scale, historical trajectory. Lifelong shibboleths never die! By all empirical indicators – economic, political and even militarily, the US is a declining power. Moreover, what is important is not where the US is at any given moment but the where it is moving. Its declining shares of Latin American, African and Asian markets clearly points to a downward trajectory.

Power is a relationship. By definition it means a country’s capacity to make other countries or political entities do what they otherwise would not do. To consider the US as the dominant world power, we cannot, as Nye proposes, look at its ‘reputation’ as a world power or cite its ‘military capacity’ or willingness to project military force. We need to look at military and political outcomes in multiple key issue areas in which US policymakers have sought to establish regional or local dominance.

Nye’s discussion fails to look at the negative cumulative effects of US policy failures in multiple regions over time to determine whether the US retains its global supremacy or is a declining power.

To simply preach that ‘the American century is not over’, because some critics in the past mistakenly thought that the USSR in the 1970s or Japan in the 1980’s would displace the US as the global power, is to overlook the foundational weakness and repeated failures of US policymakers to impose or persuade other nations to accept US supremacy over the past decade and a half.

If, as Nye grudgingly concedes, China has replaced the US as the leading economic power in Asia, he does not understand the dynamic components of Chinese economic power, especially its long term, large-scale accumulation of foreign reserves and rapidly growing technical knowhow. Even worse, Nye ignores how the military dimension of world power has actively undermined US economic supremacy.

It is precisely Nye’s belief, along with other Pentagon advisers, that US military supremacy make it a ‘world power’, which has led to catastrophic, prolonged and costly wars. These wars have degraded and undermined US pretensions of ‘world leadership’ or more accurately – imperial supremacy.

While the US has spent trillions of dollars of public money on prolonged and losing wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia, as well as ongoing military interventions in Libya, Syria, Ukraine and Yemen, China and other emerging powers have engaged in large long-term economic expansion, increasing market shares, acquiring productive enterprises and expanding their sources of capital accumulation in dynamic regions.

US repeated projections of military power have not created new sources of wealth. The US capacity and willingness to engage in multiple disastrous wars has led to a greater loss of military influence.

Consequences of High Military Capacity and Declining Economic Performance

The consequence of utilizing its great storehouse of military capacity so disastrously has degraded and weakened the US military as well as its imperial economic reach. Repeated US military defeats, its inability to secure its goals or impose its dominance in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan has severely weakened the domestic political foundations of global military power, to the point where the US public is adverse to sending large scale US ground troops into combat.

Nye’s inventory of military resources, stockpile of up-to-date bombers, nuclear weapons, fighter planes, military bases, special forces operations, and its vast spy (“intelligence”) apparatus, in other words the US’s supreme military ‘capacity’, has not resulted in the establishment of a prosperous, stable and submissive empire (the goal that Nye euphemistically dubs ‘world supremacy’). US military engagements, both high and low intensity wars, have resulted in costly defeats and retreats as adversaries advance into the vacuum. Superior material capacity has not translated into US dominance because nationalist, anti-imperialist consciousness and movements based on mass armed resistance, have demonstrated superiority in countering foreign (US) invasions, occupations and satellite building.

Nye ignores a decisive ‘military resource’, which the US does not have and its adversaries have in abundance – nationalist consciousness. Here, Nye’s notion of US supremacy in ‘soft power’ has been terribly wrong-headed. According to Nye, the US superiority in the use and control of mass media, films, news and cultural organizations and educational institutions continues and has allowed the US to retain its global supremacy.

No doubt the US global propaganda apparatus and networks are formidable but they have not been successful, not least, as a bulwark of US global supremacy. Once again Nye’s inventory of soft power assets relies exclusively on quantitative, contemporary, material structures and ignores the enormous counter-influence of historical legacies, nationalist, cultural, religious, ethnic, class, race and gender consciousness, which rejects US dominance in all of its forms. US ‘soft power’ has not conquered or gained the allegiance of the people in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria or Yemen. Nor has it convinced the billions of Chinese, Latin American or Islamic peoples to embrace American ‘leadership’.

No doubt ‘soft power’ has worked to a limited extent, especially among sectors of the educated classes and the local political elite, converting them into imperial collaborators. No doubt elements of the educated elite have been co-opted by US funded ‘non-governmental organizations’ that engage in grass roots counter-insurgency as the counterpart to the drone attacks from above. But, once again, Nye relies on quantitative, rather than qualitative, measures of influence. Despite an army of NGOs and the budgeting of billions of dollars, US imperial conquests, coups, occupations, rigged elections, and puppet regimes are highly unpopular. As a result, US troops need to diminish their presence, and its overseas and visiting diplomats require a squadron of security officials and operate out of armed fortresses.

Professor Nye’s treatment of what he calls ‘soft power’ is reduced to an inventory of propaganda resources, developed and/or cultivated by the imperial state (the US) to induce submission to and acceptance of the global supremacy of the US. However vast the spending and however broad the scope of ‘soft power, Nye fails to recognize the ineffectiveness of the US ‘soft power apparatus’ in the face of systemic crimes against humanity, which have profoundly alienated and decisively turned world opinion and specific national publics against the US. Specifically, Washington’s practice of torture (Abu Ghraib), kidnapping (rendition), and prolonged jailing without trial (Guantanamo); its global spy network monitoring hundreds of millions of citizens in the US and among allies and its use of drones killing more non-combatant (innocent) citizens than armed adversaries, have severely weakened, if not undermined, the appeal of US ‘soft powers’. Nye is oblivious to the ways in which US projections of military power have led to the precipitous long-term decline of ‘soft power’, and the way in which that decline has resulted in the greater reliance on military power … in a vicious circle.

Nye ignores the changing composition of the strategic decision makers who decide where and when military power will be exercised. He blandly assumes that policy is directed by and for enhancing US ‘global supremacy’. But as Professors Mearsheimer and Walt, (The Israel Lobby) and Petras, (The Power of Israel in the United States), have demonstrated, powerful, organized lobbies, like AIPAC, and Israel First officials in the Executive branch have taken military decisions to focus on the Middle East at the behest of Israel in order to enhance its power. These decisions have had an enormous cost in terms of loss of human and financial resources and have contributed to the decline of US global supremacy. Nye fails to recognize how the ascendancy of his militarist colleagues in the Pentagon and the Zionists in the Congress and Executive have drastically changed the way in which hard power (military) is exercised

And how it has weakened the composition and use of soft power and provoked greater imbalances between economic and military power.

Nye’s argument is further weakened by his incapacity to ‘problematize’ the changing content of military power, its shift from a tool of economic expansion, directed by US empire-builders, to an end in itself exploiting economic resources to enhance Israeli hegemony in the Middle East. This weakness is exacerbated by his failure to recognize the changing nature of economic power – the shift from manufacturing to finance capital and the negative consequences, which result for the projection of US economic power and dominance.

Finally, Nye totally ignores the moral dimension of the US drive for world dominance. At worst, he blithely assumes that destructive US wars are, by their nature, virtuous. Nye’s political commitment to the ‘American Century’ and total belief in its benignancy blind him to the killing and displacement of millions of Iraqis, Syrians, Afghans, Somalis, Libyans and now Ukrainians – among others. Nye’s assumption of the beneficial effects of the US-NATO-EU expansion into the former Warsaw Pact countries, and especially Russia, ignores the vast impoverishment of 70% of the Ukrainian population, the outward flight of 20 million skilled professionals and workers, and the subsequent militarization of Eastern Europe and East Germany via its incorporation in NATO. According to Nye’s moral calculus, any policy that enhances US global power is virtuous, no matter how it impacts the recipient population. These are not only Nye’s views, they provide the ideological underpinning of the official ‘soft power’ propaganda accompanying past, present and near future wars of mass destruction.

Nye is not your typical garden variety Ivy League-ideologue-for-US-and-Israeli-dominance (and there are many in US academia). Nye has been an important theoretical architect and strategic planner responsible for US global wars and the accompanying crimes against humanity. His global fantasies of US ascendancy have led to the parlous state of the US domestic economy, multiple unwinnable wars overseas and the eclipse of any strategic thinking about reversing the economic decline of the US in the world economy. Applying a cost-benefit analysis to Prof. Nye’s policies, if he were employed as a CEO in the private sector, he would have long ago been fired and dispatched to a prestigious business school to teach ‘ethics’. Since he is already tenured at Harvard and employed by the Pentagon he can continue to churn out his irresponsible ‘manifestos’ of US global leadership and not be held to account for the disasters.

In Joseph Nye, we have our own American version of Colonel Blimp surveying his colonial projects: He has exchanged his pith helmet, short britches and walking stick, for a combat helmet and boots, and has limited his ‘reviews’ of the Empire to secure zones, surrounded by an entourage of combat ready Leathernecks or mercenaries, circling helicopter warships and super-vetted local military toadies.

Historical Fallacies

Even at its zenith of ‘global power’ during the 1940’s, 50’s and 60’s, US military performance was the least effective component of world power. Two major wars, Korea and Indo-China, speak against Nye’s formula. The US military failed to defeat the North Korean and Chinese armies; Washington had to settle for a ‘compromise’. And the US was militarily defeated and forced to withdraw from Indo-China. Success in securing influence came afterwards, via economic investments and trade, accompanied by political and cultural influences.

Today, Nye’s reliance on the superior military resources of the US to project the continuance of the ‘American Century’ rests on very shakey historical foundations.

Nye’s Military Metaphysics as Crackpot Realism

The US has declined as a world power because of its ‘military pivot’ – following Nye’s military metaphysics and ‘soft power’ psychobabble. In every practical situation, where the US attempted to secure its dominance by relying on its superior ‘military capacity’ against its competitors’ reliance on economic and political resources, Washington has lost.

China has set in motion the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) – with an initial offering of $50 billion dollars. The US is staunchly opposed to the AIIB because it clearly represents an alternative to the US-dominated International Monetary Fund (IMF). Despite Washington’s pressure to reject membership, its ‘allies’, led by the UK and followed by all major powers (except Japan for now), have applied for membership. Even Israel has joined!

Washington sought to convince leading ‘emerging economies’ to accept US-centered economic integration; but instead, Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (the BRICS) founded the BRICS’ bank.

The US engineered the overthrow of the elected government in the Ukraine, and set up a puppet regime to incorporate it as a NATO client and military platform on Russia’s border. Instead, the Ukraine turned into an economic basket case, run by kleptocratic oligarchs, defended by openly neo-Nazi brigades and incapable of defeating federal autonomist rebels in the industrialized east.

The US and the EU imposed economic sanctions on Russia and federal autonomist rebels of the Donbass in Eastern Ukraine. This has become another example of projecting political power to enlarge the scope of military operations at the cost of devastating losses in trade and investment, between Moscow and the European Union, not to speak of the Ukraine – whose economy was dependent on trade with Russia.

The decline of US world power is, in part, a result of the dynamism and economic growth of emerging powers such as China and the relative decline of US market shares and inferior rates of growth.

Nye, in one of his more egregiously foolish efforts to puff up US economic superiority and to downgrade China’s economic rise, argues that China’s growth rate is ‘likely to slow in the future’. Dear Joe… don’t you know that a Chinese ‘slow down’ from double digit growth to 7 percent is still triple the rate of growth of the US today and for the foreseeable future?

Moreover China’s balanced economy, between production and finance, is less crisis-prone than the lopsided growth of the corrupt US financial sector. Nye’s economic calculus ignores the qualitative, as well as quantitative, dimensions of economic power.


The intellectual value of Joseph Nye’s writings would not merit serious consideration except for the fact that they have a deep and abiding influence on US foreign policy. Nye is an ardent advocate of empire building and his arguments and prescriptions carry weight in the White House and Pentagon. His normative bias and his love of empire building blinds him to objective realties. The fact that he is a failed policy advisor, who refuses to acknowledge defeats, decline and destruction resulting from his world view, has not lessened the dangerous nature of his current views.

Nye’s attempt to justify his vision of continuing US world supremacy has led him to blame his critics. In his latest book, he rants that predictions of US decline are ‘dangerous’ because they could encourage countries such as China to pursue more aggressive policies. In other words, Nye having failed, through logic and facts, to sustain his assertions against his better-informed critics, questions their loyalty – evoking a McCarthyite specter of intellectuals critical of US global power…stabbing the country in the back.

Nye tries to deflect attention from the fragile material foundations of US power to disembodied ‘perceptions’. According to Nye, it’s all perceptions’ (or illusions!): if the world leaders and public believe that ‘the American century is set to continue for many decades’, that faith will, in itself, help to sustain America’s superiority! Nye’s fit of irrationality, his reliance on Harry Houdini style of political analysis (‘Now you see US global power, now you don’t!) is unlikely to convince any serious analyst beyond the halls of the Pentagon and Harvard University’s John F Kennedy School.

What matters is that the US, while it is a declining world power, is still militarily powerful, dangerous and destructive, even as its empire building is weakening and its forces are in retreat. As Mahatma Gandhi once stated about the declining British Empire, ‘It’s the aging tiger that becomes the man eater’.

As an alternative, we can follow two lines of inquiry: One is to question the entire imperial enterprise and to focus on our return to republican values and domestic social and democratic reconstruction. That is a necessary, but prolonged struggle, under present circumstances. In the meantime, we can pursue policies that emphasize the importance of shifting from destructive military expansionism toward constructive economic engagements, flexible cooperation with emerging competitors, and diplomatic agreements with adversaries. Contrary to Nye’s assertions, militarism and economic expansion are not compatible. Wars destroy markets and occupations provoke resistance, which frighten investors. ‘Soft power’ and NGO’s that rely on manipulation, lies and demonization of critics gain few adherents and multiple adversaries.

The US should increase its ties and co-operation with BRICS and China’s AIIB. It should reach out to sign trade deals with Iran, Syria and Lebanon. It should cut off aid to Israel, because of it bellicose posture toward the Arab East and its brutal colonization of Palestine. Washington should end its support of violent coups and engage with Venezuela. It should lift sanctions against Russia and East Ukraine and propose joint economic ventures. By ending colonial wars, we can increase economic growth and open markets. We should pursue economic accommodation not military occupation. The former leads to prosperity, the latter to destruction.

Posted in USAComments Off on Mandarin for the Warlords: The Harvard School of Empire Building

Pakistan: Honor kills wife by setting her on fire


Because she left the house without his permission

In just the latest honor killing, Muhammad Siddique was arrested along with his father for immolating his 25-year old wife Shabana Bibi after she went to visit her sister on Friday without asking him, police reported on Sunday.


RT  Upon her return Siddique got enraged and he and his father beat her, said her brother Muhammad Azam. They then doused her with gasoline and set her on fire. Bibi died in hospital on Saturday after suffering burns to 80 percent of her body.

“We have arrested the husband and father-in-law of the deceased woman and charged them for murder and terrorism,” district police chief Rai Zameer-ul-Haq told AFP. The charge of “terrorism” is often applied in such cases to speed up and simplify the trial.

Bibi had been married to Siddique for three years. Her brother said she previously experienced spousal abuse after the couple had problems conceiving a child.


Hundreds of women become victims of such homicide every year in Pakistan, with tens of thousands more around the world in other countries.

Posted in Pakistan & KashmirComments Off on Pakistan: Honor kills wife by setting her on fire

British Racist Whore Katie Hopkins says: “Rescue boats?


I’d use gunships to stop (illegal alien Muslim) migrants”

Image result for Katie Hopkins PHOTO

British Racist Whore Katie Hopkins

“You may as well set up a Libya-to-Italy P&O ferry,” says racist British whore Katie Hopkins ‘doesn’t care if Muslim invaders die at sea’ as she reveals her solution for this dangerous and out-of-control illegal alien Islamic tsunami from Northern Africa and the Middle East into Europe.

A blistering row over a controversial RACIST oral Sex performance Katie Hopkins article about migrants in RACIST The Sun shows no sign of dying down more than a day after the piece was published.


Racist Hopkins says:

“NO, I don’t care. Show me pictures of coffins, show me bodies floating in water, play violins and show me skinny people looking sad. I still don’t care. Because inthe next minute you’ll show me pictures of aggressive young men at Calais, sprea- ding like the deadly norovirus on a cruise ship.”


RACIST British Whore Katie continues:

Make no mistake, these migrants are like cockroaches. They might look a  bit “Bob Geldof’s Ethiopia circa 1984”, but they are built to survive a nuclear bomb. They are survivors.”

RACIST Katie went to say she believes the UK should:

“get Australian” in the way they deal with these illegal Muslim invaders because “they threaten them with violence until they bugger off”.


She continued:

“Make no mistake, these migrants are cockroaches. They might look a bit like ‘Bob Geldof’s Ethiopia circa 1984’ but they are built to survive a nuclear bomb.” 
They not only survive, they breed like cockroaches when they aren’t raping white European women.
“Once gunships have driven them back to their shores, boats need to be confiscated and burned on a huge bonfire.


”Illegal alien Muslim invaders” are flooding Europe by the hundreds of thousands every year, giving Europe exploding crime increases. The vast majority never work, never assimilate and live on state welfare with their big families.

Last year than 170,000 illegal migrants crossed the ­Mediterranean to Italy and as many as 3,500 died. At least twice that number are expected this year.


Posted in UK2 Comments

Saudi Arabia’s deepening isolation in Yemen



Pakistan rebuffs Saudi kingdom on Yemen

In an unusual and stinging rebuke, Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif this week rejected Saudi Arabia’s request to join its military campaign in Yemen.

Bruce Riedel writes: “The Pakistani leader reportedly believes that if the Saudis enter into a ground war in Yemen — with or without Pakistani forces — it will become a quagmire. They have simply ‘bitten off more than they can chew.’ The Egyptian experience in Yemen, in which Egypt had up to 20,000 casualties in the 1960s fighting the same Zaydi tribes that back the Houthis, figures prominently in Pakistani thinking, especially in the army.”

The Wall Street Journal reported that 648 civilians have been killed since the start of the Saudi airstrikes, which have hit hospitals, schools and a refugee camp. US officials have quietly begun to express reservations about the Saudi campaign targeting one of the poorest countries in the world.

Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, who met with US President Barack Obama in Washington this week, warned that the Saudi attacks in Yemen could be a catalyst for a broader sectarian war. Adnan Abu Zeed reports from Baghdad that the Yemen war is deepening Sunni-Shiite animosity among Iraqis.

Mohammad Ali Shabani writes that Iran’s proposal for a diplomatic solution appears a more mature approach to addressing Yemen’s civil war, compared with Saudi Arabia’s military intervention: “While it is unclear when the war in Yemen will end, what is clear is that Iranian diplomacy is proving to be an effective response to Saudi money and firepower. And with the goals of the Yemen war increasingly muddled, Saudi Arabia and its allies may soon find themselves bogged down in a quagmire.”

In a speech in Beirut on April 17, Hezbollah’s Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah picked up Iran’s call for negotiations and an end to airstrikes.Ali Hashem reports: “On Iran’s readiness for dialogue, Nasrallah indicated that Tehran is ready to talk with Saudi Arabia, yet it is Saudi Arabia that is ‘being stubborn because it has failed in all countries, in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, and it is seeking a success before sitting down at the negotiation table.’”

The debate over the war in Yemen has even divided the Muslim Brotherhood, writes Ahmed Fouad:

“Amid the Brotherhood’s rejection of the participation of Egyptian forces in Operation Decisive Storm, both the Islah Party (the Brotherhood’s political arm in Yemen) and Yemeni Brotherhood activist Tawakkol Karman expressed their support for the operation. They thanked all of the Arab forces participating in the operations and did not criticize the Gulf or Egyptian forces, which Karman specifically praised on Twitter.”

More on Khamenei’s “main message”

Reflecting on the comment by Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, on April 9 — “If the other side avoids its amphibology [ambiguity] in the [nuclear] talks, it’ll be an experience showing it’s possible to negotiate with them on other issues” — Seyed Hossein Mousavian suggests a “catalogue of possible areas for cooperation” between the United States and Iran, including “the fight against the Islamic State in both Syria and Iraq, the protracted Syrian crisis and the unfolding crisis in Yemen,” as well as “combating extremism and terrorism and drug trafficking in the Middle East.”

As reported by Ali Hashem and noted in this column last week, Khamenei’s statement “might be the main message to come out of the nuclear framework.”

Iranian activists skeptical

While Iranians overwhelmingly appear to support the nuclear talks,Behdad Bordbar reports that many activists are nonetheless skeptical that a successful nuclear agreement would translate into improvements in human rights.

“Although the activists who spoke to Al-Monitor expressed skepticism that a nuclear deal would immediately produce a better human rights situation in Iran, many did agree that better economic conditions were necessary for improving their standard of living, which has been reduced as a result of economic hardship,” Bordbar writes.

Israel: Russian missile sale a “knockout blow”?

Ben Caspit writes that the Russian decision to lift its hold on the sale of the S-300 surface-to-air missile system to Iran was a “knockout blow” to US reassurances about Israeli security.

“Even as the Americans attempted to explain, convince and demonstrate that sanction removal was not yet final; even as they said that there was no intention of lifting sanctions until everything would be completely clear and settled; that the rate and timing of sanction removal had not yet been decided upon; and that the United States opposed the immediate lifting of sanctions the minute that the final agreement would be signed — along comes Putin and delivers a knockout blow to the whole theory,” Caspit reported from Jerusalem.

Paul Saunders considers the timing of the Russian announcement “remarkable.” The Iranian contract for purchase of the missile system had been agreed in 2007, but Russia halted the sale in 2010 as a gesture to the West and Israel in dealing with Iran. Just last week, Saunders predicted that Russia would proceed with the sale, but at the conclusion of the nuclear talks.

Saunders speculates that “Moscow will need Iran’s goodwill if a nuclear agreement leads to the removal of UN sanctions; Russia’s companies will likely have considerable competition from China, India and Europe even if the United States maintains some of its unilateral sanctions.” Russian President Vladimir Putin may also be sending a message to the West and hard-liners in his own base that Russia is not a go along/get along follower of the US lead with Iran, and looking out for its own interests. There might also be a connection to Russia’s opposition to the positioning of US missile defense systems in Eastern Europe.

Good Friday massacre in Aleppo

Edward Dark reports from Aleppo on the unrelenting misery of the city’s Christians, including an attack on April 10, Good Friday, which many consider to be the holiest day on the Christian calendar.

“As rebel rockets and shells rained down through the night on the predominantly Christian neighborhood of Sulaimaniyah in west Aleppo, just a short distance from one of the city’s many front lines, there was mass panic as buildings collapsed, killing and injuring dozens, while others remained trapped under the rubble. Residents began to flee in the darkness, not really knowing where to head to as ambulances, fire trucks and rescue workers attempted to tackle the ongoing carnage. The atmosphere of fear and terror was exacerbated by a city in a perpetual state of darkness with almost no power and limited communication and Internet access following the collapse of vital infrastructure after the provincial capital of Idlib was taken over by Islamist groups on March 28,” Dark writes.

Dark continues: “As regional and global attention shifts to other hotspots such as Yemen, the Good Friday ‘massacre’ in Aleppo will be just another blip — a footnote in a long list of other massacres and atrocities soon forgotten by a global public opinion that has grown accustomed and weary of the endless horrors of Syria. Compassion fatigue rules the day.”

Al-Monitor has previously reported on Lebanese Foreign Minister Gebran Bassil’s appeal to the UN Security Council last month to protect Christians and other minorities persecuted by the Islamic State (IS), and to reverse the exodus of these populations from the region.

Mohammed al-Khatieb reports from Aleppo: “IS’ two suicide attacks on the headquarters of the Sham Front cannot be interpreted as a mere message to the front. They should be seen as a prelude to further escalation, which will result in inevitable confrontation between the two sides (IS and Syrian rebels). IS is taking advantage of the fact that the balance is currently tipped in its favor on this front, especially in the absence of the international coalition and the dispersal of rebels forces. This is not to mention that the regime is now preoccupied with the attacks on Aleppo’s northern countryside in its quest to impose a siege on the city of Aleppo.”

A return to “zero problems?”

The odd sight of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan walking hand in hand with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani in Tehran just days after he lashed out at Iran for its attempt to “dominate the region” may be an attempt by Ankara to tilt away from a less confrontational and sectarian policy. Maybe.

Semih Idiz writes: “The AKP [Justice and Development Party] government has learned the hard way that its over-ambitious policies did not tally with the region’s bitter, age-old realities, which appear unlikely to change anytime soon. Ankara found instead that it is being sucked into crises with potentially dangerous results for Turkey.”

The so-called Arab Spring had spurred Erdogan and his AKP acolytes to consider his “zero problems with neighbors” approach to foreign policy as “spineless and demeaning for a regional power such as Turkey, which they believed had to play a primary role in reorganizing the Middle East. That dream seems to be over now.

“Western diplomats in Ankara, talking to Al-Monitor on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the issue, also welcome any move by Ankara toward the middle ground, saying this would enable Turkey to play a much greater and more positive role in the region than it does today.

“They argue, however, that this will be contingent on Erdogan’s shedding of his Sunni-based ideological orientation in earnest, and moving toward a genuinely nonsectarian line.”

Posted in Saudi Arabia, YemenComments Off on Saudi Arabia’s deepening isolation in Yemen

Nasrallah Reassure Hezbollah Full Support to the Oppressed Yemeni People

Nasrallah Reassure Hezbollah Full Support to the Oppressed Yemeni People
Nasrallah Reassure Hezbollah Full Support to the Oppressed Yemeni People
Sayyed Nasrallah speaks at Sayyed El-Shohadaa Complex: We reassure our full support to the oppressed Yemeni people and our denunciation to the Saudi- US aggression on Yemen

Sayyed Nasrallah: In the month of April we can’t but remember the Israeli aggression on Lebanon in 1996 when the Lebanese stood with steadfastness and offered sacrifices paving the way for the 2000 victory.

Sayyed Nasrallah: The Yemenis don’t need to give evidence that they are Arabs, before Islam they were the original Arab culture, when people of the Arabian Peninsula didn’t even know how to read.

Sayyed Nasrallah:Yemeni scholars and businessmen brought Islam to Indonesia, one of the largest Islamic countries… Yemenis don’t need evidence that they are Arabs or Muslims, and whoever assaults the Yemeni people should be examined for his Islam.

Sayyed Nasrallah: They tried to give a sectarian aspect for the war, claiming that it is a Sunni/Shiite war, but this is not true. It is a Saudi war for political reasons…

Sayyed Nasrallah: One of the funniest headlines I have read in the past couple of weeks was “In defense of the Holy Mosques in Mecca and Medina”.

Sayyed Nasrallah: Who is threatening the two Holy Mosques? The Yemeni people? The Yemeni Army? These are the people who most love the prophet and his household.

Sayyed Nasrallah: The only one threatening the Holy Mosques are students of the Wahhabi schools in Saudi Arabia and ISIS, one day a suicide bomber from these schools could make an operation there.

Sayyed Nasrallah: After the Saudi Monarchy emerged, its Wahhabi followers destroyed religious and historical heritage related to the prophet, whether houses, graves, forts, and everything.

Sayyed Nasrallah: There was even a decision to destroy the prophet’s grave, and history proves that, but the Islamic world stood up against them back then.

Sayyed Nasrallah: The holy Moque is under threat and we don’t know when they would destroy it. Another goal from the war, according to Saudi claims, is defending the Yemeni people

Sayyed Nasrallah: Is besieging 24 million Yemeni and keeping them without food and medicine, and committing massacres against women and children, is that a way for defending the Yemenis?

Sayyed Nasrallah: They wanted to break the will and subjugate the Yemeni people, and the result was a great Yemeni steadfastness, firmness, patience and power.

Sayyed Nasrallah: As I said on the 8th of March, 2005: Thank you Syria for standing firm in the face of Takfirism… We haven’t spoken out everything we know, but look what they (Saudis) did in Bahrain.

Sayyed Nasrallah: They claimed that their goal is to prevent the Yemeni Army and the Public committees from reaching Aden and they failed in that. Provinces are under the control of the Yemeni Army and Al-Qaeda is withdrawing.

Sayyed Nasrallah: Look how they directly interfered and oppressed the peaceful people of Bahrain and how they imprisoned leaders as well as thousands of people.

Sayyed Nasrallah: Who is the biggest loser from the latest developments in the region? It is Palestine, and the winner is Israel and Netanyahu.

Sayyed Nasrallah: I tell the Lebanese who are already celebrating the Saudi victory in Yemen to hold back, as they have made the same bet on Syria, but look how it stayed firm for 5 years now.

Posted in Lebanon, YemenComments Off on Nasrallah Reassure Hezbollah Full Support to the Oppressed Yemeni People

UN: 750 Killed in 2.000 Zio-Wahhabi-Led Attacks in Yemen

Pro Hadi Fighter
Pro Hadi Fighter
According to Zio-Wahhabi spokesmen Ahmed Assiri, Zio-Wahhabi—led coalition has launched more than 2,000 air strikes on Yemen since its campaign began 3 weeks ago and The United Nations said 150,000 people had been driven from their homes by air strikes with more than 750 civilian killed.

But Yesterday according to Arabic source which quoting from Yemen Army head of staff, Zio-Wahhabi-led coalition warplanes conducted 25 air strikes on the Yemeni capital of Sana’a in 2 hours, as the civilian death toll surpassed 2650.

Yesterday Clashes between Ansarallah revolutionary forces and pro-hadi forces and Zio-Wahhabi-led air strikes killed at least 85 people in Yemen, medics and military sources said Sunday.

The United Nations says hundreds of people have died and thousands of families fled their homes since the coalition air war began on March 26 at the request of ousted CIA puppet Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi who fled Saudi, The Nation reports.

Ten Houthi revolutionary and four pro-Hadi ‘popular committees’ militia were killed in pre-dawn clashes in the southwestern city of Taez, the sources said.

The city has seen fierce clashes over the past week, after having been largely spared in fighting that has spread across several provinces.

On Sunday, Zio-Wahhabi-led warplanes pounded some positions in Taez, an AFP correspondent said, adding that the streets were empty and shops were closed.

Air strikes on Yemen in the southern city of Daleh as well as clashes on Sunday killed 23 people.

Seven revolutionary forces were martyred in an attack by al-qeda in the southern province of Shabwa.

It is reported that the pro-Hadi fighters captured the Russian consulate and a Hadi residence.

The Ansarallah revolutionary, who seized Sanaa unopposed in September, have since expanded their control across the impoverished Arabian Peninsula country and their aim is fighting with al-Qaeda and illegal forces of ousted former president who fled in Saudi Arabia and is accused of betrayal to country.

CIA puppet Abd rabu Mansour hadi after fleeing country ask Zio-Wahhabi regime to attack Yemen to get back power.Millions affected by Zio-Wahhabi led attacks.

Although according to UN figures more than 700 civilian in Zio-Wahhabi air strike killed and many take refuge Zio-Wahhabi Press Agency said “kingdom stands with its Yemeni brothers and hopes for the restoration of security and stability”.

UN Humanitarian Coordinator Johannes Van Der Klaauw said Friday that ‘ordinary families are struggling to access healthcare, water, food and fuel – basic requirements for their survival’.

Aid has only trickled in to Yemen, largely because of Zio-Wahhabi-led coalition restrictions on its airspace and ports.

The UN agency for refugees says that up to 150,000 people have been displaced over the past three weeks, while more than 300,000 had already fled their homes because of unrest in past years.

Zio-Wahhabi has launched more than 2,000 air strikes on Yemen since its campaign began, Zio-Wahhabi army spokesman Ahmad Assiri said.

The Huthi revolutionary swept into the capital in September from their highland stronghold and later advanced south on the major port of Aden.

The Iranian plan calls for an immediate ceasefire and end of all foreign military attacks, humanitarian assistance, a resumption of broad national dialogue and ‘establishment of an inclusive national unity government.

AQPA al Qaeda’s most lethal branch is take chance from Zio-Wahhabi airstrike and captured some region in Yemen.

The United Nations said about 150,000 people had been driven from their homes by air strikes and ground fighting, with more than 750 people killed.

Conflict in Yemen risks spilling out onto busy sea lanes that pass it and potentially disrupt the narrow Bab el-Mandeb passage through which nearly 4 million barrels of oil are shipped daily to Europe, the United States and Asia.

Posted in Saudi Arabia, YemenComments Off on UN: 750 Killed in 2.000 Zio-Wahhabi-Led Attacks in Yemen

Bahrainis Protest against Blood Formula One

FILE PHOTO - Bahraini protesters hold placards portraying Sheikh Ali Salman, head of the Shiite opposition movement Al-Wefaq, on March 24, 2015, during a demonstration against his arrest, in the village of Daih, west of Manama. AFP PHOTO
FILE PHOTO – Bahraini protesters hold placards portraying Sheikh Ali Salman, head of the Shiite opposition movement Al-Wefaq, on March 24, 2015, during a demonstration against his arrest, in the village of Daih, west of Manama. AFP PHOTO
Thousands of Bahraini demonstrators have taken to the streets of this country to protest against arrest and detention of opposition figures against Zionist puppet al-Khalifa Regime, Al-Alam reports.

In al-Deraz, Karzakan, Sanad and al-Daih, west of Manama People protesting against al-Khalifa regime.

According to local sources Zionist puppet al-Khalifa regime attack peaceful protester in al-Deraz region near Manama.

One of detained figures is sheikh Ali Salman head of the Shiite opposition movement Al-Wefaq who is behind bars for allegedly trying to overthrow the regime.

His arrest on December 28, 2014, shortly after he was re-elected head of Bahrain’s main opposition party Al-Wefaq, has sparked near-daily protests in Shiite villages

Demonstrators were also protesting against Bahrain Grand Prix Formula One irrespective of a bloody crackdown launched by brutal Bahraini regime against its people.

Posted in BahrainComments Off on Bahrainis Protest against Blood Formula One

Shoah’s pages