Archive | March 7th, 2018

ISIS Is a US-Zionist Creation. Top Ten “Indications”


ISIS Is a US-Israeli Creation. Top Ten “Indications”

Relevant article selected from the GR archive, crossposted on GR in April 2016.

ISIS is a US-Israeli creation, a fact as clear as the sky is blue. It’s a truth as black and white as the colors on their flag. For many alternative news readers, this may be patently obvious, but this article is written for the large majority of people in the world who still have no idea who is really behind the rise of ISIS. No matter which name they go by – ISIS, ISIL, IS or Daesh – the group has been deliberately engineered by the US and Israel to achieve certain geopolitical goals. They are a religious, fundamentalist, Sunni terrorist organization created to terrorize and overthrow certain secular or Shiite Arab nations such as Syria and Iraq, but they are not just “Islamic”. They may be Muslims, and they may be advocating an Islamic State, but they are very much working towards the goals of Zionism. 

It’s amazing how many people still struggle to get that point. We have been inundated with propaganda surrounding the fraudulent war on terror, notably terms such as Islamic terrorism and radical Islam, but more accurate phrases would be Zio-Islamic terrorism and radical Zio-Islam. Secret military agencies such as the CIA and the Mossad pull the strings. Here is a list of the top 10 ‘indications’ that ISIS is a US-Israeli creation.

ISIS is a US-Israeli Creation: Indication #1: ISIS Foreknowledge via Leaked DIA Doc

The DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) is 1 of 16 US military intelligence agencies. According to a leaked document obtained by Judicial Watch, the DIA wrote on August 12, 2012 that:

“there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist Principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime …”

This was written before ISIS came on to the world stage. Clearly ISIS was no random uprising, but rather a carefully groomed and orchestrated controlled opposition group.

The “supporting powers to the opposition” referred to are Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the GCC nations such as Qatar, who are in turn being supported by the US-UK-Israeli axis in their struggle to overthrow Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad. As I outlined in this article Syrian Ground War About to Begin? WW3 Inches Closer, the US is backing the Sunni nations while Russia, China and Iran are backing the Shia nations, so there is the definite potential for this to erupt into World War 3. Below are screenshots of the actual DIA document:



ISIS is a US-Israeli Creation: Indication #2: ISIS Never Attacks Israel

It is more than highly strange and suspicious that ISIS never attacks Israel – it is another indication that ISIS is controlled by Israel. If ISIS were a genuine and independent uprising that was not covertly orchestrated by the US and Israel, why would they not try to attack the Zionist regime, which has attacked almost of all of its Muslim neighbors ever since its inception in 1948? Israel has attacked Egypt, Syria and Lebanon, and of course has decimated Palestine. It has systemically tried to divide and conquer its Arab neighbors. It continually complains of Islamic terrorism. Yet, when ISIS comes on the scene as the bloody and barbaric king of Islamic terrorism, it finds no fault with Israel and sees no reason to target a regime which has perpetrated massive injustice against Muslims? This stretches credibility to a snapping point.

ISIS and Israel don’t attack each other – they help each other. Israel was treating ISIS soldiers and other anti-Assad rebels in its hospitals! Mortal enemies or best of friends?

ISIS US Israeli creation toyota akbar

ISIS US-Israeli creation toyota

ISIS is a US-Israeli Creation: Indication #3: Toyota Trucks

Where did ISIS get an entire fleet of matching Toyota pick-up trucks? Why do so many of its photo shots feature a fleet of matching Toyotas – matching in both model and color? As this Information Clearing House article humorously states:

“The official story is ISIS stole them from the “Good Terrorists” (Al Nusra), who were originally given their cool wheels by the US government. Which would seem to beg a couple of enquiries. Not least of which is – why are the US giving any terrorists matching fleets of luxury SUVs? And for that matter, how many fleets are we talking about?

So, exactly how many trucks did the US supply? Where are ISIS currently garaging this impressive collection? And why do they all have to be Toyotas? Is it a terrorist thing, or simply a US Govt preference? Do Toyota mind the brand-association? Or the fact that so many of the ISIS drive-by photo-ops look like perverted car ads?”

Some of these trucks were actually used vehicles that got sent from the US and Canada over to Syria. This Texan plumber discovered to his horror that his old truck was being used in the war, replete with his business name still on the door!

ISIS is a US-Israeli Creation: Indication #4: ISIS’ First Class Social Media Skills

The issue of the Toyotas leads us to the next question about ISIS. Who’s handling their publicity? How have they managed to get so many photos of Toyota truck drive bys? How have they managed to master Western social media so well to spread their message, propaganda and threats? How have they managed to produce slick videos depicting (fake) beheadings? How does a barbaric group of killers, who speak a language very different to English, who espouse fundamentalist, religious ideals (such as Sharia law), and often criticize all things Western, manage to develop such excellent social media skills?

ISIS is a US-Israeli Creation: Indication #5: Israeli Group SITE First to Release ISIS Footage

Another key giveaway that ISIS is a US-Israeli creation is that the Israeli group SITE (Search for International Terrorist Entities) are often the first to find and publicly release the video (as their co-founder Rita Katz has let slip on occasion). SITE was involved in the slew of fake green screen ISIS beheadings of 2014. Speaking of fake beheadhings, why did this fictional Turkish TV drama show a beheading just like that of ISIS?

ISIS is a US-Israeli Creation: Indication #6: ISIS Leader Baghdadi a Mossad Agent

Although this indication is hard to confirm, there were reports apparently originating from Edward Snowden that the leader of ISIS (Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi) was actually an Israeli Mossad agent by the name of Simon Elliot or Elliot Shimon: [GR Editor’s note: this source and quotation are yet to be fully verified, including the source originating from Eduard Snowden]

“Simon Elliot (Elliot Shimon) aka Al-Baghdadi was born of two Jewish parents and is a Mossad agent. We offer below three translations that want to assert that the Caliph Al-Baghdadi is a full Mossad agent and that he was born Jewish father and mother:

The real name of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is “Simon Elliott.” The so-called “Elliot” was recruited by the Israeli Mossad  and was trained in espionage and psychological warfare against Arab and Islamic societies. This information was attributed to Edward Snowden …”

Bashar Assad, President of Syria. The US has been actively plotting strategies to destabilize and overthrow his government.

ISIS is a US-Israeli Creation: Indication #7: Leaked Cables Showing US Plotting Syrian Overthrow

Julian Assange of Wikileaks did a great job in capturing information about what was happening in Syria years before the “Arab springs” and current war started in 2011. He reveals how William Roebuck, then chargé d’affaires at the US embassy in Damascus, was plotting to destablize the Syrian government. The following quotes from Roebuck’s cables to Washington show how he was outlining the vulnerabilities of Assad:

“– Vulnerability:

— THE ALLIANCE WITH TEHRAN: Bashar is walking a fine line in his increasingly strong relations with Iran, seeking necessary support while not completely alienating Syria,s moderate Sunni Arab neighbors by being perceived as aiding Persian and fundamentalist Shia interests. Bashar’s decision to not attend the Talabani ) Ahmadinejad summit in Tehran following FM Moallem,s trip to Iraq can be seen as a manifestation of Bashar’s sensitivity to the Arab optic on his Iranian alliance.

— Possible action:

— PLAY ON SUNNI FEARS OF IRANIAN INFLUENCE: There are fears in Syria that the Iranians are active in both Shia proselytizing and conversion of, mostly poor, Sunnis. Though often exaggerated, such fears reflect an element of the Sunni community in Syria that is increasingly upset by and focused on the spread of Iranian influence in their country through activities ranging from mosque construction to business. Both the local Egyptian and Saudi missions here, (as well as prominent Syrian Sunni religious leaders), are giving increasing attention to the matter and we should coordinate more closely with their governments on ways to better publicize and focus regional attention on the issue.”

ISIS is a US-Israeli Creation: Indication #8: Russia Bombs ISIS, US Protects ISIS

Before Russia militarily entered Syria, the US claims it was “attacking” ISIS, yet Russia was able to do in a few months what the US has been unable to do for years. Why? Is the US military that incompetent, or this is further proof that the US has been funding and supporting ISIS all this time? At one point there were even reports that US soldiers were told not to fire on ISIS targets, even if they had a clear view of them, as this Free Beacon article reports:

“U.S. military pilots who have returned from the fight against the Islamic State in Iraq are confirming that they were blocked from dropping 75 percent of their ordnance on terror targets because they could not get clearance to launch a strike, according to a leading member of Congress.”

Why did US State Department spokesman Mark Toner struggle to celebrate the fact that ISIS had lost Palmyra recently?

ISIS is a US-Israeli Creation: Indication #9: ISIS Always the Excuse for Further Intervention

Finally, consider this: why is ISIS always the perfect excuse for further military intervention in Syria? Given the history of foreign meddling in Syria, particularly by the US and Israel in the last 70 years, isn’t it rather convenient that the specter of ISIS is the justification offered for proposed no-fly zones, air strikes and ground troops? How would the US and Israel conquer the Middle East without their pet Frankenstein ISIS?

Share this article with those who haven’t yet awoken to the truth about ISIS. Many have already seen through the propaganda. Once enough of us do, the usefulness of this ridiculous, dangerous and vaudevillian terrorist group will expire – and maybe a critical mass of people will pull back the curtain and, for once, get a glimpse of the true puppetmasters.

Concluding Note

ISIS is a US-Israeli Creation: Indication #10: ISIS is an Acronym for Mossad. [The Israeli Secret Intelligence Service. Interesting Coincidence] 

ISIS itself is an acronym, not just for Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, but for Israeli Secret Intelligence Service! This is another way to describe the Mossad, the shady Zionist spy agency whose motto is “by way of deception, thou shalt do war”. In this video (below), the 2 authors being interviewed (Dan Raviv and Yossi Melman) admit that the acronym ISIS = Mossad.


Makia Freeman is the editor of alternative news / independent media site The Freedom Articles and senior researcher at (FaceBook here), writing on many aspects of truth and freedom, from exposing aspects of the worldwide conspiracy to suggesting solutions for how humanity can create a new system of peace and abundance.

Minor Editing by Global Research



Probing SITE Intelligence Group




Posted in Middle East, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on ISIS Is a US-Zionist Creation. Top Ten “Indications”

Foreign “Meddling” in Elections—Yankee Imperialist Style

Amid the unrelenting campaign by the Democrats and the media—backed by powerful sections of the US military and intelligence apparatus—to whip up hysteria over alleged Russian “meddling” in the 2016 US election, scant attention has been paid to the blatant meddling of US imperialism itself in the electoral processes of the countries south of the Rio Grande.

Involved in these operations are not a few tens of thousands of dollars in Facebook advertisements, alleged activities of social media bots and supposed “fake news”, but rather support for bloody repression, the systematic impoverishment of entire populations and preparations for military coups and outright US military intervention.

A principal case in point is Washington’s attempt to sabotage the upcoming presidential election in Venezuela, which had been scheduled for next month, but has now been pushed back until May 20 following negotiations between the government of President Nicolas Maduro and opposition parties.

Of course, none of this is new. US imperialism has rigged elections, funded candidates and parties and overthrown presidents it did not like—including Arbenz in Guatemala in 1954, Goulart in Brazil in 1964 and Allende in Chile in 1973—for over a century.

These methods are no means merely a regrettable legacy from some distant past. In Venezuela, the US is backing right-wing political figures who participated in the abortive 2002 coup against the late President Hugo Chavez, while openly appealing for a new military coup and threatening direct US intervention to topple his successor, Maduro.

Washington has denounced the Venezuelan election as a “sham” and “illegitimate” before it has even taken place. Despite the fact that the terms of the vote originally scheduled for April 22 were negotiated between the government and elements of the opposition—including the presence of UN election monitors—the Trump administration is treating it as a political crime that must be stopped at all costs.

Administration officials have told both Reuters and McClatchy news agencies that the White House, the National Security Council, the State Department and Treasury Department are all involved in active discussions on the imposition of sanctions on Venezuela’s oil industry that could lead the country’s already crisis-ridden economy to completely collapse.

Under consideration are not only a full-scale embargo on all Venezuelan oil shipments to the US—which constitutes a third of the country’s market—but also a ban on the sale of all US oil-related products to Venezuela and blocking insurance coverage for oil tankers moving Venezuelan oil.

The latter two measures could prove as crippling as an outright import ban, as the Venezuelan oil industry depends on the importation of US lighter crude oil and refined products to mix with its heavy crude to prepare it for export. And, without insurance, the country cannot ship its oil through international waters.

“The message is we will continue to ratchet up the pressure until the Maduro regime is removed and democracy is restored to Venezuela,” a senior administration official told McClatchy.

The strategy is clear. Venezuela’s economy must be brought to such a state of collapse that the military is induced to overthrow the government. Thus, the removal of an elected president, by means of starving the population and employing military force—either Venezuelan or US—constitutes for Washington the restoration of “democracy.”

Why is the Venezuelan election “illegitimate”? Apparently because it was boycotted by the MUD right-wing opposition coalition, which cited the early date selected for the vote, a date that had been agreed upon in negotiations between opposition figures and the government. The pushing back of the date by a month to placate the opposition has made no difference as far as the MUD leadership is concerned.

One prominent MUD official, Henri Falcon, the governor of the state of Lara, has decided to run against Maduro and agreed to the revised date for the election. In retaliation, the MUD leadership expelled him from the opposition coalition last week.

The MUD boycott is backed by Washington. The coalition does not want to participate in the election because it is likely to lose. While Maduro’s popular approval rating stands at roughly 25 percent—on a par with the deeply unpopular presidents Temer and Santos in neighboring Brazil and Colombia—the right-wing opposition is even more despised by masses of Venezuelans.

Both the ruling PSUV (United Socialist Party of Venezuela) and the MUD are bourgeois parties, representing rival factions of Venezuela’s financial and corporate elites. Maduro’s government has its principal pillar in the Venezuelan military and enjoys the backing of the so-called boliburguesia, a layer of corrupt officials and capitalists who have fattened off of financial speculation and government contracts.

While the limited social assistance programs associated with the rule of Chavez and Maduro have become increasingly hollowed out, as unemployment and prices rise, the MUD has proven incapable of harnessing popular anger among working people, who see the opposition coalition as the political instrument of the country’s traditional ruling oligarchy.

Washington is backing a boycott not only out of fear that the Venezuelan right cannot be counted on to defeat Maduro at the ballot box, but because it wants a far more sweeping change in the country than can be achieved in an election.

Image on the right is Rex Tillerson at the University of Texas

Image result for Tillerson in Latin america 2018

US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, the former CEO of ExxonMobil, which once exercised a monopoly over the exploitation of Venezuelan oil, expressed US preferences on the eve of his Latin American trip staged last month to drum up support for Maduro’s ouster.

“In the history of Venezuela and South American countries, it is often times that the military is the agent of change when things are so bad, and the leadership can no longer serve the people,” he told an audience at the University of Texas.

In the same address, Tillerson declared that the Monroe Doctrine “is as relevant today as it was the day it was written.”

This nearly 200-year-old canon of US foreign policy supposedly endowed Washington with the right to use force in preventing outside powers from establishing a foothold in the Western Hemisphere.

Initially invoked as a US policy of opposing any attempt by European empires to re-colonize newly independent countries in Latin America, it was turned into a declaration of a US sphere of influence and became the rationale for some 50 direct US military interventions along with a series of CIA-backed coups that imposed fascist-military dictatorships over much of the region in the second half of the 20th century.

The doctrine is once again being invoked—some four and a half years after being publicly repudiated by Tillerson’s predecessor John Kerry—to counter the rising influence of both China and Russia in a region long regarded by US imperialism as its own “backyard.”

China’s recent bid to extend its “One Belt, One Road” initiative to Latin America, with Beijing’s promise to the region of $500 billion in trade credits along with $250 billion in Chinese direct investment over the next decade, has been joined by Russia’s increased involvement, particularly in Venezuela, with the funneling of some $6 billion into the state-owned Petroleos de Venezuela in return for oil and petroleum assets, are seen as a strategic threat.

Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee last month, the head of Southcom, which oversees US military operations in Latin America, described the growing influence of China and Russia as his command’s “most significant concern.” While stating that the challenge posed in the region was “not yet” a military one, there is no doubt that US imperialism is preparing, just as elsewhere in the world, to counter the decline of its economic dominance by military means.

Venezuela is the foremost target of this military strategy because of its strategic petroleum reserves, estimated to be the largest of any country in the world. Washington is determined to restore its unfettered dominance over these resources—and deny them to China and Russia—something that can be achieved not by means of an election, but only through a military overthrow or intervention, the overturning of constitutional restrictions on foreign exploitation of Venezuelan oil and the savage repression of opposition within the population.

As always, the New York Times editorial board is operating in lockstep with the Pentagon and the CIA in the machinations of US imperialism in Latin America.

In its Sunday magazine section, the newspaper published a cover story dedicated to the extreme right-wing Venezuelan politician Leopoldo Lopez under the headline “Can Venezuela Be Saved?”

Casting Lopez as the embattled country’s Messiah says more about the real intentions of US imperialism than the man himself. The scion of one of Venezuela’s most aristocratic families, tracing its lineage back to the “liberator”-turned-dictator Bolivar, and with ministers in virtually every government since, Lopez is a representative of the most extreme right-wing political forces in the country.

He was arrested and sentenced to house arrest for his role in organizing a violent campaign in 2014 known as “La Salida”, or the exit, aimed at overthrowing the Maduro government in which 43 people lost their lives.

As a youth, he was reportedly influenced by the semi-fascist Catholic organization “Tradition Family and Property.” The graduate of an exclusive US prep school and Kenyon College in Ohio, Lopez went on to attend Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, an institution known for recruiting and grooming “assets” of the CIA and US imperialism all over the world.

His only elected office was that of mayor of Chacao, the center of the wealthy elite in the city of Caracas.

In 2002, Lopez was a direct participant in the abortive coup against Chavez, participating in the illegal detention of the minister of interior and justice and playing a key role in organizing a violent assault on the Cuban Embassy

In its obscenely hagiographic piece, the Times compares this extreme right-wing oligarch to Martin Luther King Jr., claiming that the slain American civil rights leader’s “Letter From Birmingham Jail” is one of his principal inspirations.

After weeks of speaking with the right-wing politician, the author of the Timesarticle, Will S. Hylton, declared it “jarring” to hear him declare his totally unsurprising support for a military coup as a viable “transition to democracy.”

Hylton writes, incredibly:

“On the spectrum of American politics, he would probably land in the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.”

There is, however, a grain of truth in this political characterization. Lopez and the “progressive wing of the Democratic Party” are in the same trench together with the Trump administration and its principal architect of Latin American policy, Republican Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, when it comes to Venezuela.

Last week, a group of 11 Democratic Senators introduced a resolution in the Senate that “denounces as illegitimate any presidential election in Venezuela that fails to meet the standards” demanded by Washington.

There could be no more naked “foreign meddling” in another country’s elections, reducing the unsubstantiated allegations against Russia to insignificance by comparison. Among the signatories is the self-described “socialist” and “independent” Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

The working class in the US must reject this kind of interventionism and its accompanying political hypocrisy with contempt. It is up to the working class of Venezuela to sweep away Maduro and the corrupt capitalist elements he represents, not the US military and intelligence apparatus.

Posted in VenezuelaComments Off on Foreign “Meddling” in Elections—Yankee Imperialist Style

Historic Defeat for Social Democrats in Italian Election


Right-wing parties benefit from anger over austerity, inequality

In the European Union’s fourth-largest country, amid mass poverty and unemployment and growing popular disaffection with the centre-left parties and their pseudo-left apologists, Sunday’s parliamentary election in Italy resulted in a historic defeat for the governing Democratic Party (PD) and a victory for the right-wing and extreme-right parties.

Italy’s desperate levels of social distress—with youth unemployment at 30 percent—are largely the product of policies pursued by centre-left governments. While right-wing governments under Silvio Berlusconi were characterised by unrestrained corruption, the names of the centre-left prime ministers—Romano Prodi, Massimo D’Alema and Matteo Renzi—are inseparably linked to social cuts and austerity directed against the working class.

The main beneficiaries of Sunday’s election were right-wing and far-right forces—above all, Beppe Grillo’s Five Star Movement and the racist Lega led by Matteo Salvini. At 73 percent, voter participation was relatively low by Italian standards.

The right-wing parties’ electoral victory has deepened the crisis of the European Union because the Five Star Movement and Lega are either critical or oppose Italy’s membership in the EU. Financial observers also fear that an extended government crisis could lead to the collapse of Italy’s fragile banking system.

No party or electoral alliance secured the majority required to govern.

The PD, the former governing party, won just 18.7 percent of the vote. It now holds only 105 of 630 seats in the Chamber of Deputies and 50 of 315 seats in the Senate. Free and Equal (LeU—Liberi e Uguali), a split-off from the PD led by anti-mafia state prosecutor Pietro Grasso, won just 3.4 percent of the vote.

Matteo Renzi declared his resignation as PD leader Monday evening. The alliance he led, which included a group around Giuseppe Pisapia (Insieme) and the pro-EU +Europa, won just 22.9 percent of the vote and came in third place behind Berlusconi’s right-wing alliance and Grillo’s Five Star Movement.

Matteo Salvini, leader of the Lega (formerly Lega Nord), asserted his claim to the post of prime minister on Monday.

His party has “the right and the duty to govern in the years to come,” said Salvini.

With 17.4 percent of the vote, Lega outperformed its alliance partner Forza Italia (14.0 percent), led by Silvio Berlusconi. The fascist Fratelli d’Italia (Brothers of Italy) of Georgia Meloni, which is also part of the alliance, won 4.3 percent.

With a total of 37 percent of the vote, this alliance emerged as the largest. Berlusconi announced his intention to appoint his party colleague Antonio Tajani as prime minister. Due to a conviction for tax avoidance, Berlusconi is no longer allowed to hold public office.

Instead, Salvini could become prime minister. After Hungary’s Viktor Orban, Austria’s Sebastian Kurzand the Czech Republic’s Andrej Babis, this would result in another notorious racist and xenophobe becoming head of government in the EU.

The Lega Nord emerged in the 1990s and campaigned for the separation of the richer northern parts of Italy, “Padania” in the Lega Nord’s propaganda, from the poorer south. Even then the party conducted virulently xenophobic campaigns. Under Salvini, the party expanded nationwide and adopted an anti-EU, far-right and racist programme modelled on Marine le Pen’s National Front in France.

However, the right-wing alliance will not be able to form a government without another coalition partner. It is also possible that the alliance will fall apart.

One option discussed prior to the election has been ruled out: a “grand coalition” of the PD and Berlusconi’s Forza Italia. The two parties, which have taken turns at the head of successive governments since the early 1990s, no longer even have a third of the vote between them.

Along with Salvini, Luigi de Maio, the lead candidate for the Five Star Movement, has also claimed the position of prime minister. With 32.7 percent of the vote, the Five Star Movement emerged as the strongest party and the winner of the election. It gained support in the impoverished South in particular.

A map of Italy, divided according to the party that won in each region, reveals a new kind of division: in the north the blue of the right-wing alliance can be seen everywhere, with two exceptions, Tuscany and South Tyrol, where the Democrats still have a base of support.

But in the South and Southeast there is only one winner: the Five Star Movement, which won 49 percent of the vote in Campania, 48 percent in Sicily, 44 percent in Apulia, 43 percent in Calabria and the Basilicata, and 42 percent in Sardinia. The M5S will control more than a third of the seats in parliament, with 225 of 630 in the Chamber of Deputies and over 100 in the 315-seat Senate.

The Five Star Movement exploited the fact that it has yet to join a government in Rome, and benefited above all from widespread dissatisfaction with the other parties. M5S, which pursues a hard-right course on refugee policy and the selection of its international allies, claims to be a party that is “neither left nor right.” M5S did well among young voters, who have only experienced governments led by the PD and Forza Italia while unemployment has destroyed entire regions and forced many young people to emigrate.

The 31-year-old de Maio attempted during the election campaign to present M5S as ready for government. He spoke in front of top businessmen and investors and downplayed his party’s traditional anti-EU stance. The party also eliminated a passage from its programme banning the formation of coalitions with other parties.

“It is time to enter government,” stated de Maio.

His party would not “leave Italy in chaos,” but would hold consultations with all political forces.

In the EU, the media and on financial markets, the Italian election result triggered unrest. On the same day that a decision in favour of a continuation of the Merkel government in Germany was finalised after more than five months, a new crisis broke out—in Italy.

Germany’s Süddeutsche Zeitung remarked that the election results were “bad for Italy and bad for Europe.” Since Brexit, “the third most important country in the EU, and once the most European friendly of all” now threatens “to go off the rails with an irrational, anti-European populism.” Handelsblatt warned,

“After the Italian election, the country risks a debt collapse.”

France’s Le Monde described the result as an “earthquake,” while la Depeche feared that Italy could become “an ungovernable country.”

Future developments are largely in the hands of President Sergio Materella, a 76-year-old jurist and PD politician. He is holding back-room talks with the political parties and will task one with forming the government, which, if successful, will have to secure Materella’s approval of the cabinet before it is voted on by parliament. An initial indication is expected on March 23, when parliament’s two chambers meet for the first time and elect their presidents.

The Italian election outcome is the result of the deep-going dissatisfaction among the population with all previous governments. The dominant feelings are anger and disappointment with parties that call themselves left but carry out the bidding of the banks and major corporations.

In Italy, Matteo Renzi and Paolo Gentiloni have imposed the dictates of the banks and corporations with the assistance of the Jobs Act labour market reform, the slashing of anti-poverty programs for the elderly and social spending cuts. They actively participated in NATO’s military build-up and the militarisation of the EU, and backed the war threats against Russia. In Libya, a former Italian colony, Foreign Minister Marco Minniti (PD) concluded a pact with the Libyan coastguard to block refugees from crossing the Mediterranean.

The PD’s electoral debacle is due above all to this right-wing, anti-worker record. Given the absence of a progressive and socialist alternative, right-wing parties were able to profit in the election.

The electoral alliance Potere al Popolo (Power to the People, PaP), secured just 1 percent of the vote. Having served as a fig leaf for right-wing governments for years, the pseudo-left is no longer capable of presenting itself as an alternative. Its role models include Alexis Tsipras of Syriza, who as Greek prime minister has imposed a vicious austerity programme.

Posted in ItalyComments Off on Historic Defeat for Social Democrats in Italian Election

Iran to US: So, you want to talk about nukes?


Iran has recently sent US officials a fairly legitimate proposal on how dialogue is possible with respect to nuclear programs. They said:

“The condition for negotiating Iran’s missiles is the destruction of the nuclear weapons and long-range missiles of the United States and Europe.”[1]

Iranian officials have obviously grown wary of the United States. Why? Because US and Israeli officials have a history of playing double standards in the political landscape.

Remember what they did to Iran in 1953? Remember the Anglo-American coup, which literally ruined the political order in Iran? Mark Dankof and I have repeatedly discussed these issues in the past.

Iranian officials are obviously taking precautions. They are also watching US officials very closely. If US officials do not offer something that is conducive to the moral and political order, Iran doesn’t seem that they will abide by it. As one Iranian official has recently said:

“The US is trying to pressure us into withdrawing from the nuclear deal, but we will not fall into their trap. If the US withdraws, no country would hold negotiations with them any longer.”[2]

The US certainly cannot continue on perpetual wars and perpetual conflicts any longer. They need to give Iran a chance; they need to stop listening to the Israeli regime and allow frank dialogue in the political landscape. Why?

Former secretary of defense Robert Gates declared in 2012 that a strike on Iran would be catastrophic for the U.S., “haunting us for generations in that part of the world.” Not only that, Gates saw that Israel, the supposed ally, was pushing that war, which led him to say that Israel is “an ungrateful ally.” The Neoconservative machine was on the frontline chastising Gates for his comments.[3]

As I have argued in the past, Iran is not and has never been a threat to the United States or Israel. Both the US and Israel have their roots firmly planted in contradictions and double standards, and that is where the real problem begins and ends.

For example, Iran has already signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty, but Israel hasn’t; Iran allows inspections, Israel does not allow any inspections whatsoever. Israel does not even want to discuss the issue.[4]

Both the US and Israel want to live in a world where double standards and contradictions are the norm. They do not want to apply consistency in the political landscape. The sad thing is that they cannot see why Iranian officials are frustrating. What can one conclude from this?

Double standards, blatant contradictions, and inconsistencies are infallible signs of a failing system. And this has been my frustration with those who cannot take time to address the contradictory nature of their own system.

For example, I have thoroughly addressed some of Darwin’s blatant contradictions in a previous article. I even pointed out exactly what Darwin’s admirers have to do in order to make their ideas rational, coherent, and rigorous, and philosophically sound. Instead of addressing those issues in a logical fashion, I was accused by Lasha of “confusing Darwinism with Dawkinism”!

Once again, she built a straw man and a red herring and demolished it with great delight with statements like: “This is a monstrous logical error.” Throughout the previous article, I pointed out where Darwin himself was being inconsistent. I even pointed out that Darwin was inevitably building a case for Zionism when he said things like:

“Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows.”

No one, including Lasha, has been able to explain this phenomenon. We are constantly bombarded with one straw man and red herring after another, such as the following: “The mistake Jonas keeps making is his assumption that there is only one type of Darwinism.”

Where did I even remotely suggest that there is only one type of Darwinism? Why did I laboriously cite numerous scholarly and independent sources? And why did I spend time addressing where the central issues are? Sigh…But it gets even worse:

“Jonas therefore, it seems to me, has the unfortunate tendency of holding Darwin responsible for every single statement made by the dangerous disciples and spin merchants of Darwin.”

That is really disappointing precisely because I have never even hinted that all Darwinists are the same. It seems to me that all those statements are desperate attempts to evade the central issues.

I simply could not hold my laughter when I read the following statement: “Speaking for myself, I would be flattered if the renowned Richard Dawkins were to take notice of my existence and call me ‘wicked.’ I would be tickled pink. And I would at once forgive him for calling me ignorant, stupid and insane.”

Come on, Lasha. So calling someone “wicked” or “stupid” or “insane” is better than calling someone “cowards” or “intellectually dishonest”? Wasn’t Jonas E. Alexis the new bad guy on the block for using “cowards”? Are we being consistent here? Dawkins can be forgiven but Jonas E. Alexis has committed an unpardonable sin?

When Dawkins was criticized for using sophomoric arguments, Lasha responded by saying that “The people who say these bad things about Dawkins are who exactly? Nonentities. Second raters. Relatively untalented ranters probably a bit jealous of Dawkins’ outstanding achievements and accomplishments: his scientific expertise, his genuinely religious awe for the mysteries and marvels of our universe, and his rare gift for rhetoric.”

This is intellectually irresponsible. It is discouraging because the people who made the accusations meticulously pointed out where Dawkins was acting like a sophomore. What’s so amazing is that I cited the sources where Lasha could have discovered for herself where Dawkins was acting like sophomore. Let me produce just one example out of more than a dozen. Dawkins declares in River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life that

“The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”[5]

River Out of Eden was written in 1995. In 2006, Dawkins unequivocally said in chapter 2 of his God Delusion:

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we just dance to its music.”[6]

I thought there was no evil? I thought the universe has “nothing but pitiless indifference”? Could it be that the God of the Old Testament was just dancing to his DNA? Does one need to be a philosopher to detect some of those basic errors? And how can Lasha even declare that people who point out those errors are “second raters”?

I simply cannot take time to respond to all the logical errors that Lasha has recently propounded. Let me conclude by saying that the world is in a mess because many people want to live in a matrix where irrationality and blatant contradictions are revered and cherished. If we are going to criticize US foreign policy and Jewish ideological movements for their inconsistencies, shouldn’t we provide a rigorous system where contradictions aren’t accepted?

“And don’t you think that being deceived about the truth is a bad thing, while having a grasp of the truth is good? And don’t you think that having a grasp of the truth is having a belief that matches the way things are?”[7]—Plato

I am done with this discussion.

  • [1] “Iran to US: Surrender your nukes and then we’ll talk missiles,” Russia Today, March 3, 2018.
  • [2] Ibid.
  • [3] Elliott Abrams, “Bob Gates and Israel: There He Goes Again,” Weekly Standard, October 5, 2012.
  • [4] Patrick B. Pexton, “What About Israel’s Nuclear Weapons?,” Washington Post, August 31, 2012.
  • [5] Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life (New York: Basic Books, 1995), 133.
  • [6] Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (New York: Mariner Books, 2006), 51.
  • [7] Plato, The Republic (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 116.

Posted in USA, IranComments Off on Iran to US: So, you want to talk about nukes?

How Western Media completely missed Putin’s ‘Listen to Us Now’ remarks


… from Southfront

President Putin’s remarks on Russia’s progress in its nuclear rearmament have sparked panic in the West about Moscow’s supposed plans to kick off an arms race and start a new Cold War. But what observers ignored was the core of his message – that it was the West itself that forced Russia to build up its capabilities amid endless provocations.

Vladimir Putin has made it crystal clear that Moscow is on the defensive, years after fruitlessly asking its Western ‘partners’ to stop encircling Russia with a web of strategic weapons, bases and power-changing conflicts – from the Middle East to Eastern Europe.

Commenting on the president’s “Nobody wanted to listen to us. So listen now,” remarks, which accompanied the new strategic weapons unveiled in his Thursday speech, the Guardian and Voice of America accusedPutin of “threatening” the US with an arms race, while The Washington Post charged the Russian leader with digging up “chilling echoes” of the Cold War.

The Pentagon boasted that it was “ready” to react to “anything that may come our way.” The White House, in turn, accused Moscow of “developing destabilizing weapon systems…in direct violation of its treaty obligations.”

  • The Guardian screengrab
  • VOA screengrab
  • The Washington Post screengrab

In Thursday’s speech, Putin recalled a warning he made in 2004 to build a new generation of strategic weapons to counter the deployment of the US global missile defense system.

“As you can see, we made no secret of our plans and spoke about them openly, primarily to encourage our partners into holding talks. Let me repeat, this was in 2004,” Putin emphasized. Unfortunately, notwithstanding Moscow’s status as a nuclear power, “nobody really wanted to talk to us about the core of the problem. Nobody wanted to listen to us. So listen now,” he quipped, before moving on to a series of presentations about Russia’s latest strategic weapons.

For any mainstream media giants who would like to blame Russia’s new weapons for being the opening shot in a Cold War 2.0 confrontation, there are a few things worth bearing in mind.

#1: It wasn’t Moscow that withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002 and began to deploy a missile defense system on its strategic rival’s western borders, under the pretense of an imaginary threat from Iran.

In 2016, Putin recalled that Washington had continued its missile defense buildup in Poland and Romania even after the signing of the Iranian nuclear deal in 2015, thus dispelling any pretense that the system was a response to any sort of Iranian threat.

Pointing out that Moscow had made a series of proposals to Washington on the creation of a joint missile defense shield, Putin pointed out that all of Russia’s proposals “were rejected…Everything is done unilaterally, without taking into account our concerns.”

The US Army Corps of Engineers Europe District is managing the construction of a $134 million Aegis Ashore Missile Defense Complex in Deveselu, Romania
The US Army Corps of Engineers Europe District is managing the construction of a $134 million Aegis Ashore Missile Defense Complex in Deveselu, Romania

In what can now be seen as an obvious nod to the strategic weapons which were unveiled this week, Putin emphasized in his 2016 remarks that Moscow would not allow itself to be dragged into an arms race, but would “go our own way, working very carefully, without exceeding the plans on financing of the rearmament program we already have. But we will adjust these plans to account for the emerging threats to Russia’s security.

2#: It’s the US and NATO which have been encroaching on Russia’s borders and ringing the country with military bases, not the other way around.

The Western alliance has long forgotten the promises it made to Moscow in the early 1990s not to expand eastward, pushing further and further east in several waves in 2000, 2004, 2009 and 2017, and eyeing the prospects of alliance membership for Georgia, Finland, and Sweden.

The 2014 Maidan coup d’état in Kiev only heightened Russian concerns, bringing the prospect of NATO troops and weaponry stationed in the Russian heartland one step closer to reality.

Map of Cold War military alliances in Europe. Since the Soviet collapse, NATO has swallowed up every country that was once part of the Warsaw Pact, and even began advancing into the former USSR itself.
Map of Cold War military alliances in Europe. Since the Soviet collapse, NATO has swallowed up every country that was once part of the Warsaw Pact, and even began advancing into the former USSR itself.


#3: It’s the US, not Russia, which recently adopted a dangerous Nuclear Posture Review approving the use of nuclear weapons to react to non-nuclear threats, up to and including cyber threats.

President Putin said as much in Thursday’s speech, stressing that Russia was “greatly concerned” by the document’s implications, and warning that the new doctrine “reduces the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons.”

“I should note that under our country’s military doctrine, Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons solely in response to a nuclear attack, or an attack with other weapons of mass destruction against our country or its allies, or an act of aggression against us using conventional weapons which threatens the very existence of the state,” Putin emphasized.

RS-24 Yars
RS-24 Yars


4#: Unlike Washington, Moscow has not spent the last two and a half decades attempting to establish a unipolar world order through the use of military force, from Yugoslavia and Afghanistan to Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Syria and elsewhere.

Putin summed up Moscow’s pursuit of new strategic weapons systems in Thursday’s speech:

“We are not threatening anyone, aren’t going to attack anyone or take anything from anyone by threat of arms….Just the opposite…Russia’s growing military power is a solid guarantee of global peace, as it preserves and will continue to preserve strategic parity and the balance of forces in the world, which, as is well-known, has been and remains a key factor of international security after WWII and up to the present day.”

US soldiers stand near the landmark Hands of Victory, built by executed Iraqi president Saddam Hussein to commemorate Iraq's victory in the Iran-Iraq war, inside Baghdad's Green Zone as they prepare to go on a mission on July 5, 2008
US soldiers stand near the landmark “Hands of Victory”, built by executed Iraqi president Saddam Hussein to commemorate Iraq’s victory in the Iran-Iraq war, inside Baghdad’s Green Zone as they prepare to go on a mission on July 5, 2008

Posted in Media, RussiaComments Off on How Western Media completely missed Putin’s ‘Listen to Us Now’ remarks

Linda Sarsour arrested at Paul Ryan’s office

Linda Sarsour seen arrested and led away by police in Capitol Hill, Washington, March 05 2018. [Linda Sarsour/Twitter]
Provided by Al Jazeera Linda Sarsour seen arrested and led away by police in Capitol Hill, Washington, March 05 2018. [Linda Sarsour/Twitter]

Muslim-American leaders have been arrested at the US Capitol while urging Congress to stand against President Donald Trump‘s effort to end a programme that protects certain young immigrants.

Omar Suleiman, Dawud Walid, Mujahid Fletcher, Talib Shareef and Nihad Awad of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Zahra Billoo, and Linda Sarsour advocated immigration reform before getting arrested on Monday.

The protesters participated in an act of civil disobedience at the office of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Paul Ryan, demanding that he meet them to hear their concerns.


Demonstrations have taken place in major cities across the US in support of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) programme that protects young undocumented immigrants from deportations.

Fletcher, who also came to the US as a child from Columbia, said he shared the experience of the Dreamers, people who came into the US illegally as children.

“We don’t want to live based on fear. We want to live according to the principles of freedom of speech, of religion,” he said.

Trump has long desired to end renewal applications for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) programme. Its recipients, known as the Dreamers, were thrown into legal uncertainty after Trump moved last year to end the programme, which protects hundreds of thousands of Dreamers.

Trump gave legislators until yesterday, March 5 to come up with a replacement, before a Supreme Court ruling delayed that deadline for as much as a year.

He has been locked in bitter negotiations with Democrats about replacing the programme in exchange for a raft of immigration overhauls that would end other avenues of legal immigration.

Muslims For Dream

Quoting Malcolm X, Talib Shareef of the Muslim Alliance of North America said: “Almighty Allah has told us to stand for justice. We are not weak in faith and we are here for a mobilization.

“We stand here in the spirit of Malcolm X with the people who are affected by these policies.”

“This is creating real fear,” Suleiman said, adding that the imams are fighting white supremacy because Islamophobia, racism and hostility against immigrants all stem from the same roots.

Posted in USA, Human RightsComments Off on Linda Sarsour arrested at Paul Ryan’s office

Nazi regime plan to retool occupation includes color-coding ‘good’ and ‘bad’ Palestinians

Israel’s plan to retool occupation includes color-coding ‘good’ and ‘bad’ Palestinians

Launched this month, as much of the world was on holiday, Avigdor Lieberman’s plan for the Palestinians – retooling Israel’s occupation – received less attention than it should.

Defence minister since May, Lieberman has been itching to accelerate Israel’s annexation by stealth of the West Bank.

His “carrot and stick” plan has three components. First, he intends to sideline the Palestinian Authority in favor of a new local leadership of “notables” hand-picked by Israel.

Preferring to “cut out the middle man”, in his words, he will open a dialogue with supposedly more responsible Palestinians – business people, academics and mayors.

Next, he has established a new communications unit that will speak in Arabic over the heads of the PA in the West Bank and its Hamas rivals in Gaza directly to ordinary Palestinians.

An online campaign – budgeted at $2.6 million – will seek to convince them of Israel’s good intentions. The Palestinians’ problems, according to Lieberman, derive from corrupt and inciteful national leaderships, not the occupation.

And finally, his defense ministry will produce a map of the West Bank marking in green and red the areas where, respectively, “good” and “bad” Palestinians live.

Collective punishment will be stepped up in towns and villages in red areas, from which Palestinian attacks have been launched. Presumably night raids and house demolitions will increase, while closures will further curtail freedom of movement.

Palestinians in green areas will reap economic rewards for their good behavior. They will be given work permits in Israel and the settlements, and benefit from development projects, including the creation of Israeli-controlled industrial zones.

This week the Haaretz daily reported that Lieberman is convinced that all the Palestinians can be attributed to Abbas’ “reign of corruption”. In briefings he has stated that the Palestinian leader “doesn’t want to deal with problems of economics and employment. The entire system of management there has failed.”

It sounds like the musings of a 19th century colonial official on how best to prevent the natives turning restless. Ahmed Majdalani, an adviser to Mahmoud Abbas, told the Israeli media the new arrangements assumed Palestinans were “stupid and lacking self-respect” and could be “bought with economic perks”.

Lieberman’s longer-term goal is to persuade Palestinians – and the international community – that their aspirations for self-determination are unattainable and counter-productive

Israel has tried that approach before, as Palestinian officials pointed out. Decades ago, Israel sought to manage the occupation by imposing on the local population Palestinian collaborators, termed “Village Leagues”. Armed by the Israeli military, they were supposed to stamp out political activism and support for the PLO.

By the early 1980s the experiment had to be abandoned, as Palestinians refused to accept the leagues’ corrupt and self-serving rule. An uprising, the first intifada, followed a short time later.

Israel’s agreement to the PA’s creation under the Oslo accords in the mid-1990s was, in part, an acceptance that the occupied territories needed a more credible security contractor, this time in the form of the Palestinian national leadership.

Whatever Lieberman and others claim, the Palestinian leaderships in the West Bank and Gaza are the last parties to blame for the recent wave of Palestinian unrest. The attacks have been mostly carried out spontaneously by “lone wolves”, not organised groups. Many occur in Jerusalem, from which all political activity is barred.

Abbas has described the “security coordination” with Israel as “sacred”, aware that his PA will not survive long if it does not demonstrate its usefulness to Israel. His security services have subdued Palestinian resistance more effectively than the Israeli army.

Bereft of regional allies and a credible strategy, even Hamas have chosen quiet since Israel launched Operation Protective Edge, its lethal wrecking spree in Gaza in 2014. It has kept the tiny coastal enclave locked down. Rocket fire – one of the few remaining, if largely symbolic, ways to confront Israel – all but ceased long ago.

The silence from Gaza was briefly disturbed a week ago by a rocket fired by a small ISIL-linked group. Despite Hamas’s disavowal of the attack, Lieberman demonstrated his new big stick by bombarding government sites in Gaza in a show of force unseen over the past two years.

The futility of this approach – blaming the official leaderships for the roiling frustration and resentment of those they formally lead – should be self-evident.

Ordinary Palestinians, not officials, endure the endless expansion of settlements and the resulting takeover of their agricultural lands. Ordinary Palestinians, not their leaders, face daily abuses at checkpoints and in military raids. Reports at the weekend suggested soldiers were deliberately kneecapping youths at protests to permanently disable them.

Round-ups, torture, military courts that always find the accused guilty – these are the rites of passage for Palestinians in the West Bank. For Palestinians in Gaza, it is slow starvation, homelessness and a random missile rain of death.

An Israeli strategy that failed decades ago – before the PA even existed – is not going to succeed now. Social media campaigns and paltry handouts will not persuade Palestinians they are nothing more than a humanitarian problem.

They are not about to shelve their dreams of liberation just because Lieberman color-codes them in red and green.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Nazi regime plan to retool occupation includes color-coding ‘good’ and ‘bad’ Palestinians

Catholic Archbishop Says Pedophilia Is ‘Spiritual Encounter With God’

A high-ranking Catholic Church archbishop says sexually abused children can experience "a spiritual encounter with God through the priest".

One of the highest-ranking officials in the Catholic Church says sexually abused children can experience “a spiritual encounter with God through the priest” while being molested.

Australia’s most powerful clergy, Archbishop of Melbourne Denis Hart, says the Catholic practice of confession is satisfactory for dealing with pedophilia in the church as it helps priests absolve “their own guilt” after sexually abusing children.

Asked whether he was prepared to be jailed for failing to report child sex abuse by Catholic pedophile priests, Archbishop Hart confirmed he was willing to serve prison time.  He also claimed the right to cover for pedophiles in the church is an “absolutely sacrosanct communication of a higher order.

He made the shocking statement in response to the Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse which stated there should be “no excuse, protection nor privilege” for Catholic clergy who failed to alert police of abuse within the church.

But Archbishop Hart disagreed and insisted that sexual abuse was “a spiritual encounter with God through the priest” and was “of a higher order” than criminal law.

A new report by the commission proposed 85 sweeping changes to the criminal justice system and recommended that priests face criminal charges for failing to report serious crimes such as sexual abuse to the police.

As the law currently stands, clergy are not legally obliged to report crimes to the police and disciplinary proceedings for criminal activity by members of the Catholic Church are handled internally by Canon law, which operates independently of the regular legal procedure.

RELATED: Judge Cuts Pedophile’s Prison Sentence Claiming 3-Year-Old Child ‘Asked To Be Raped’

Following an investigation by the commission, officials believe that the Catholic Church is using “confessional confidentiality” as a cover for not reporting child sex abuse by active pedophiles to the authorities.

We understand the significance of religious confession – in particular, the inviolability of the confessional seal to people of some faiths, particularly the Catholic faith”, said the report. “However, we heard evidence of a number of instances where disclosures of child sexual abuse were made in religious confession, by both victims and perpetrators.

We are satisfied that confession is a forum where Catholic children have disclosed their sexual abuse and where clergy have disclosed their abusive behavior in order to deal with their own guilt.”

Asked on Tuesday if he would rather go to prison than breach the seal of confession, he told ABC Radio Melbourne:

I’ve said that I would. I believe that this is an absolutely sacrosanct communication of a higher order.

Posted in Education, PoliticsComments Off on Catholic Archbishop Says Pedophilia Is ‘Spiritual Encounter With God’

US Wants Inter-Korean Thaw Undermined


Featured image: Kim Jong-nam


Washington has been hostile toward North Korea throughout the entire post-WW II era because of its sovereign independence – not for any threat the country poses.

The DPRK never attacked another nation throughout its entire history, threatening none now.

Unless provoked to believe its security is gravely threatened, there’s isn’t the remotest possibility it would attack another country.

If Washington and the West had normalized relations with Pyongyang, respecting its sovereignty, its leadership never would have pursued the development of nuclear and intercontinental ballistic missiles.

They’re solely for defense against a genuine threat posed by Washington, not for preemptive war against any nation.

US administrations from Truman to Trump bear full responsibility for adversarial relations – the way Washington treats all sovereign independent countries, on its target list for regime change, naked aggression its favored strategy.

America’s longstanding record of endless wars against one country after another is clear evidence of the menace it poses – to North Korea, all other sovereign independent nations and humanity.

In the run-up to the February Winter Olympics, Pyongyang extended diplomatic outreach to Seoul, reciprocated in kind.

On Monday and Tuesday, North and South Korean officials met in Pyongyang, the first high-level talks between both countries in over a decade, discussed in a same-day article.

An April summit was announced between Kim Jong-un and Moon Jae-in, details to follow. Both countries want peace, Washington’s rage for war and regime the major obstacle to ending decades of brinkmanship on the Korean peninsula.

The DPRK expressed willingness to denuclearize if guaranteed security, a near-unattainable objective given unrelenting US hostility toward its government.

Earlier Pyongyang diplomatic efforts were undermined by Washington, DPRK leadership falsely blamed, the way US administrations operate.

Dirty tricks, double-dealing, and other deceitful actions are longstanding imperial tactics.

Washington took an initial step to undermine efforts between North and South Korea to normalize relations.

New illegal US sanctions were announced, likely more coming, perhaps an embargo on oil imports ahead, what North Korea calls a declaration of war if imposed.

The Trump administration’s phony pretext was claiming DPRK use of chemical weapons and the February 2017 killing of Kim Jong-nam – North Korean leader Kim Jong-un’s paternal half brother.

The bizarre incident at Kuala Lumpur’s airport was captured on security camera videotape for the whole world to see – an obvious red flag.

Malaysian authorities said he died from VX poisoning, a banned lethal nerve agent.

At one time, he was considered heir apparent to his father, Kim Jong-il, later exiled in 2003 after falling out of favor with the ruling authorities.

An anti-North Korea media blitzkrieg followed his killing. No credible evidence suggested he planned returning to challenge Kim Jong-un’s leadership.

He was an obscure figure. What possible motive could North Korean authorities have had for wanting him eliminated – let alone by public execution, providing red meat for US-led Western vilification of its government.

At the time, senior North Korean representatives were preparing to come to New York to meet with former US officials, a chance for both sides to discuss differences diplomatically, hopefully leading to direct talks with Trump officials.

Why would Pyongyang want Kim Jong-nam killed at this potentially sensitive time, knowing it would be blamed for the incident, talks likely cancelled – precisely what happened!

Pyongyang denied involvement in Kim Jong-nam’s death. Its government is still unjustly blamed for what happened.

An opportunity for possible DPRK/US thaw was lost. New US sanctions on Pyongyang come in response to a North/South thaw, including an April summit between their leaders.

Clearly it’s a Trump administration attempt to undermine stepping back from the brink on the Korean peninsula – wanting longstanding hostility toward the DPRK unchanged, its government falsely blamed for unacceptable US actions.

Posted in USA, North Korea, South KoreaComments Off on US Wants Inter-Korean Thaw Undermined

The Starvation of Yemen and the Saudis’ ‘Cynical P.R. Exercise’

Aid groups once again denounce the Saudi “aid” efforts in Yemen as nothing more than a “cynical P.R. exercise”:

At the centre of accusations levelled against the British and US-backed strategy is the claim that, despite Saudi Arabia’s promise to open the key port of Hodeidah – a city of 400,000 largely controlled by Houthi rebels and closest to the areas of direst need – the plan actually perpetuates the Saudi choke on imports there.

The Saudi-led coalition has been using its blockade to try to starve Yemen into submission for almost three years now. They keep commercial imports out of Hodeidah because they want to strangle the areas of the country that continue to resist them, and they don’t care if that leads to mass starvation. It should not come as a shock to anyone that their plan to “help” Yemenis is an attempt to distract attention from what they continue to do to the civilian population. The Saudis and their allies are not the least bit interested in alleviating the terrible conditions in Yemen, but they want to appear as if they are so that their Western patrons don’t face as much political pressure to end support for the war. No one should be fooled into believing that the Saudi-led coalition’s “humanitarian” plan is anything more than a fig leaf to cover the horrifying reality of what they have done and what they continue to do to the people of Yemen.

The report continues:

Critics have highlighted the plan’s almost total failure to address the key demand that Saudi open the ports of Hodeidah and Saleef to commercial traffic and aid shipments. Agencies say this is required to relieve the threat of starvation in the large areas controlled by Houthi rebels.

There are also concerns about a section of the Saudi plan suggesting further strengthening of the existing UN arms inspection regime, designed to prevent what Saudi claims are Iranian arms shipments to the Houthis. Critics say such checks would further slow traffic through ports.

“The Saudi humanitarian support package is rather like a torturer following a session of pain-inducing activity bringing his victim a cup of coffee,” said Andrew Mitchell, the Tory MP and former international development secretary [bold mine-DL].

When Mohammed bin Salman comes to the U.S. later this month, he needs to be confronted about the grave crimes that his government and its allies are committing against the civilian population of Yemen.


War Crimes and Genocide in Yemen: Death, Destruction, Starvation
Canada Should Follow Germany’s Example and Halt Arms Sales to Saudi Arabia
Yemen Is Today’s Guernica
Over 700 Yemeni Civilians Killed and Wounded by US-backed Saudi Airstrikes in December
Pentagon Admits Presence of US Troops in Yemen as Cholera Cases Top One Million






Posted in Saudi Arabia, YemenComments Off on The Starvation of Yemen and the Saudis’ ‘Cynical P.R. Exercise’

Shoah’s pages