• Ukraine defense minister warns of ‘great war’ in Europe
    Ukraine defense minister warns of ‘great war’ in Europe By presstv Ukrainian Defense Minister Valeriy Geletey has warned of an impending “great war” in Europe as the conflict escalates between Ukraine, backed by its Western allies, and Russia.“A great war has arrived at our doorstep -- the likes of which Europe has not seen since World War II. Unfortunately, the losses in such a war will be measured not in the hundreds but thousands and tens of thousands,” Geletey wrote in a message posted on his Facebook page on Monday.    He further claimed that “hundreds of Russian soldiers and officers have permanently entered Ukraine's (eastern) 'black earth' region.”Geletey made the comments a day after alleging that Russian troops were moving in the main cities of Lugansk and Donetsk.    President Petro Poroshenko, also, told military cadets in Kiev on Monday that “the situation has aggravated in recent days - there is direct, overt aggression against Ukraine from the neighboring state.”Ukraine’s army forces retreated from the airport of the eastern city of Lugansk as well as a nearby village on Monday after an hours-long battle against a “reinforced tank battalion of the Russian armed forces,” according to security spokesman Andriy Lysenko.Since Kiev launched military operations to silence the pro-Russia protesters in mid-April, Ukraine’s mainly Russian-speaking regions in the country’s east have witnessed deadly clashes between pro-Moscow forces and the Ukrainian army.Violence intensified in May after the two flashpoint regions of Donetsk and Luhansk held local referendums, in which their residents voted overwhelmingly in favor of independence from Ukraine.Kiev and its Western allies accuse Russia of fueling the crisis in east Ukraine, but Moscow has repeatedly denied the allegations and criticized its Western neighbor for the heavy crackdown on the pro-Russia protesters in the region.MR/AB/HMV
  • Return of the Evil Empire
    Return of the Evil Empire The U.S. Owns the Narrative on Ukraine September 01, 2014 by JASON HIRTHLER   "Counter Punch" You have to hand it to them. The United States media machine is unequaled at producing and disseminating misinformation. It begins in the bowels of the State Department or White House or Pentagon and is filtered out through the government’s front organizations, otherwise known as Mainstream Media (MSM).In 2014 the U.S. has succeeded in demonizing Vladimir Putin and Russia, precipitating a New Cold War that may yet become a hot one. The evil empire is back. The White House has made proficient use of mass media propaganda to get the job done. First, they’ve controlled the narrative. This is critical for two reasons: one, because it permits the White House to sweep the February coup in Kiev into the dustbin of American memory, never to be seen again. Second, it has allowed it to swiftly assert its claim that Russia is a dangerously expansionist power on the edges of a serene and peace-loving Europe. In other words, the omission of one fact and commission of another.On the former front, by the State Department’s own concession, it spent some $5 billion in Ukraine, fomenting dissent under the standard guise of democracy promotion. The myriad NGOs beneath the nefarious cloud of the National Endowment for Democracy are little more than Trojan horses through which the State Department can launch subversive activities on foreign turf. We don’t know all the surely insidious details of the putsch, but there are suggestions that the violence was staged by and on behalf of the groups that now sit in power, including bickering neofascists that were foolishly handed the nation’s security portfolio.begging slogans3On the latter end, a frightful portrait of a revanchist Russia will be presented for public consumption. But consider the context before you consign Putin to the sordid annals of imperial tyrants. A belligerent superpower arrives on your doorstep by fostering a violent coup in a neighboring nation with the obvious intent of ensuring Kiev accepts an IMF deal rather than a better Russian one, and further that Ukraine become the newest and perhaps decisive outpost of NATO. Had you been in his shoes, would you have permitted an illegitimate, Western-infiltrated government to challenge the integrity of your Black Sea naval base at Sevastopol? Doubtful.Crimeans swiftly organized a secession vote—swiftly denounced as fraud by Western media (with some credence, it should be added). Given their Russian ethnic profile and quite credible fears of oppression from Kiev, whose nationalist bully boys were already posturing about eviscerating Russian citizens rights, Russia’s annexation of Crimea is certainly understandable to minds not saturated in Western propaganda.And yet the majority of the West, meaning the U.S. and Europe, seem content with this narrative of a recrudescent Russian empire with imperial designs on Europe. The White House has successfully characterized Russia as the Slavic aggressor while sweeping NATO’s undeniably hostile behavior beneath the rug of its false rectitude. Claims of the need to defend another nation’s “sovereignty” are always a bit rich coming from the White House. Yet the rhetoric of outrage streams forth from Washington, and it sometimes seems the principal qualification for a high-level appointment in an American administration is the capacity for a blithe hypocrisy that brooks no irony.This is no surprise. A sophisticated doctrinal system adept at manufacturing consent will succeed less by what it asserts than by what it leaves out. The facts omitted are always inconvenient ones. Among other missing pieces of the story currently being peddled by the MSM, is the issue of NATO’s raison d’être, which vanished with the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and the dissolution of the USSR. No matter, it has swiftly refashioned its mandate into a rapid-reaction force ready to descend on flashpoints around the globe, like Serbia and Libya and Afghanistan. Despite promises to the contrary, it has essentially worked to bring all the former Warsaw Pact countries into its U.S.-dominated embrace. The goal is self-evident: put missiles on Russia’s doorstep, the better to alienate Moscow from Berlin and ensure that Washington isn’t left out in the cold by its rivals.If recent history weren’t sufficient to lay plain NATO’s blueprint of aggression, consider the behavior of its chief spokesman, NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, a frothing hawk who yesterday announced plans for a large and permanent military presence in Poland and the Baltics. Ready with prefabricated war motifs, Rasmussen said the plan was to deploy, “…what I would call a spearhead within [a] response force at very, very, high readiness.” He generously conceded that such a rapid response unit would require “supplies, equipment, preparation of infrastructure, bases, headquarters. The bottom line is you will in the future see a more visible NATO presence in the east.”Sounds like war footing. Sounds like chest-thumping, drum-beating posturing. Sounds like NATO baiting the Russia Bear. No doubt it hopes to lure Moscow into aggressive actions with which it can a) quickly smear Putin in the MSM, and b) use to rationalize a massive arsenal in eastern Europe.Note that Rasmussen’s pronouncement was no doubt timed to coincide with a tête-à-têtebetween Putin and Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in Minsk, Belarus. What purpose exactly did the stillborn summit serve, given the bellicosity emanating from Brussels by one of Ukraine’s leading backers? One supposes the idea was to gain negotiating leverage, as if Russia hasn’t been observing NATO’s covetous moves for the last twenty years.In a domestic context, this scenario might be described as entrapment. The West seems intent on manufacturing a conflict, if not a war, where none existed. Peace, described as elusive in the press, could be achieved in a matter of days if the White House were so inclined. Instead, it prefers escalation. And sooner or later, Russia will move more visibly to defend the eastern rebellion, stepping squarely into the trap. In fact, it may already have.Yesterday NATO released U.S.-supplied satellite imagery supposedly showing Russian troops “establishing firing positions” inside eastern Ukraine, a claim instantly ridiculed by Moscow. Naturally, the imagery was obscure. Impossible to verify, but not hard to believe. Despite its own flood of propaganda, it would be credulous not to imagine the Russians supplying arms and tactical support to the so-called “pro-Russian insurgents” in the east. Nor would it be astonishing to see Russian troops cross the border. Again, the question arises: what would you do? Particularly given the Kiev-led brutality aimed at eastern “rebels”? Would you respond like Putin has, or rather more recklessly, perhaps like John F. Kennedy when he heard of Russian missiles in Cuba? Or imagine a pro-Russian Mexican government, installed by a Moscow coup, shelling pro-American citizens near the U.S. border. In imagining how Washington might respond, the words ‘restraint’ and ‘judicious’ don’t come readily to mind.Little if any coverage is given to another critical piece of real story, namely the obvious economic rivalry underlying the conflict. Ukraine is a major chip in the tussle for access to Black Sea resources, and for primacy in the provision of those resources to European homes. Likewise, the importance of channeling that access and supply through IMF-engineered loans, naturally denominated in dollars and central to the dollar’s now-threatened role as the world’s reserve currency.Next, the false historical narrative will be distanced from the White House through internationalist channels which, although they are fronts for American power, will be perceived by many as independent judgments that happen to agree with the American assessment. U.S.-controlled NATO, the U.S.-dominated United Nations, and the U.S.-submissive EU will convene to censure Russia, ignore Kiev crimes against its own population, and clamor for more sanctions and a provocative NATO build-up in eastern Europe. Short shrift has been given to the news that the BRICS nations—representing some 40 percent of the world’s population—have declined to join the West in its sanctions regime.But such history—distant or near—is trampled underfoot, beneath the crushing weight of MSM misinformation, thanks to which we can expect millions of Americans to dutifully wave their star-spangled totems as our ships and drones and battalions reluctantly set off to defend our freedoms once more.Jason Hirthler is a veteran of the communications industry. He lives and works in New York City and can be reached at jasonhirthler@gmail.com.
  • ISIS is America’s New Terror Brand: Endless Propaganda Fuels “War on Terror”
    ISIS is America’s New Terror Brand: Endless Propaganda Fuels “War on Terror” By James F. Tracy     "Global research" In the wake of World War I, erstwhile propagandist and political scientist Harold Lasswell famously defined propaganda as “the management of collective attitudes” and the “control over opinion” through “the manipulation of significant symbols.”[1] The extent to which this tradition is enthusiastically upheld in the West and the United States in particular is remarkable.The American public is consistently propagandized by its government and corporate news media on the most vital of contemporary issues and events.Deception on such a scale would be of little consequence if the US were not the most powerful economic and military force on earth.Spread_Caliphate[Image Credit: Vice News]A case in point is the hysteria Western news media are attempting to create concerning the threat posed by the mercenary-terrorist army now being promoted as the Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria, or “ISIS.”As was the case with the US intelligence asset and bogey publicized as “Al Qaeda,” and Al Qaeda’s Syrian adjunct, “Al Nusra,” such entities are—apparently by design—inadequately investigated and defined by major news media. Absent meaningful historical context they usefully serve as another raison d’ểtre for America’s terminal “War on Terror.”A seemingly obvious feature of such terrorist forces left unexamined by corporate media is that they are observably comprised of the same or comparable personnel unleashed elsewhere throughout the Middle East as part of a strategy proposed during the George W. Bush administration in 2007.[2]With the above observations in mind, ISIS is well-financed, militarily proficient, and equipped with modern vehicles and weaponry. It also exhibits an uncanny degree of media savvy in terms of propagating its message in professional-looking videos and on platforms such as YouTube and Twitter. “Western intelligence services,” the New York Times reports, claim to be “worried about their extraordinary command of seemingly less lethal weapons: state-of-the-art videos, ground images shot from drones, and multilingual Twitter messages.”[3]Along these lines, ISIS even received a largely sympathetic portrayal in a five-part series produced and aired by the Rupert Murdoch-backed Vice News.[4] Indeed, Vice News’ “The Spread of the Caliphate” is reminiscent of the public relations-style reportage produced via the “embedding” of corporate news media personnel with US and allied forces during the 2003 conquest of Iraq.The overt support of ISIS, combined with the fact that it is battling the same Syrian government the Obama administration overtly sought to wage war against just one year ago, strongly suggest the organization’s sponsorship by Western intelligence and military interests.ISIS’s curious features are readily apparent to non-Western news outlets and citizenries. For example, Iran’s PressTV recently asked its readership, “Why does the ISIL have such easy access to Twitter, Youtube and other social media to propagate its ideologies?” The answer choices are, “1) Because the ISIL has very capable technicians who can best use social media, or 2) Because the US and Britain have provided the ISIL with unrestricted social media platform[s].” Note that the first choice is the overarching assumption of Western media outlets. Yet perhaps unsurprisingly, 90 percent of PressTV readers selected choice two.[5]No such queries are so much as alluded to by major corporate media, all of which are united in the notion that ISIS is an essentially indigenous phenomenon. Yet as coverage of the events of September 11, 2001 and subsequent state-sponsored terrorism indicates, such media are essentially a component of the national security state, their reports and broadcast scripts all but overtly written by intelligence and military organizations.In the wake of 9/11 US news media seldom asked about the origins of Al Qaeda—particularly how it was a product of US intelligence agencies. With the history of Al Qaeda omitted, the Bush administration was permitted to wage war on Afghanistan almost immediately following those staged attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.Yet as is much the case with today’s manufactured ISIS phenomenon, that history was readily available, and its careful public examination might have implicated the United States intelligence community in the 9/11 attacks. “During the Cold War, but also in its aftermath,” Michel Chossudovsky observes,    the CIA—using Pakistan’s military intelligence apparatus as a “go between”—played a key role in training the Mujhadeen. In turn, the CIA-sponsored guerrilla training was integrated with the teachings of Islam. Both the Clinton and Bush administrations have consistently supported the “Militant Islamic Base”, including Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda, as part of their foreign policy agenda. The links between Osama bin Laden and the Clinton administration in Bosnia and Kosovo are well documented by congressional records.[6]As the United States and world approach the thirteenth anniversary of the most momentous false flag in modern history, the American public would be well-served to remind itself that ISIS is the new Al Qaeda—in other words, the new pretext that will in all likelihood be used by to take police state measures at home and military aggression abroad to new, perhaps unprecedented, levels.With the above in mind, it is telling that one of the US government’s greatest fears isn’t ISIS at all. “The FBI’s most recent threat assessment for domestic terrorism makes no reference to Islamist terror threats,” the Washington Free Beacon reports, “despite last year’s Boston Marathon bombing and the 2009 Fort Hood shooting—both carried out by radical Muslim Americans.”Instead, the nation’s foremost law enforcement agency is preoccupied with what it deems “domestic extremism” exhibited by its own subjects.[7] A primary manifestation of such “extremism” is possessing the curiosity to discern and seek out truths and information amidst the barrage of manipulated symbols the government and corporate-controlled media use to undermine a potentially informed public.Notes[1] Harold Lasswell, Propaganda Technique in the World War, Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 1927/1971.[2] Seymour Hersh, “The Redirection: Is the Administration’s New Policy Benefitting Our Enemies in the War on Terrorism?” New Yorker, March 5, 2007; Tony Cartalucci, “Extremists Ravaging Syria Created by US in 2007,” Land Destroyer Report, May 11, 2012.[3] Scott Shane and Ben Hubbard, “ISIS Displaying a Deft Command of Varied Media,” New York Times, August 30, 2014.[4] Joe Bercovici, “Thanks to Rupert Murdoch, Vice is Worth $1.4 Billion. Could it be in Play Soon?” Forbes, August 19, 2014; Medyan Dairieh, “The Spread of the Caliphate: The Islamic State,” Vice News, August 13, 2014.[5] PressTV Poll, http://presstv.ir, retrieved on August 30, 2014.[6] Michel Chossudovsky, America’s “War on Terrorism” Second Edition, Montreal CA: Global Research, 2005, 4.[7] Bill Gertz, “FBI National Domestic Threat Assessment Omits Islamist Terrorism,” Washington Free Beacon, August 29, 2014.
  • Donetsk, Lugansk Republics ready to remain part of Ukraine, seek special status
    Donetsk, Lugansk Republics ready to remain part of Ukraine, seek special status By RT At talks in the Belarusian capital, the self-proclaimed Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics have urged Kiev to acknowledge their autonomy within Ukraine, but said they wish to remain an integral part of the country.LNR and DNR representatives called on the Ukrainian government to end their military operation in the country’s east so that parliamentary and local elections can take place freely.“The president, government and [parliament] Verkhovna Rada should accept… decrees granting immediate recovery from the humanitarian catastrophe, acknowledging the special status of the territories under the control of the People’s Republics, creating conditions - first of all stopping the ‘anti-terror’ operations - for free elections of local authorities and MPs,” the document with the republics' position reads.The document also calls on Kiev to guarantee “the right to use the Russian language at an official level on the territories of the People’s Republics.”After the government of President Viktor Yanukovich was ousted in March, the new authorities immediately started to introduce the legislation curbing the Russian language. Though the law failed to materialize in the end, the initiative was one of the major factors that triggered the conflict in eastern Ukraine.The statements come after a contact group on the crisis in eastern Ukraine finished its work in Minsk.The self-proclaimed republics were represented by DNR Deputy PM Andrey Purgin and the chairman of the LNR’s Supreme Council, Aleksey Karyakin.Before the meeting commenced, Purgin said he had brought to Minsk proposals aimed at curbing the military activity and reducing the number of the victims.“I’ve come with the suggestions to find common ground to curb war and casualties,” he said, adding that those are “the initial suggestions for negotiations’ process.”The propositions consist of “eight or nine points,” Purgin said and also include a suggestion to create a commission that would look into peaceful resolution of the conflict and the reconstruction of the Donetsk Region.He also admitted that he doesn’t expect a breakthrough from the meeting of the so-called contact group aimed at solving the Ukrainian conflict.Representatives of Russia, OSCE and Kiev were also part of the talks.
  • Fajr Libya militants overrun capital Tripoli
    Fajr Libya militants overrun capital Tripoli By Presstv Conflicting reports coming out of Libya, where fierce clashes have been underway between rival militant groups for weeks, indicate that the capital, Tripoli, has fallen to the Fajr (Dawn) Libya gunmen.Libya’s caretaker government has announced that most ministries and state-run institutions are now out of its control.Attacks and looting have broken out across the city with the interior and electricity ministries and the prime minister's office ransacked.Tripoli was captured after a five-week battle, involving heavy and indiscriminate artillery bombardments between Fajr Libya militants and tribal fighters from Zintan, Warshafan and Warfallah militia groups.Militants have also stormed Yarmouk refugee camp in Tripoli, which houses people from the northern town of Tawargha. Five residents are reported to have been kidnapped, with tribal elders appealing for the release of the hostages.Elsewhere in Libya’s eastern restive city of Benghazi, heavy fighting drags on between forces loyal to renegade General Khalifa Haftar and the so-called Ansar al-Sharia, comprising armed Salafi militias.The fatal clashes erupted on Saturday when Ansar al-Sharia men attempted to take control of an airport, which is currently in the hands of Haftar’s militia forces in the Benina area of Benghazi.Reports indicate that 10 militiamen loyal to Haftar were killed and more than two dozen others injured when grad rockets struck the Benghazi airport amid the clashes.Nearly three years after the fall of the former ruler, Muammar Gaddafi, in a popular uprising in 2011, Libya is still grappling with rising insecurity.Armed militant groups, who have refused to lay down arms, are now turning their guns on each other in an attempt to dominate politics and the country’s vast oil resources.MP/HSN/SS
  • Putin launches world's biggest gas pipeline network to China
    Putin launches world's biggest gas pipeline network to China By RT Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese Vice Premier Zhang Gaoli have launched the construction of the first part of Gazprom’s Power of Siberia pipeline - which will deliver 4 trillion cubic meters of gas to China over 30 years. “The new gas branch will significantly strengthen the economic cooperation with countries in the Asia-Pacific region and above all - our key partner China,” Putin said at the ceremony outside the city of Yakutsk - the capital of Russia's Republic of Yakutia on Monday. Both President Putin and Vice Premier Zhang Gaoli signed the freshly-welded pipeline in - a time-honored Russian tradition. The 'Power of Siberia' was welded together by workers from Chayanda gas field, overseen by CEO Aleksey Miller. "Gazprom is always a reliable supplier of gas to its customers - which also applies to the ‘Power of Siberia," Miller said. “The gas pipeline ‘Power of Siberia’ will increase energy security and ensure Russia’s ability to fulfill export obligations,” Putin said in the opening remarks. Read More: Russia and China seal historic $400bn gas deal The 3,968 km pipeline linking gas fields in eastern Siberia to China will be the world's largest fuel network in the world. Both Putin and Vice Premier Zhang Gaoli have called the project the world’s largest construction project, as investment from both countries will be more than $70 billion. Starting in 2019, Power of Siberia will pump gas from Siberia to China’s populous northeast region as well as to Russia’s Far East. The Chinese side will start the construction of its part of the pipeline in the first half of 2015, the Vice Premier of China said. Last year, China consumed about 170 billion cubic meters of natural gas and expects to consume 420 billion cubic meters per year by 2020. Europe still remains Russia’s largest energy market, buying more than 160 billion meters of Russian natural gas in 2013.   Gas resources exploration and gas transmission system formation in Eastern Russia (Source: Gazprom) “Once we create a gas pipeline network here in the Far East and Siberia, we will be able to connect European pipeline system to the East. And this, in terms of export opportunities and expanding Russia’s ‘gasification’, is very beneficial. Depending on the situation in world markets, we can more effectively implement gas flows- either more to the West or to the East,” Putin told students at North-Eastern Federal University earlier on Monday. Running from the Chayanda gas field in the Republic of Yakutia, the cost of construction is estimated at more than $20 billion (770 billion rubles), which includes other investment in the region of $7.5 billion (283 billion rubles). Russia’s largest steel pipeline manufacturer, TMK, will provide materials for the project. The gas pipeline will become a common transit center for gas production centers in the Yakutia and Irkutsk regions. The first stage of the project will be to transport gas from the Chayanda deposit in Yakutia and connect to the town of Blagoveshchensk on the Chinese border. The 968 km pipeline should be completed by 2018. The Chayanda field, which will begin production in 2015, is estimated to have reserves of 1.2 trillion cubic meters in gas and 93 million tons of liquid hydrocarbons. Each year the field is expected to produce up to 25 billion cubic meters of gas and at least 1.5 million tons of oil. In May, Russia's state-run Gazprom signed a 30-year gas deal (link) with China’s CNPC valued at $400 billion.
  • US trained Alaskans for Russia attack
    US trained spies in Alaska for possible Russia’s bombing: Report By Presstv Newly declassified documents reveal that the Federal Bureau of Investigation trained private citizens across Alaska in the early Cold War years in case of a Russian invasion and occupation of Alaska.The Air Force and FBI documents from 1950 showed that the United States thought the invasion was a real possibility, The Associated Press reported on Sunday."The military believes that it would be an airborne invasion involving bombing and the dropping of paratroopers," one FBI memo said.The targets were thought to be Nome, Fairbanks, Anchorage and Seward.FBI director J. Edgar Hoover teamed up on a highly classified project, code-named "Washtub," with the newly created Air Force Office of Special Investigations.Fishermen, pilots and others in the Alaska Territory were trained to hide out during the possible bombing and communicate the Soviets’ movements back to intelligence officials.The idea of covert “stay-behind” agents was unique to the early stages of the Cold War. Later, the period was better characterized by citizens hunkering down and building shelters to prepare for the invasion.The FBI trained 89 local agents for the operation. It also established survival stockpiles for the agents, which were later used during peacetime.Deborah Kidwell, official historian of the Air Force Office of Special Investigations (OSI), said the operation was from 1951-59."While war with the Soviet Union did not come to Alaska, OSI trained 89 SBA (stay-behind agents), and the survival caches served peacetime purposes for many years to come," she wrote in an OSI magazine last year.AGB/AGB
  • US War Complicated as ISIS Blends in With Locals
    US Air War Complicated as ISIS Blends in With LocalsISIS Targets 'More Discreet' Nowby Jason Ditz, August 31, 2014 "AntiWar.com" The US war in Iraq continues to get more complex as easily foreseeable situations emerge and the Pentagon has no answers for them. The latest problem is that ISIS targets, which were mostly conspicuous at the start of the war, are starting to blend in with the local population.Since ISIS got its start as al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), it was pretty obvious that they were experienced in insurgent-style tactics in addition to the recent dalliances with behaving like a traditional army, and when airstrikes started picking up it was only a matter of time before they’d vanish.Launching intermittent airstrikes against targets of opportunity wasn’t exactly a strategy to begin with, and now that those targets are behaving more discreetly, the policy is even less effective.The Sunday news show circuit centered on hawks pushing even more aggressive airstrikes, even though it’s getting harder and harder to come up with targets for those strikes.The problem is that there simply is no strategy for victory, and that the war itself was launched on the notion of “doing something” without any clear idea how to accomplish anything.Having dragged the country into this war, the administration is now faced with the reality that it isn’t working, and growing calls from hawkish rivals to double down, because if doing something doesn’t work, they figure the answer is to do it even more.With the administration still trying to claim credit for “successes” that didn’t really happen, like “rescuing” people who weren’t really trapped on Mount Sinjar, the notion that they can expand on that success will continue to linger among policy makers.So far, President Obama seems to have recognized his own narrative for the nonsense it is, and resisted runaway escalation of the conflict. How long that lasts remains to be seen, as officials are liable to mistake phony victories for the unachievable real ones, or at any rate to figure that one sells as good to the public as the other.
  • 3 days in hell: Russia mourns Beslan school siege victims 10 years on
    3 days in hell: Russia mourns Beslan school siege victims 10 years on By RT September 1 marks 10 years since one of the most horrifying terrorist attacks in Russia, the Beslan school siege which saw over 300 people, 186 of them children, killed. Events to commemorate the massacre are taking place across the country. The site of the tragedy, former school #1 in Beslan, a small town in Russia’s North Ossetia, will become the center of the remembrance ceremonies which have been annually held since 2005. READ ALSO: ‘I don’t feel guilty’: Single surviving Beslan terrorist unrepentant 10 years after tragedy In what has now become a tradition, the three-day events to commemorate those killed in the attack, will start at the schoolyard with a bell ring. Such bells ring in all Russian schools on September 1, symbolizing the beginning of a school year. For survivors of the Beslan massacre and relatives of the victims it is the bell toll that divided their lives 'before' and 'after'.   A cemetery in Beslan, North Osetia--the last abode of victims of the September 2004 appalling terror act at secondary school No. 1 (RIA Novosti/Kazbek Basaev) Hundreds of people, including public activists and top officials, are expected to come to the site to pay their tributes to the hostages and those who lost their lives in the tragedy. They will lay more flowers and light candles at the walls of the ruined school building and a recently opened monument: a 50-meter long granite memorial with the names of all the victims carved on it. Toys and bottles with water will be brought in: the captives were held in the cramped, stuffy school gym and suffered from unbearable heat and thirst. On September 2, a requiem concert will be held on the stage of Beslan’s culture center. On Wednesday, at a ceremony in the schoolyard, students will release into the air 334 white balloons - the number of people who died in the hostage crisis. Later in the day, the commemorating ceremonies will move to the town’s cemetery – called The City of Angels – where hundreds of the victims were laid to rest. The bloodiest terrorist attack in Russia’s history claimed - in official figures – the lives of 186 children, 118 relatives or school guests, 17 teachers, 10 special forces officers, 2 Emergencies Ministry employees and one policeman. A further 810 people were injured. RT looks back at 2004 Beslan hostage crisis Wednesday, September 1, 2004 The Day of Knowledge, the beginning of a school year. A long-awaited event for first-graders: dressed nicely, with their brand-new school kits they rushed to Beslan’s school #1 for their First Bell ceremony. Many pupils were accompanied by relatives and younger siblings. A noisy crowd of people – including 859 students and 59 teachers - gathered in front of the school building for festivities. Shortly after 09:00 am local time 32 heavily-armed gunmen on two vehicles broke into the school and opened fire. Several civilians were killed in the shootout between the attackers and local police who ran to the scene after first gunshots were heard.   This TV grab image taken from Russian NTV channel 07 September 2004 shows wires and hostages in the gymnasium of the Beslan school, northern Ossetia. (AFP/NTV) The terrorists ordered the people to get inside the school building. Between 50 to 100 people – primarily high-graders and adults – managed to run away, but about 1,100 hostages were forced into the sports hall.   This TV grab image taken from Russian NTV channel 07 September 2004 shows a gunman connecting wires as hostages sit in the gymnasium of the Beslan school, northern Ossetia. (AFP/NTV) The gunmen barricaded doors and windows in the gym and started mining the building with explosive devices. Russian media reported that there were two women wearing suicide-bomb belts among the attackers.   This TV grab image taken from Russian NTV channel 07 September 2004 shows a gunman walking as hostages sit in the gymnasium of the Beslan school, northern Ossetia. (AFP/NTV) At around 10am one hostage, an adult man Ruslan Betrozov, was reportedly shot dead in the gym, right in front of the children, after trying to talk to the terrorists and calm down the captives.   Broken windows are seen at the rear of a school building seized by heavily armed masked men and women in the town of Beslan in the province of North Ossetia. Broken windows are seen at the rear of a school building seized by heavily armed masked men and women in the town of Beslan in the province of North Ossetia near Chechnya, September 2, 2004. (Reuters) By 11am the school territory was surrounded by police forces and residents of nearby buildings were evacuated. Senior public officials arrived at the site. Two authorities suggested exchanging themselves for captured children, but the terrorists turned down the proposal. President Vladimir Putin canceled his summer vacation in Sochi and returned to Moscow.   Hundreds of Ossetian inhabitants, relatives of hostages wait outside the school, where a group of gunmen, wearing belts laden with explosives, are holding hostage some 350 people in the northern Ossetian town of Beslan, some 30 kms outside Vladikavkaz, 02 September 2004. (AFP Photo/Maxim Marmur) The attackers, filming everything that was happening inside the school, announced they would only talk to the president of North Ossetia, president of the neighboring Republic of Ingushetia or Vladimir Rushailo, who was Russia’s Interior Minister in 1999-2001. The latter was however confused with Professor Leonid Roshal, a famous Russian pediatrician, by the hostage who was taking down the note. The terrorists demanded the withdrawal of armed forces from Chechnya (a Russian republic in the North Caucasus) and the release of a group of arrested gunmen.   Russian soldiers take position outside the school, where a group of gunmen, wearing belts laden with explosives, are holding hostage some 350 people in the northern Ossetian town of Beslan, some 30 kms outside Vladikavkaz, 02 September 2004. (AFP/ITAR-TASS) The hostage-takers threatened to blow up the school in case police attempted to storm the building. They put children in the windows using them as human shields and said they would kill 50 hostages for every killed member of their group and 20 – for every wounded one. At 3:50pm the Russian Air Force delivered the first groups of Special Forces troops. Between 4 and 4:30pm, a blast and shooting were reported in the seized school. Several hostages died and their bodies were thrown out of the windows shortly later.   A Russian special forces soldier aims at a position outside the school, where a group of gunmen, wearing belts laden with explosives, are holding hostage some 350 people in the northern Ossetian town of Beslan, some 30 kms outside Vladikavkaz, 02 September 2004. (AFP/ITAR-TASS) Dr. Roshal, though unwanted by the gunmen, still managed to establish contact with them at around 8pm. They insisted that the presidents of Ingushetia and North Ossetia, along with Putin’s advisor Aslambek Aslakhanov, must participate in the talks as well. By 9pm a large crowd of people – mainly the hostages’ relatives – had gathered outside the school building. The gunmen refused to accept medicine, water and food for the hostages.   Relatives of school children being held hostage wait for further developments as they sit near the seized school in the town of Beslan, province of North Ossetia near Chechnya, September 1, 2004. (Reuters) Thursday, September 2, 2004 Negotiations between Roshal and the attackers continued late into the night, but brought no breakthrough. In the morning, the head of oil refining company RussNeft, Mikhail Gutseriev, offered terrorists money in exchange for hostages. They declined the proposal.   An Ossetian militiaman aims from a boarding school, at the opposite school, where a group of gunmen, wearing belts laden with explosives, are holding hostage some 350 people in the northern Ossetian town of Beslan, some 30 kms outside Vladikavkaz, 02 September 2004. (AFP/ITAR-TASS) At 2pm President Putin made his first official statement on the situation: “Our main task is, of course, to save the lives and health of the hostages. All actions of our forces dealing with the hostage release will be focused on that exclusive task.” As a result of negotiations, by 4pm the gunmen agreed to meet with former Ingush President Ruslan Aushev. After the talks, 26 hostages – women with babies – were released. The gunmen also handed a message to Aushev with their demands: the withdrawal of troops from Chechnya and full sovereignty to the republic.   Russian police officer carries a released baby from the school seized by heavily armed masked men and women in the town of Beslan. (Reuters/Viktor Korotayev) Meanwhile, Roshal continued negotiations with the attackers, asking them to allow food and water be passed to the captives, but the talks yielded no positive results.   A Russian soldier waits on his position as a car burns outside the school where a group of gunmen, wearing belts laden with explosives, are holding civilian hostages in a school in the northern Ossetian town of Beslan, some 30 kms outside Vladikavkaz, 02 September 2004. (AFP Photo/Maxim Marmur) Friday, September 3, 2004 Several blasts rocked the school and shooting was reported during the night and early in the morning. Those released said that the number of hostages inside the building was over 1,000 instead of 354 as it had initially been thought.   Volunteers carry an injured civilian to safety after soldiers stormed a school seized by heavily armed masked men and women in the town of Beslan in the province of North Ossetia near Chechnya , September 3, 2004. (Reuters) Shortly after the noon, the terrorists allowed Emergencies Ministry workers to approach school to retrieve the bodies of those killed that had been lying in front of the building for two days.   Russian special police forces soldiers jump from an APC during the rescue operation in the town of Beslan, North Ossetia, 03 September 2004. (AFP Photo/Maxim Mamur) At around 1pm, as rescuers got to the site, two powerful explosions ripped through the school gym followed by gunfire. It was not immediately clear what caused the blasts, but later reports suggested that the gunmen provoked them accidentally. According to one version, a suicide bomber blew herself up. According to another, explosive devices placed into hoops in the gym fell down.   Ossetian volunteers carry a stretcher with injured boy in the school garden during the attack operation in the town of Beslan, North Ossetia, 03 September 2004. (AFP Photo/Yuri Tutov) The blasts triggered chaos, with hostages trying to flee through a hole in the wall and terrorists opening fire on them. Security forces returned fire and helped a dozen captives run away, often sheltering them with their own bodies.   A Russian special forces soldier carries an injured woman during the rescue operation of Beslan's school, northern Ossetia, 03 September 2004. (AFP Photo/Yuri Tutov) The gunmen attempted to force the remaining hostages from the partly ruined sports hall to the canteen.   This TV-grab image shows Russian soldiers helping an injured woman during the rescure operation in Beslan, North Ossetia 03 September 2004. (AFP/NTV) At 1:10pm security forces started storming the building. Snipers opened fire on terrorists’ firing points while troops were evacuating the hostages. Federal Security Forces (FSB) officers broke into the gym: there were dozens of wounded and exhausted hostages there, but the terrorists had moved to the school canteen and were shooting from there.   Russian special forces soldiers run during the rescue operation of Beslan's school, northern Ossetia, 03 September 2004. (AFP Photo/Yuri Tutov) At about 2.20pm a blaze broke out in the sports hall. By the time fire brigades arrived at the scene, the majority of hostages from the gym had been evacuated. About a hundred special forces troops were inside the building. Five militants were reportedly killed.   This TV-grab image taken from Russian NTV channel shows hostages in the school garden during the rescue operation in the town of Beslan, North Ossetia 03 September 2004. (AFP/NTV) After 3pm evacuation from other parts of the school was still ongoing amid a continuing gunfight. Mobile medical units were deployed in the area to immediately help the wounded before taking them to hospitals in Beslan and Vladikavkaz.   This TV-grab image taken from Russian channel NTV shows hostages in the school garden during the rescue operation 03 September 2004 in the town of Beslan, North Ossetia. (AFP/NTV) Between 6 and 7pm, after it was established that there were no more captives in the school building, troops used Shmel rocket infantry flamethrowers against the militants. Two T-72 tanks were also deployed in the nearby area. By 9:30pm the hostage-takers were proclaimed eliminated and shortly before midnight the school was under full control of security forces.   A Russian special police soldier (L) carries an injured colleague as two soldiers and two women take cover behind the APC during the rescue operation of Beslan's school, northern Ossetia, 03 September 2004. (AFP Photo/Yuri Tutov) Saturday, September 4, 2004 Rescuers continued recovering the bodies of the victims from the school debris. Relatives who had not found their loved ones alive flocked to hospitals and examined the long lists of injured placed on the walls, hoping to find names among them.   Relatives of terrorist act victims check the lists of injured at the hospital in the town of Beslan, North Ossetia, 04 September 2004, after Russian security forces gained control of the school where up to 1000 children and adults had been held hostage by armed rebels. (AFP Photo) Those who lost hope had to look among the dead bodies.   People search for relatives among the bodies of dead hostages at a morgue in the town of Vladikavkaz, September 4, 2004. (Reuters/Sergei Karpukhin) President Putin arrived in Beslan in the early hours on Saturday and visited one of hospitals.   Woman reacts after finding her relatives among the dead bodies of Beslan hostage crisis in the yard of the morgue in Vladikavkaz, North Ossetia, 05 September 2004. (AFP Photo) Sunday, September 5, 2004 The official death toll rose as some of the badly injured died. Over 50 remained in critical condition. The first funerals took place.   Fatima Tetova, mother of killed hostages Irina,13 and Alina,12, cry during their funeral in the town of Beslan in the province of North Ossetia near Chechnya , September 5, 2004. (Reuters) North Ossetian Interior Minister, Major General Kazbek Dzantiyev, announced his resignation. He said that “as an officer and a man” he had “no right” to occupy his post after what happened in Beslan.   Relatives and neighbours of killed sisters hostages Irina,13 and Alina,12 Tetova cry during their funeral in the town of Beslan in the province of North Ossetia near Chechnya, September 5, 2004. (Reuters) Monday, September 6, 2004 Mass funerals took place in Beslan. Two days of national mourning began in Russia.   Relatives of victims who died in the Beslan school hostage siege carry coffins under the heavy rain at the cemetery in Beslan, North Ossetia, 06 September 2004. (AFP Photo/Viktor Drachev)   Relatives of victims (no names given) of the Russian hostage siege mourn in Beslan, North Ossetia, 07 September 2004. (AFP Photo/Viktor Drachev) The aftermath of the Beslan hostage crisis A decade on, the survivors of the tragedy still cannot forget those terrible days they spent on the verge of death. Those who lost their loved ones do not believe their psychological wounds will ever heal. They keep coming to site of the attack – which has since been turned into a memorial – and to the cemetery, the City of Angels, one of the rare graveyards in North Ossetia where both Christians and Muslims were laid to rest.   Ossetians mourn around flowers and bottles of water at the gymnasium of the destroyed school in Beslan, North Ossetia, 08 September 2004. (AFP Photo/Victor Drachev) “There are no Muslims and Christians here. They are children. They are innocent creature. And all people come [to the cemetery] – Christians and Muslims…They come in tears and go in tears,” Kaspolat Ramonov, the keeper at the City of Angels told RT. His family was taken hostage in 2004. The wife and son seriously injured and his eldest daughter was killed.     A woman, who lost relatives in the Beslan hostage crisis, shouts at the new premier of North Ossetia, Alan Boradzov (L) as demonstrators demand a meeting with North Ossetian president Alexander Dzasokhov, during a protest in Vladikavkaz, 11 September 2004. (AFP Photo)   Ossetians mourn at the destroyed school's gymnasium in Beslan 12 October 2004. (AFP Photo/Maxim Marmur)   New school in Beslan, North Ossetia. It was built to replace the one destroyed by terrorists in September 2004. Designed by Moscow architects, the school has cutting-edge equipment, with a computer and a sound-recording room, a swimming pool and a winter garden. (RIA Novosti/Albina Olisaeva)   Candles at the Beslan Memorial as part of the commemorative events in memory of the September 1, 2004 terrorist attack in Beslan. (RIA Novosti/Anton Podgaiko)  
  • Dragon Teeth to Be Planted All Over Europe Again
    Dragon Teeth to Be Planted All Over Europe Again Yuriy RUBTSOV | 01.09.2014 | 00:00 "Strategic Culture Foundation" Many media outlets compare the contemporary situation in Europe with the days before WWII. I would like to make an important correction here. Now we are watching the West fostering another Nazi regime represented by Kiev junta and it makes remember the second half of the 1930s when it did the very same thing cooperating with Germany turned into a fascist state. Of course, the Ukraine we know today cannot measure up to the Hitler’s Germany. But the first blow is half the battle. The running amuck Fuhrer started as an unknown corporal preaching xenophobia and revenge. It’s an open secret that Adolf Hitler was connived at by the United States. The US penetration was significant and intensive, especially its cooperation with the German war industry. By 1933 the United States controlled key branches of Germany’s economy, as well as large banks such as Deutsche Bank, Dresdner Bank, Donut Bank etc. Big business started to trust Hitler. Those were the days of affluence for the National Socialist German Workers' Party as funds from abroad began to pour in. Thanks to large donations of from Frotz Thyssen’s group United Steelworks (Vereinigte Stahlwerke AG), I.G. Farbenindustrie AG (Interessen-Gemeinschaft Farbenindustrie AG) and mining industry tycoon Emil Kirdorf the party received 6,4 million votes to become the second largest in Reichstag (parliament). Hjalmar Schacht (22 January 1877 – 3 June 1970), a German economist, banker, liberal politician, and co-founder in 1918 of the German Democratic Party, became the key connecting link between German industry and foreign donors. British business also started to give donations to Fuhrer and his Nazi party. On January 4, 1932 Montague Norman, the Governor of the Bank of England from 1920 to 1944, met Hitler and German Chancellor Franz von Papen to conclude a secret accord on providing funds for the National Socialist German Workers' Party. The both Dulles brothers were present at the meeting. Western historians shy away from mentioning the fact. John Foster Dulles and Allen Dulles were politically connected Wall Street lawyers, servants of corporate power, who led the United States into an unseen war that decisively shaped today’s world. During the 1950s, when the Cold War was at its peak, two immensely powerful brothers led the United States into a series of foreign adventures whose effects are still shaking the world. John Foster Dulles was Secretary of State while his brother, Allen Dulles, was director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Federal elections were held in Germany on 5 March 1933. As a result of lavish donations coming in from abroad, the ruling Nazi Party led by Adolf Hitler, who was appointed Chancellor on January 30, registered a large increase in votes emerging as the largest party by far. Nevertheless they failed to obtain an absolute majority in their own right and needed the votes of their coalition partner, the German National People’s Party (DNVP), for a Reichstag majority. The new German government was treated extremely favorably by US and UK ruling circles. Western democracies kept silent when Berlin refused to pay reparations. Hjalmar Schacht, President of the Reichsbank and Minister of Economics, went to the United States in May 1933 to meet President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and leading Wall Street bankers. Germany was granted a $1 billion credit. And in June, during a visit to Norman in London, Schacht requested an addition $2 billion in loans as well as a reduction and eventual cessation of payment on old loans. Thus, the Nazis got something that the previous government could not.In the summer of 1934, Britain signed the Anglo-German Transfer Agreement, which became one of the foundations of British policy towards the Third Reich, and by the end of the 1930′s, Germany developed into Britain’s primary trading partner. Schroeder’s bank turned into the Germany’s and Great Britain’s main agent, and in 1936, its New York branch merged with a Rockefeller holding to create the investment bank «Schroeder, Rockefeller and Co.», which the New York Times described as «economic-propagandist axis of Berlin-Rome». The ‘Secret Memorandum’ was issued by Adolf Hitler in August 1936. The memorandum went out only to a few senior Nazi leaders and its contents – information about the Four-Year Plan – were formally announced to the party faithful in September 1936 at the party rally in Nuremberg. The Secret Memorandum stated that in four years Germany was to have capable combat-ready armed forces and its economy was to be mobilized to meet the needs of war. As he admitted himself, Hitler viewed foreign credit as the financial basis for his four-year plan, so this didn’t raise the slightest alarm.In August 1934, American oil giant Standard Oil purchased 730,000 acres of land in German and built large oil refineries that supplied the Nazis with oil. At the same time, the United States secretly provided Germany with the most modern equipment for airplane factories, which would soon produce German aircraft. Germany received a large number of patents from American firms Pratt and Whitney, Douglas, and the Bendix Corporation, and the «Junkers-87» dive-bomber was built using purely American technology. As the war broke out the monopolies stuck to the good old tried-and-true rule – nothing personal, only business. By 1941, when the Second World War was in full swing, American investment in the German economy totaled $475 million: Standard Oil invested $120 million alone, General Motors — $35 million, ITT — $30 million, and Ford — $17.5 million. What motivated the interest of Western business in the growing might of Nazi Germany? The goal was to direct Hitler to the East and invade Russia. The conquest of Lebensraum («living space») was for Hitler and the rest of the National Socialists the most important German foreign policy goal. At his first meeting with all of the leading Generals and Admirals of the Reich («Empire») on February 3, 1933, Hitler spoke of «conquest of Lebensraum in the East and its ruthless «Germanization» as his ultimate foreign policy objectives. For Hitler, the land which would provide sufficient Lebensraum for Germany was the Soviet Union, which for Hitler was both a nation that possessed vast and rich agricultural land and was inhabited by what Hitler saw as Slavic Untermenschen (sub-humans) ruled over by what he regarded as a gang of blood-thirsty, but grossly incompetent Jewish revolutionaries. These people were not Germanizable in his eyes; only the soil was. Anglo-Saxons, their hearts filled with hatred towards Russia, were happy as Hitler stated his goals. Their hearts were also filled with gladness as they learned that he wrote in his Mein Kampf: «We National Socialists consciously draw a line under the direction of our foreign policy war. We begin where we ended six centuries ago. We stop the perpetual Germanic march towards the south and west of Europe, and have the view on the country in the east. We finally put the colonial and commercial policy of the pre-war and go over to the territorial policy of the future. But if we speak today in Europe of new land, we can primarily only to Russia and the border states subjects him think». The policy of appeasement was implemented by Western countries in the 1930s against the background of financial and economic cooperation of Anglo-Saxon business with Nazi Germany. In October 1930 Germany withdrew from both the Conference for the Reduction and Limitation of Armaments of 1932–1934 (sometimes World Disarmament Conference or Geneva Disarmament Conference) and the League of Nations. In March 1936 Hitler ordered his troops to openly re-enter the Rhineland demilitarized under the Versailles Treaty. In March 1938 Austria was annexed. The West did not react; it looked at what was happening coldblooded. Fall Grün (Operation Green), a German military plan to occupy Czechoslovakia, was approved by Hitler in December 1937. The execution of Operation was called off after the Munich Pact was concluded between England, France, Italy and Nazi Germany on September 30, 1938. But Hitler never refused his intention as he was putting the signature along with Arthur Neville Chamberlain, Édouard Daladier and Benito Mussolini. On October 21 he ordered to start preparations for final onslaught to annex the rest of Czechoslovakia and the Klaipeda Region (also known as the Memel Territory) which was part of Lithuania since 1923. In March 1939 Germany delivered an ultimatum to Poland demanding renegotiation of the Danzig. The Polish Corridor (also known as Danzig Corridor, Corridor to the Sea or Gdansk Corridor) was a territory located in the region of Pomerelia (eastern Pomerania, formerly part of West Prussia), which provided the Second Republic of Poland (1920–1939) with access to the Baltic Sea, thus dividing the bulk of Germany from the province of East Prussia. The Free city of Danzig (now the Polish city of Gdansk) was separate from both Poland and Germany. But Memel and Danzig were not the main missions to make Fuhrer satisfied as they were accomplished. He could clearly see that nobody in the West had any intention to stand in his way. On April 1939 he secretly ordered Poland to be attacked on September 1. With the seizure of Czechoslovakia the Hitler’s duel-track policy was an open secret even for the most shortsighted politicians and diplomats. The Soviet Union still cherished hope to build a collective system of security in Europe. It managed to make London and Paris start talks on creating a really effective alliance to counter the aggressor. But the talks showed the Western partners were reluctant to hinder the Hitler’s movement to the East. Sir Alexander Cadogan (Permanent Under-Secretary at the Foreign Office) cited Chamberlain saying he would rather resign the premiership than conclude an agreement with the «Soviets». When the Germany attacked Poland and the Second World War started, Western leaders pointed finger at the Soviet Union and Germany signing the Non-Aggression Pact of August 23, 1939. Supported by a choir of propaganda masters and partial historians dancing to their tune, they said it was not the Western appeasement policy, but rather the USSR-Germany agreement that provoked the war.Neither London, nor Washington, nor Paris want to hear the truth about those events, no matter they signed the Nuremberg Trial verdict that found Germany guilty of grave crimes and violations of international law and the laws of war. One can clearly see what’s behind it. The political and financial circles of the United States, Great Britain and France were too much involved in fostering the fascist regime and connived at what it did while sticking to the appeasement policy. They incited Hitler to move east. The West does not recognize the responsibility for supporting the Hitler’s regime, and it refuses to admit its guilt. It does its best to prevent the Russia’s return on world stage as a leading actor. It fosters the ulcer of Nazism and xenophobia emerging right in front of its eyes. To hide the truth it circulates the Washington-invented and Europe-inculcated story about «Russian aggression» against Ukraine. Russia is demonized and provoked into direct intervention to become a party to the Ukraine’s internal conflict. I will repeat that the Kiev junta is not in the same league with the Hitler’s regime. But history proves that the ulcer of Nazism mixed with the poisonous substance of Russophobia grows rapidly, and sooner or later it will be on its own beyond the control of those who encouraged it. The slogan «Ukraine above all» sound very much like a remake of German Nazi «Deutschland über alles», («Germany above all»). It inspires the crimes committed by Ukraine’s rulers in Novorossia.


نیک پاکپور - تراژدی تاریخی 28 مرداد Image


نیک پاکپور - تراژدی تاریخی 28 مرداد

تراژدی تاریخی 28 مرداد

سیر و سیاحتی به مناسبت 61 مین سالگرد کودتای ننگین 28 مرداد

گوینده: نیک پاکپور

پیش از اینکه با سنبه وسوندی سنباننده به سفتن مدخل ومجرای، بحثی تاریخی، در مورد کودتای 28 مرداد سال 1332 خورشیدی ایران را، باز کنم، لازم می بینم که نخست بطور مختصر و مرخم ومفید، اشاراتی نیز داشته باشم به شیوها وشگردهای شیادانه و شعبده بازانه تعداد بسیار، بسیار اندکی از مائوئیست های متاسیون شده و کمونيیست های Quisling شده به همراه مونارکیست های منحط و متواری، مومیایی شده، که درطی دهه های گذشته، بویژه پس از انقراض و اضمحال یا انحطاط بساط سلطه و سیطره ارتجاع ، استعمار و استکبار جهانی در ایران، که اغلب بخاطر مزد و معاش در جهت ارتزاق و ارتشاف شخصی و شکمی، با تغذیه از اسناد استفراغ زده شده و آروغ زده شده ارتجاع جهانی، بسان رجاله گان سیاسی، با رجزخوانی رذیلانه، برای رضی و راضی نگهداشتن دشمنان دژنام ایرانی، در رسانه ها و روزنامه های باصطلاع فارسی زبان زیر سیطره و ساطور سیاه سازمان های اطلاعاتی lntelligency چون CIA امریکا و MI6 انگلستان و DGSE فرانسه، BND آلمان و موساد اسرائیل بنام صدای امریکا و رادیوی فریب و Fradulent فردا، بی بی سی، رادیوی RFI، رادیوی دویچه وله فارسی، صدای شوم Zionism جهانی، یعنی اسرايیل، البته با مدد سفسطه ولی با سکسکه سفیل ، سفیهانه و سالوسانه، علیه سیمای ستبر مردم ایران یا سخن پراکنی کرده یا با کمک مستقیم و غیر مستقیم Benefit سیاسی ارتجاع جهانی، مرتکب نسک و نشر و جهل، جوزن وجادوگری تاریخی شده اند، و بارها و بارها به کرات و مرات با کراهت و گژبینی گزند گونه در سنگر گزیزگاه دشمن با کرنش و کمر خم کنی خماننده ولی با نیش و نیشتر و نیرنگی فریبنده، برای توجیه و تطهیر و تبرئه عاملان و قاتلان و خائنان داخلی و خاری کودتای 28 مرداد، نوکربابانه یا نطق کرده یا نسک نگاشته اند. لطفآ بقیه را در video توجه فرمائید!


گوینده: نیک پاکپور - بنیاد بریکس و بیم غرب Image


گوینده: نیک پاکپور - بنیاد بریکس و بیم غرب
بنیاد بریکس و بیم غرب
گوینده: نیک پاکپور
1-Putin and BRICS form Seed Crystal of a New International Monetary Pole
William Engdahl | July 25, 2014
2-BRICS establish $100bn bank and currency pool to cut out Western dominance
By RT: Published time: July 15, 2014 18:14
3-BRICS against Washington consensus
BY By Pepe Escobar “Asia Times: Jul 15, '14”
4-Dollar dying; multi-polar world in offing
By F.William engdahl
4-US Dollar Suffers Serious Setback
By By Dr Stuart Jeanne Bramhall
5-Throwing BRICS at Israel
By Johnny Punish
نیک پاکپور - دیو داعش و نقش غرب Image


نیک پاکپور - دیو داعش و نقش غرب

دیو داعش و نقش غرب

گوینده: نیک پاکپور

گوینده آنچه را که مربوط به ریشه سعودی،سلفی،سیاه ایی، زهش یا زایش، پیدایش یا پالایش تاول یا تکاثر،ترسناک،تروریسم تکفیری میشود را در یک ویدئویی،بتاریخ 24 فوریه 2014 میلادی،با نوضیح و نفسیر، و بر پایه پویش پروسه تیک پژوهشی،تکوینی،تاریخی،در جهت آژیرنده و آگاه کننده، مورد ارزیابی و آنالیز منطقی قرار داده ام

ولی بعد و بنیاد پحث امروز گوینده بطور اختصار و در حد اختیار،اختصاص دارد به حوادث دهشتناک و دردناکی که بطور فزاینده و فژاگن در کشور همسایگی،ما ایرانیان یعنی کشور عراق جریان دارد.



UK raises terror threat to \


UK raises terror threat to \'severe\', Cameron says \'attack likely\'

ISIS poses a “greater and deeper threat to our security than we’ve seen before” said Prime Minister David Cameron. His statement follows a decision to raise the UK\'s terror threat level from \"substantial\" to \"severe\" over events in Iraq and Syria. READ MORE: http://on.rt.com/xsypeuRT LIVE http://rt.com/on-airSubscribe to RT! http://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=RussiaTodayLike us on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/RTnewsFollow us on Twitter http://twitter.com/RT_comFollow us on Instagram http://instagram.com/rtFollow us on Google+ http://plus.google.com/+RTRT (Russia Today) is a global news network broadcasting from Moscow and Washington studios. RT is the first news channel to break the 1 billion YouTube views benchmark.

ISIS in EU - Radicalizing in EU Image


ISIS in EU - Radicalizing in EU
'People radicalizing over EU economic burdens'
Published on Aug 18, 2014
Up to 15 percent of French people said they have a positive attitude toward ISIS. The share of ISIS supporters is largest among France’s younger generation, a new poll says. John Wight explains where those figures come from
Russia denies M -


Russia denies M - 'Phantoms & Fantasies'
'Phantoms & Fantasies': Russia denies military convoy crosses into Ukraine

Published on Aug 16, 2014
Russia has denied one of its armed patrol units crossed the border into Ukraine. That came as a response to the Ukrainian President's statement, which went on to say the unit was destroyed

Middle east

US to arm Kurdish - Fueling Fight Image


US to arm Kurdish - Fueling Fight
Fueling Fight: US to arm Kurdish forces in Iraq to battle ISIS militants
Published on Aug 12, 2014
Militia forces in Iraq's Kurdistan are to be armed by US in an attempt to prevent it falling fully into the hands of ISIS militants. RT's Gayane Chichakyan reports
Plitting Iraq by US -


Plitting Iraq by US - 'US interested in Iraq'
US fighter jets bomb ISIS artillery, 'Washington only interested in splitting Iraq'

Published on Aug 8, 2014
US military aircraft have conducted an airstrike on artillery used by the forces of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS). Rear Admiral John Kirby said the attack took place to help defend Kurdish forces near Erbil, Iraq
Saudi-ISIS/ISIL. - Bloody caliphate in Iraq Image


Saudi-ISIS/ISIL. - Bloody caliphate in Iraq
Uncut Chronicles: ISIS/ISIL forges bloody caliphate in Iraq (RAW Timeline)

Published on Jul 9, 2014
Radical Sunni militants of Al-Qaeda offshoot, the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIS/ISIL) are advancing and capturing cities in the north of Iraq. The jihadists have declared the capture of the capital Baghdad as their top priority objective.

United state

Ferguson Residents - US Human Rights Image


Ferguson Residents - US Human Rights
"Negro Spring": Ferguson Residents, Friends of Michael Brown Speak Out for Human Rights
As peaceful protests continued Wednesday in Ferguson, Missouri, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder arrived in the city to meet with residents and FBI agents investigating the police shooting of Michael Brown. Democracy Now! traveled to Ferguson this week and visited the site where the 18-year-old Brown was killed. We spoke to young people who live nearby, including some who knew him personally. "He fell on his knees. Like, ’Don’t shoot.’ [The police officer] shot him anyway in the eye, the head, and four times down here," said one local resident Rico Like. "Hands up, don’t shoot is all I got to say. RIP Mike Brown."
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Peaceful protests continued last night in Ferguson, Missouri, over the fatal police shooting of unarmed African-American teenager Michael Brown. Police said six arrests were made last night. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder traveled to Ferguson on Wednesday. He told residents "change is coming."
    ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER: Why would I be anyplace other than right here, right now, you know, to talk to—with the people in this area who are deserving of our attention? We want to help, as best we can. And we also want to listen. That’s the main part of this trip. We want to listen, to hear about the issues that you all are dealing with and seeing. Are there ways in which we can help?
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Eric Holder met with high school students in Ferguson and recalled how he had repeatedly been targeted by police officers because of his race. The nation’s first African-American attorney general also penned an editorial in the St. Louis Dispatch, in which he vowed to, quote, "ensure that this tragedy can give rise to new understanding—and robust action—aimed at bridging persistent gaps between law enforcement officials and the communities we serve."
AMY GOODMAN: Also on Wednesday, St. Louis County prosecutors began presenting evidence to a grand jury that will determine whether police officer Darren Wilson is charged with a crime for killing Michael Brown. County Prosecutor Bob McCulloch said the process could last through October. His team has already interviewed Wilson and says he’ll be offered the opportunity to testify. Outside the courthouse, protesters called for McCulloch to be replaced by a special prosecutor. They note McCulloch’s father, a police officer, was killed by an African American while on duty. McCulloch responded to the calls Wednesday during an interview on KTRS radio.
    ROBERT McCULLOCH: I have absolutely no intention from walking away from the duties and the responsibilities entrusted in me by the people of this community. I’ve done it for 24 years. I’ve done, if I say so myself, a very good job at that. I’m fair and impartial in every matter that comes before us. So, when others come to me and say, you know, "We want you to go away"—and I understand that. That’s certainly—they have the ability and the right to do that. But I’ve tried to directly say, "Listen, I’m not going to do that. I am not walking away from this. I’ve been entrusted with these responsibilities." But I understand, of course, that having declared a state of emergency, Governor Nixon has the authority right now to say, "McCulloch is out of this case."
AMY GOODMAN: All of this comes as Officer Wilson remains on paid leave.
Meanwhile, a police officer caught on video threatening to kill peaceful protesters in Ferguson has been suspended indefinitely. The video from Tuesday night shows the officer pointing his semi-automatic assault rifle at protesters, saying he’ll kill them and telling them to, quote, "Go F— yourself."
Well, last night I returned from Ferguson, Missouri. While there, we visited the site where Michael Brown was killed, the road just outside the Canfield apartments. I spoke to young people who live nearby, including some of them who knew him. But first we stopped by a protest outside the Ferguson police station.
    PROTESTER 1: Lean to the right! Lean to right!
    CROWD: No justice, no peace!
    PROTESTER 1: Lean to the left! Lean to the left!
    CROWD: No justice, no peace!
    PROTESTER 1: Lean to the right! Lean to right!
    AMY GOODMAN: Can you tell me your name?
    CAT DANIELS: Cat Daniels.
    AMY GOODMAN: And is this your son?
    CAT DANIELS: This is my grandson.
    AMY GOODMAN: Your grandson. What’s your name?
    DEANDRE SMITH: DeAndre Smith.
    AMY GOODMAN: DeAndre, how old are you?
    AMY GOODMAN: And what are you doing out here tonight?
    DEANDRE SMITH: Well, I was hanging with my nana.
    AMY GOODMAN: So, why are you here?
    CAT DANIELS: I’m here because we want to know the truth. I think we deserve to know the truth. I think the Brown family deserves some justice. So, until, you know, we get some—I mean, you’ve got to, like, charge this guy or something. Can’t just kill a kid and think that everything’s going to be all right. It’s not.
    AMY GOODMAN: Tell me what your T-shirt says.
    CAT DANIELS: My T-shirt say, "Hands up, don’t shoot."
    AMY GOODMAN: And your sign?
    CAT DANIELS: My sign say, "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free."
    AMY GOODMAN: Do you know the Brown family?
    CAT DANIELS: I don’t know the Brown family, but I don’t have to know them. We all standing behind them.
    AMY GOODMAN: Where are we standing right now?
    CAT DANIELS: Right now, we’re on Florissant, South Florissant Road, yeah. So, we’re over here by the Ferguson Police Department.
    AMY GOODMAN: Why here? Why are you protesting here?
    CAT DANIELS: Well, because this is a Ferguson police officer, so we need to come here, and we need to make them understand that we want justice. We’re not going to just stand around and let you just keep on running over people. This young man is 10 years old. I want to see him grow. I want to see him do something. My oldest grandson grew up, and you know what he did? He’s serving his country. So, you know, I think that young man should have had a chance to go to school and realize some dreams.
    AMY GOODMAN: Your son, did he go to Iraq or Afghanistan?
    CAT DANIELS: No, my daughter—we’re a Navy family, by the way. My husband is retired. My daughter’s still serving in Pearl Harbor, and my grandson’s in San Diego. Other son got out, and he’s in college. But I want these young ones to have their same chance.
    AMY GOODMAN: DeAndre, what do you want to be when you grow up?
    DEANDRE SMITH: Well, I want to be—I just want to serve our country so I can make a difference in the world.
    PROTESTER 2: I’m a mother before I’m anything else. My young people, I know, y’all, we’ve been wronged right now. I know we’ve been wronged. They know they’ve been wrong. But it only changes when we work together as one.
    AMY GOODMAN: So tell me your name, and tell me what your sign says. And what do you think?
    RONA: My name is Rona. And my sign is "Negro Spring." The same as the Arabs fought for their rights, for their civil rights, to oust their corrupt government, we’re fighting for our civil rights, our human rights. We would like, as an end result to this, one of the end results, for there to be a law. Police officers should not be allowed to hide behind a badge when they commit a crime. When we commit a crime, we have the penalties. They should have penalties. It’s not fair. They should not be treated like extra special humans.
    PROTESTER 3: What do we want?
    CROWD: Justice!
    PROTESTER 3: When do we want it?
    CROWD: Now!
    AMY GOODMAN: It’s around 10:00 at night, a gathering of several hundred people holding all sorts of signs, from "Negro Spring" to "Hands up, don’t shoot." They seem to be heading on down Florissant. They’re right across from the Ferguson police station, and there’s a line of riot police in front of the station. We’ll go over and talk to them, ask them what are their plans for tonight.
    I was wondering what the plans are for the police tonight.
    POLICE OFFICER 1: Ma’am, you’ll have to talk to the incident commander.
    AMY GOODMAN: Is there any curfew tonight?
    POLICE OFFICER 2: No, ma’am.
    AMY GOODMAN: Have there been any charges announced or anything like that yet?
    POLICE OFFICER 2: Not tonight that we’re aware of.
    We leave the police station where the protesters have gathered across the street, and we headed to the Canfield apartments, the home of Michael’s grandmother. And there, in the middle of the road, just beyond the barricade, is the memorial for Mike Brown. The residents leave roses, pay their respects, walk around it, drive past. And people want to talk.
    Hey, can you tell me your name?
    STEVON STATOM: My name is Stevon Statom.
    AMY GOODMAN: So you live here in the Canfield apartments?
    STEVON STATOM: Yes, I do. I moved here last Friday. And—
    AMY GOODMAN: Friday, August 8?
    STEVON STATOM: Yes, August 8, yes, last Friday. And when I moved in that day, it was peaceful. Then, like, the next morning—I came, and I stayed right in that house right there. And that next morning, I woke up, and I found the body dead in the middle of the street. They left it out for like a good six to seven hours before they even tried to pick it up off the street.
    AMY GOODMAN: This was Mike Brown’s body?
    STEVON STATOM: Yes, Mike Brown.
    AMY GOODMAN: In the middle of the street here.
    STEVON STATOM: Yes, in the middle of the street. His monument is right there, if you want to go walk over there. It’s right in the middle of the street.
    AMY GOODMAN: OK. Why don’t we go with you?
    STEVON STATOM: We can go over there.
    AMY GOODMAN: So, you moved here a day before he was killed. You walked outside on Saturday, August 9th, and you saw his body laying in the road. Was anyone around his body?
    STEVON STATOM: Yes, it was a—they had, like—when I came outside, it was all blocked off, like the police blocked it off. But, like, they didn’t really try to pick the body up. They just left it there for like the whole world to see, just like everybody in the neighborhood. Like, I guess they was trying to show a point, like, "Don’t disrespect me, or this is going to happen to you." They just left it there for like a good seven or six hours. You know, they didn’t even try to pick it up.
    AMY GOODMAN: Was his body covered when you saw him?
    STEVON STATOM: No, no, no, no, no. He was just laying face down and dead in the middle of the street for hours.
    AMY GOODMAN: You just laid a rose down?
    STEVON STATOM: Yes, I did, to show my respect.
    QUENTIN BAKER: That’s what they said they stole from the gas station, the ’rillos, the cigarillos. They got those laying down here.
    AMY GOODMAN: Tell me your name.
    QUENTIN BAKER: My name’s Quentin Baker.
    AMY GOODMAN: And tell me what you’re wearing on your face. You’ve got the headband.
    QUENTIN BAKER: I’ve got the Mike Brown headband, and the "No justice, no peace" over around my mouth.
    AMY GOODMAN: And why around your mouth?
    QUENTIN BAKER: I don’t know, just to cover up my face, just for the tear gas, you know?
    AMY GOODMAN: Have you been tear-gassed yet?
    QUENTIN BAKER: Yeah, twice. Two nights in a row.
    AMY GOODMAN: And how old are you?
    QUENTIN BAKER: I’m 19 years old.
    AMY GOODMAN: And where do you live?
    QUENTIN BAKER: I live in South County, South St. Louis.
    AMY GOODMAN: And what brought you here?
    QUENTIN BAKER: Mike Brown, all this. Came to support my city, that’s all.
    AMY GOODMAN: Are you shocked by this?
    QUENTIN BAKER: Yeah. Yeah, it’s very crazy. It’s wild. This is—I came to show some peace, you know?
    AMY GOODMAN: What do you see here in this monument to Mike Brown that’s in the middle of the street—
    QUENTIN BAKER: Just candles—
    AMY GOODMAN: —where constantly cars are going by either side?
    QUENTIN BAKER: Just candles and flowers and a cross, pictures of him, all over. There’s still blood. His blood is still on the street underneath the candle wax that’s been burned.
    UNIDENTIFIED: So, this is like our awakening call to cry out for justice, to be heard. And that’s the only way that the youth know how to portray it. And hopefully we learn more and learn better ways to show it. But for now, this is our cry out for it.
    AMY GOODMAN: Do you live here at the Canfield apartments?
    UNIDENTIFIED: Yes. Yes, I live out here in St. Louis. I live out here in St. Louis on the south side. And I come out here to share my condolences, because I also knew the young fellow.
    AMY GOODMAN: You knew Mike Brown?
    UNIDENTIFIED: Yeah, and it’s tragedy, because he wasn’t the type of person that the news portray it. So—
    AMY GOODMAN: Can you tell us about Mike?
    UNIDENTIFIED: A humble guy, Michael Brown was actually a good, kind-hearted person and had a good future, had a good head on his shoulders.
    AMY GOODMAN: What’s your name?
    UNIDENTIFIED: Undisclosed. Thank you.
    RICO: I’m Rico, known in the neighborhood as Rico. I’m 22 years old.
    AMY GOODMAN: Did you know Mike Brown?
    RICO: Yes, I did. Yes, ma’am. He was a good friend of mine. Him and Dorian.
    AMY GOODMAN: Dorian Johnson?
    RICO: Yes. Yes, ma’am.
    AMY GOODMAN: They were together.
    RICO: Yes, ma’am.
    AMY GOODMAN: Were you around on August 9?
    RICO: I came after the shooting, after Mike was already pronounced dead.
    AMY GOODMAN: Can you tell me a little about him? Did he live here?
    RICO: Well, he got family that live over here in this building beside us and on up through Northwinds. He was a good friend of mine. He was a school graduate. I mean, a lot of people from black communities—you know, a lot of black people don’t graduate and finish school. They read about other stuff. And, you know, a lot of people in our community have drug addicts parents and stuff, so they have to feed for theirself and stuff and, you know, engage in stuff. And Mike wasn’t one of them. He was one of them guys who went to school, finished school. He had parents that was on him and supported him, you know.
    So, this is just uncalled for. That’s how I feel. For real, that’s how I feel. This is really uncalled for, you know. Lost a good friend, you know? It’s just not right, when we live in captivity in this neighborhood, where they want to block us in and make us feel like we’re nothing, you know what I’m saying? Where like our word don’t—we have no say so. And we live here, and we pay rent here, and we’ve been here forever. Forever.
    I just want justice served. I want to see Mike’s family happy and proud, knowing that this cop killer is off the streets and knowing that my black people is not being killed by another officer, by Darren Wilson or whoever he is, you know? But he hurt a lot of people. And my pain don’t stop. And I’m out here, and I’m going to continue being out here. I’m not going to stop. I’m not going to stop. Continue being out here supporting all my black brothers and stuff. I want them to know, I’m out here supporting, and I’m out here doing it for y’all. I like to see my young black people come together. And we all have—we all do this for Mike. I don’t want to see nobody out here looting, doing none of that stuff. I just want everybody to be peaceful, calm, when we do this for Mike. We march and everything, do this the right way.
    AMY GOODMAN: Is there usually this much air traffic in the sky?
    RICO: Yes, this has been going on every night. And there’s been kids getting maced, tear-gassed, rubber bullets. And the thing about it, it’s innocent people who live in this area. So you throw tear gas and all this stuff, and it’s messing up everybody. Everybody who want to step outside and go to their cars, they’re feeling this stuff in the air. It’s coming. Like, I had a struggle to fight just to walk from West Florissant back here to the Northwinds Bridge. I had to struggle and fight and just tell myself, "Keep going, keep going," because the tear gas was so strong, and it was breaking me down. I have asthma.
    AMY GOODMAN: And in these apartments, you’re smelling the tear gas?
    RICO: And the tear gas. The tear gas is all through here, in the homes, in everything. And they told us no curfew yesterday. By 9:00, 9:30, there was tear gas and everything. And the police officers told us theirself, "No curfew tonight. We’re going to do this the right way." But they lied to us. So, there it goes again. How are we supposed to feel like these officers can be trusted, and we’re supposed to call them for help and stuff, when at the same time we’re being abused and being lied to by you officers and being killed? And being killed, as black people. It hurts, you know? It hurts. It hurts.
    AMY GOODMAN: Who made that sign behind you?
    RICO: Which one? This cross?
    AMY GOODMAN: Right under the cross. What does it say?
    RICO: "Beware, killer cop on the loose. Watch out, children. Watch out, children." They say, "Watch out, children," because he killed the child, someone’s child. I have kids of my own. And it just hurts. Like I said, it hurts.
    AMY GOODMAN: What’s your name?
    JERODNEY MEEKS: My name’s Jerodney Meeks.
    AMY GOODMAN: And how old are you?
    JERODNEY MEEKS: I’m 26. So, he stopped the man for walking in the streets. Now, how do you get shot in your head two times and four times in your body? And he had his hands up, from the autopsy.
    RICO: And if you’re trying to stop someone, and it’s to the point where you need to fire—the officers are trained. The officers are trained to fire at legs, tase, mace, whatever. There’s no reason for—
    JERODNEY MEEKS: How did a headshot—
    RICO: Yeah, how did that all happen?
    AMY GOODMAN: Did you know Mike Brown?
    JERODNEY MEEKS: I didn’t know him, but I always be over here in this community, and heard. You know, I’m not saying I’m a perfect man, but I have a past history. And, you know, I did done things in my past that I had to face my time in courts, you know? So, to see that happen to him, and I know I have done wrong, I don’t feel like it’s right, because I know my history. So, to see that innocent person to get killed on that matter—and it had nothing to do with what happened at Ferguson Market. It’s because he was walking in the street and refused to get on the side of the sidewalk. It’s not right. And I didn’t—you know, I’m not going to criminalize myself, but I did done a lot more wrong. And I did my time, you know, and I’m out. I’m a free man. I’m a changed man. You know, I got kids to take care of. But to see that that man didn’t have an opportunity to face his day in court, it all changed—and it didn’t even have nothing to do with Ferguson Market. So, at that moment, he wasn’t being charged with nothing. It’s just that the police seen him walking in the streets, told him to get on the side, he refused to. And whatever happened from that moment, I mean, I can’t really make accusations, because I wan’t here, but from what was told, you still shouldn’t have took that man’s life. Now, he can’t see—no, he can’t have kids, see his kids grow, teach them things about life. You know, he left nothing behind. And his family never—it’s like, all the years they took to shape him and to be this person, to go to school and better theirself—like me, I didn’t go to college, I didn’t graduate from high school. So, to see a man actually do something for himself to try to change, and get his life taken, it ain’t right.
    AMY GOODMAN: Can you tell me your name and where you live?
    KOREI MOORE: Korei Moore, and I stay in Northwinds Apartments. This is not only a African-American man, but a child, nonetheless. And another mother is, you know, burying their child or, you know, putting her child to rest. I was very disturbed by it, very upset by it, because I have a 16-year-old myself, and that could have been my child or anyone else’s child out here. So, it’s very disturbing.
    AMY GOODMAN: What do you tell your 16-year-old son?
    KOREI MOORE: I tell him—I allowed him to walk with us, so I can show him that: "This could have been you. This could have been your cousins. You’re not exempt from this. It only takes seconds, the wrong identity, and I could be burying you." And like I tell him, even just beyond this setting, it’s so many things going on in the world. It’s so much just envy and grief in the world that I just—I don’t want him to be a part of it. So I make sure he’s learning things like to protest and to stand up for your rights, and also to know how to cope with the police and things of that nature, and to stay away from anything that might, you know, deter him from a good thing, because as the mother said, it is hard to get a young black man to graduate. And once you get them to graduate, this is what they succumb to. So, yeah.
    AMY GOODMAN: Did you see Mike Brown’s mother out on Saturday?
    KOREI MOORE: Yes, I did.
    AMY GOODMAN: With his body here?
    KOREI MOORE: Yes, I did.
    AMY GOODMAN: Where was his head?
    KOREI MOORE: His head was facing this way, and his body was this way, like—his head was facing towards Florissant.
    AMY GOODMAN: And he was on his stomach?
    KOREI MOORE: Yes, ma’am.
    AMY GOODMAN: He was facing down.
    KOREI MOORE: Yes, ma’am, facing down, on his stomach.
    RICO LIKE: My name’s Rico Like. I used to see him all the time, walking around—I mean, everywhere. He ain’t did nothing, don’t do nothing. That’s a peaceful guy. And what they did was wrong, man. And they’re saying that the—the police saying they either beat him up, did all this and did all that. Where he at? We want to see your face. We want to see did you got beat up. We want see—we want to see everything. Why is he hiding? Because he didn’t get beat up. I mean, God be the judge. God be the judge. And he didn’t—he an innocent man. He fell on his knees. Like, "Don’t shoot." He shot him anyway in the eye, then in the head and four times down here.
    AMY GOODMAN: Are you participating in the protests?
    RICO LIKE: Yes. I was up here yesterday, got tear-gassed and everything, couldn’t even breathe. But I made it out, though. Just "Hands up! Don’t shoot!" That’s all I got to say. RIP Mike Brown.
AMY GOODMAN: "RIP Mike Brown." Residents of the area around the Canfield apartments in Ferguson, standing around the makeshift memorial of signs, candles, stuffed animals and flowers, sitting in the middle of the road where Michael Brown took his last breaths after being gunned down by police officer Darren Wilson on August 9th. Brown’s body lay in the road for more than four hours. Near the memorial was a sign that said "Beware, killer cop on the loose. Watch out, children." This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. When we come back, we’ll be joined by the head of UNICEF in Gaza, Pernille Ironside. Stay with us.
AMY GOODMAN: Lauren Hill performing a sketch of "Black Rage." She posted it online yesterday in response to the Ferguson protests and the death of Michael Brown. This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González.
USA:Police fire smoke - Protesters defy curfew Image


USA:Police fire smoke - Protesters defy curfew
USA: Police fire smoke canisters as Ferguson protesters defy curfew
One shot, 7 arrested as Ferguson police disperse protesters defying curfew
One person is in critical condition and seven people have been arrested in the latest Ferguson protest, local police said in a news conference. They also confirmed the use of tear gas.
Lessons to Learn - Ferguson Protests Image


Lessons to Learn - Ferguson Protests
The Lessons to Learn From Ferguson Protests
Rev. Heber Brown III discusses the history of police brutality in the black community and how communities need to begin to police the police to hold them more accountable -   15 min ago


Democracy Now:Monday, September 1, 2014 Image


Democracy Now:Monday, September 1, 2014

"A Slaughter of Innocents": Henry Siegman, a Venerable Jewish Voice for Peace, on Gaza

Today, a special with Henry Siegman, the former executive director of the American Jewish Congress, long described as one of the nation’s "big three" Jewish organizations along with the American Jewish Committee and the Anti-Defamation League. Henry Siegman was born in 1930 in Frankfurt, Germany. Three years later, the Nazis came to power. After fleeing Nazi troops in Belgium, his family eventually moved to the United States. His father was a leader of the European Zionist movement, pushing for the creation of a Jewish state. In New York, Siegman studied and was ordained as an Orthodox rabbi by Yeshiva Torah Vodaas. He later became head of the Synagogue Council of America. After his time at the American Jewish Congress, Siegman became a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. He now serves as president of the U.S./Middle East Project.
Over the years, Siegman has become a vocal critic of Israel’s policies in the Occupied Territories and has urged Israel to engage with Hamas. He has called the Palestinian struggle for a state "the mirror image of the Zionist movement" that led to the founding of Israel in 1948. In July, wrote an op-ed for Politico headlined, "Israel Provoked This War." Democracy Now! hosts Amy Goodman and Nermeen Shaikh sat down with him on July 29 — in the midst of Israel’s offensive in Gaza.
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: Today, a special with Henry Siegman, the former executive director of the American Jewish Congress, long described as one of the nation’s "big three" Jewish organizations along with the American Jewish Committee and the Anti-Defamation League. Henry Siegman was born in 1930 in Frankfurt, Germany. Three years later, the Nazis came to power. After fleeing Nazi troops in Belgium, his family eventually moved to the United States. His father was a leader of the European Zionist movement, pushing for the creation of a Jewish state. In New York, Henry Siegman studied and was ordained as an Orthodox rabbi by Yeshiva Torah Vodaas. He later became head of the Synagogue Council of America. After his time at the American Jewish Congress, Siegman became a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. He now serves as president of the U.S./Middle East Project.
Over the years, Henry Siegman has become a vocal critic of Israel’s policies in the Occupied Territories and has urged Israel to engage with Hamas. He has called the Palestinian struggle for a state, quote, "the mirror image of the Zionist movement" that led to the founding of Israel in 1948. In July, he wrote a piece for Politico headlined "Israel Provoked This War."
Democracy Now!'s Nermeen Shaikh and I sat down with him on July 29th in the midst of Israel's offensive in Gaza. I started by asking Henry Siegman if he could characterize the situation in Gaza at the moment.
    HENRY SIEGMAN: Yes, it’s disastrous. It’s disastrous, both in political terms, which is to say the situation cannot conceivably, certainly in the short run, lead to any positive results, to an improvement in the lives of either Israelis or Palestinians, and of course it’s disastrous in humanitarian terms, the kind of slaughter that’s taking place there. When one thinks that this is what is necessary for Israel to survive, that the Zionist dream is based on the slaughter of—repeated slaughter of innocents on a scale that we’re watching these days on television, that is really a profound, profound crisis—and should be a profound crisis—in the thinking of all of us who were committed to the establishment of the state and to its success. It leads one virtually to a whole rethinking of this historical phenomenon.
    NERMEEN SHAIKH: What do you believe—Mr. Siegman, what do you believe the objectives of Israel are in this present assault on Gaza?
    HENRY SIEGMAN: Well, they have several objectives, although I’m not sure that each of them is specifically responsible for the carnage we’re seeing now. It has what seems on the surface a justifiable objective of ending these attacks, the rockets that come from Gaza and are aimed—it’s hard to say they’re aimed at civilians, because they never seem to land anywhere that causes serious damage, but they could and would have, if not for luck. So, on the face of it, Israel has a right to do what it’s doing now, and, of course, it’s been affirmed by even president of the United States, repeatedly, that no country would agree to live with that kind of a threat repeatedly hanging over it.
    But what he doesn’t add, and what perverts this principle, undermines the principle, is that no country and no people would live the way Gazans have been made to live. And consequently, this moral equation which puts Israel on top as the victim that has to act to prevent its situation from continuing that way, and the Palestinians in Gaza, or Hamas, the organization responsible for Gaza, who are the attackers, our media rarely ever points out that these are people who have a right to live a decent, normal life, too. And they, too, must think, "What can we do to put an end to this?"
    And this is why in the Politico article that you mentioned, I pointed out the question of the morality of Israel’s action depends, in the first instance, on the question: Couldn’t Israel be doing something in preventing this disaster that is playing out now, in terms of the destruction of human lives? Couldn’t they have done something that didn’t require that cost? And the answer is: Sure, that they could have ended the occupation, with results—whatever the risks are, they certainly aren’t greater than the price being paid now for Israel’s effort to continue and sustain permanently their relationship to the Palestinians.
    AMY GOODMAN: When you say that Israel could end the violence by ending the occupation, Israel says it does not occupy Gaza, that it left years ago. I wanted to play a clip for you from MSNBC. It was last week, and the host, Joy Reid, was interviewing the Israeli spokesperson, Mark Regev.
        MARK REGEV: Listen, if you’ll allow me to, I want to take issue with one important word you said. You said Israel is the occupying authority. You’re forgetting Israel pulled out of the Gaza Strip. We took down all the settlements, and the settlers who didn’t want to leave, we forced them to leave. We pulled back to the 1967 international frontier. There is no Israeli occupation of the Gaza Strip. We haven’t been there for some eight years.
    AMY GOODMAN: Henry Siegman, can you respond?
    HENRY SIEGMAN: OK, yeah. That is of course utter nonsense, and for several reasons. First of all, Gaza is controlled completely, like the West Bank, because it is totally surrounded by Israel. Israel could not be imposing the kind of chokehold it has on Gaza if it were not surrounding, if its military were not surrounding Gaza, and not just on the territory, but also on the air, on the sea. No one there can make a move without coming into contact with the Israeli IDF, you know, outside this imprisoned area where Gazans live. So, there’s no one I have encountered, who is involved with international law, who’s ever suggested to me that in international law Gaza is not considered occupied. So that’s sheer nonsense.
    But there’s another point triggered by your question to me, and this is the propaganda machine, and these official spokespeople will always tell you, "Take a look at what kind of people these are. Here we turned over Gaza to them. And you’d think they would invest their energies in building up the area, making it a model government and model economy. Instead, they’re working on rockets." The implication here is that they, in effect, offered Palestinians a mini state, and they didn’t take advantage of it, so the issue isn’t really Palestinian statehood. That is the purpose of this kind of critique.
    And I have always asked myself, and this has a great deal to do with my own changing views about the policies of governments, not about the Jewish state qua Jewish state, but of the policies pursued by Israeli governments and supported—you know, they say Israel is a model democracy in the Middle East, so you must assume—the public has to assume some responsibility for what the government does, because they put governments in place. So, the question I ask myself: What if the situation were reversed? You know, there is a Talmudic saying in Pirkei Avot, The Ethics of the Fathers: "Al tadin et chavercha ad shetagiah lemekomo," "Don’t judge your neighbor until you can imagine yourself in his place." So, my first question when I deal with any issue related to the Israeli-Palestinian issue: What if we were in their place?
    What if the situation were reversed, and the Jewish population were locked into, were told, "Here, you have less than 2 percent of Palestine, so now behave. No more resistance. And let us deal with the rest"? Is there any Jew who would have said this is a reasonable proposition, that we cease our resistance, we cease our effort to establish a Jewish state, at least on one-half of Palestine, which is authorized by the U.N.? Nobody would agree to that. They would say this is absurd. So the expectations that Palestinians—and I’m speaking now about the resistance as a concept; I’m not talking about rockets, whether they were justified or not. They’re not. I think that sending rockets that are going to kill civilians is a crime. But for Palestinians to try, in any way they can, to end this state of affair—and to expect of them to end their struggle and just focus on less than 2 percent to build a country is absurd. That is part of—that’s propaganda, but it’s not a discussion of either politics or morality.
    NERMEEN SHAIKH: One of the things that’s repeated most often is, the problem with the Palestinian unity government is, of course, that Hamas is now part of it, and Hamas is considered a terrorist organization by Israel and also by the United States. I’d just like to read you a short quote from an article that you wrote in 2009 in the London Review of Books. You said, "Hamas is no more a 'terror organisation' ... than the Zionist movement was during its struggle for a Jewish homeland. In the late 1930s and 1940s, parties within the Zionist movement resorted to terrorist activities for strategic reasons." Could you elaborate on that and what you see as the parallels between the two?
    HENRY SIEGMAN: Well, I’m glad I said that. In fact, I repeated it in a letter to The New York Times the other day, a week or two ago. The fact is that Israel had, pre-state—in its pre-state stage, several terrorist groups that did exactly what Hamas does today. I don’t mean they sent rockets, but they killed innocent people. And they did that in an even more targeted way than these rockets do. Benny Morris published a book that is considered the Bible on that particular period, the war of—
    AMY GOODMAN: The Israeli historian.
    AMY GOODMAN: The Israeli historian, Benny Morris.
    HENRY SIEGMAN: The Israeli historian, right, then in the book Righteous Victims, in which he said—I recall, when I read it, I was shocked—in which he—particularly in his most recently updated book, which was based on some new information that the Israel’s Defense—the IDF finally had to open up and publish, that Israeli generals received direct instructions from Ben-Gurion during the War of Independence to kill civilians, or line them up against the wall and shoot them, in order to help to encourage the exodus, that in fact resulted, of 700,000 Palestinians, who were driven out of their—left their homes, and their towns and villages were destroyed. This was terror, even within not just the terrorist groups, the pre-state terrorists, but this is within the military, the Israeli military, that fought the War of Independence. And in this recent book, that has received so much public attention by Ari—you know, My Promised Land.
    AMY GOODMAN: Shavit.
    HENRY SIEGMAN: Ari Shavit. He describes several such incidents, too. And incidentally, one of the people who—according to Benny Morris, one of the people who received these orders—and they were oral orders, but he, in his book, describes why he believes that these orders were given, were given to none other than Rabin, who was not a general then, but he—and that he executed these orders.
    AMY GOODMAN: Meaning?
    HENRY SIEGMAN: Meaning?
    AMY GOODMAN: What did it mean that he executed these orders, Rabin?
    HENRY SIEGMAN: That he executed civilians. And the rationale given for this when Shavit, some years ago, had an interview with Benny Morris and said to him, "My God, you are saying that there was deliberate ethnic cleansing here?" And Morris said, "Yes, there was." And he says, "And you justify it?" And he said, "Yes, because otherwise there would not have been a state." And Shavit did not follow up. And that was one of my turning points myself, when I saw that. He would not follow up and say, "Well, if that is a justification, the struggle for statehood, why can’t Palestinians do that? What’s wrong with Hamas? Why are they demonized if they do what we did?"
    AMY GOODMAN: I want to go to the Israeli prime minister earlier this month, Benjamin Netanyahu, vowing to punish those responsible for the killing of Mohammed Abu Khdeir, the Palestinian teen who was burned alive following the murders of three Israeli teens. But in doing so, Netanyahu drew a distinction between Israel and its neighbors in how it deals with, quote, "murderers."
        PRIME MINISTER BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: I know that in our society, the society of Israel, there is no place for such murderers. And that’s the difference between us and our neighbors. They consider murderers to be heroes. They name public squares after them. We don’t. We condemn them, and we put them on trial, and we’ll put them in prison.
    AMY GOODMAN: That was Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu talking about the difference. Henry Siegman, can you respond?
    HENRY SIEGMAN: Well, the only difference I can think of is that in Israel they made the heads of the two major pre-state terrorist groups prime ministers. So this distinction he’s drawing is simply false; it’s not true. The heads of the two terrorist groups, which incidentally, again, going back to Benny Morris, in his book, Righteous Victims, he writes, in this pre-state account, that the targeting of civilians was started by the Jewish terrorist groups, and the Arab—and the Arab groups followed.
    AMY GOODMAN: You’re talking about Irgun and the Stern Gang.
    HENRY SIEGMAN: Yes, yes. And as you know, both the head of the Irgun and both the head of the Stern Gang—I’m talking about Begin and Shamir—became prime ministers of the state of Israel. And contrary to Netanyahu, public highways and streets are named after them.
AMY GOODMAN: Henry Siegman, former head of the American Jewish Congress. We’ll continue our conversation with him in a minute.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Nermeen Shaikh, as we continue our conversation with Henry Siegman, president of the U.S./Middle East Project, former head of the American Jewish Congress.
    NERMEEN SHAIKH: I’d like to turn, Henry Siegman, to Khaled Meshaal, the leader of Hamas, who was speaking to Charlie Rose of PBS. He said Hamas was willing to coexist with Jews but said it would not live, quote, "with a state of occupiers."
        KHALED MESHAAL: [translated] I am ready to coexist with the Jews, with the Christians, and with the Arabs and non-Arabs, and with those who agree with my ideas and also disagree with them; however, I do not coexist with the occupiers, with the settlers and those who put a siege on us.
        CHARLIE ROSE: It’s one thing to say you want to coexist with the Jews. It’s another thing you want to coexist with the state of Israel. Do you want to coexist with the state of Israel? Do you want to represent—do you want to recognize Israel as a Jewish state?
        KHALED MESHAAL: [translated] No. I said I do not want to live with a state of occupiers.
    NERMEEN SHAIKH: That was Khaled Meshaal, the leader of Hamas, speaking to Charlie Rose. Henry Siegman, could you respond to that, and specifically the claim made by Israelis repeatedly that they can’t negotiate with a political organization that refuses the state of Israel’s right to exist in its present form?
    HENRY SIEGMAN: Yes. It so happens that in both international custom and international law, political parties, like Hamas, are not required or even ever asked to recognize states, whether they recognize a state or not. The question is whether the government of which they are a part and that makes policy and executes policy, whether that government is prepared to recognize other states. And this is true in the case of Israel, as well, the government of Israel, any government. I, incidentally, discussed this with Meshaal, not once, but several times, face to face, and asked him whether he would be part of a government that recognizes the state of Israel, and he says—and he said, "Yes, provided"—they had a proviso—he said, "provided that the Palestinian public approves that policy." And he repeated to me the fact that—he said, "You’re absolutely right." He says, "People ask us will we recognize the state of Israel, and will we affirm that it’s legitimately a Jewish state." He said, "No, we won’t do that. But we have never said that we will not serve in a government that has public support for that position, that we will not serve in such a government."
    But a more important point to be made here—and this is why these distinctions are so dishonest—the state of Israel does not recognize a Palestinian state, which is to say there are parties in Netanyahu’s government—very important parties, not marginal parties—including his own, the Likud, that to this day has an official platform that does not recognize the right of Palestinians to have a state anywhere in Palestine. And, of course, you have Naftali Bennett’s party, the HaBayit HaYehudi, which says this openly, that there will never be a state, a Palestinian state, anywhere in Palestine. Why hasn’t our government or anyone said, "Like Hamas, if you have parties like that in your government, you are not a peace partner, and you are a terrorist group, if in fact you use violence to implement your policy, as Hamas does"? So the hypocrisy in the discussion that is taking place publicly is just mind-boggling.
    AMY GOODMAN: Henry Siegman, you’re the head, the former head, of one of the leading Jewish organizations, the American Jewish Congress.
    HENRY SIEGMAN: Two of them, also of the Synagogue Council of America.
    AMY GOODMAN: So, these are major establishment Jewish organizations. You said you went to see Khaled Meshaal, the head of Hamas, not once, but several times to meet with him. The U.S. government calls Hamas a terrorist organization. They will not communicate with them. They communicate with them through other parties, through other countries, to talk to them. Talk about your decision to meet with Khaled Meshaal, where you met with him, and the significance of your conversations.
    HENRY SIEGMAN: Well, first of all, it should be noted that the U.S. has no such policy of not meeting with terrorist organizations. It has a policy of not meeting with Hamas. That’s quite different. We’re very happy to meet with the Taliban and to negotiate with them. And they cut off hands and heads of people, and they kill girls who go to school. And that didn’t prevent the United States from having negotiations with the Taliban, so that’s nonsense that we don’t talk to terrorist organizations. We talk to enemies if we want to cease the slaughter, and we’re happy to do so and to try to reach an agreement that puts an end to it. And why Hamas should be the exception, again, I find dishonest. And the only reason that we do that is in response to the pressures from AIPAC and, of course, Israel’s position.
    NERMEEN SHAIKH: Henry Siegman, as you are far more familiar than most, the argument made by Israel and supporters of Israel is that what might be construed as a disproportionate response by Israel to Hamas has to do with the historical experience of the persecution of the Jews and, of course, the Holocaust. So how do you respond to those kinds of claims?
    HENRY SIEGMAN: Well, I don’t accept that at all, because the lesson from the persecutions would seem to me—and certainly if you follow Jewish tradition, the lesson of those persecutions, we have always said, until the state of Israel came into being, is that you do not treat people in that kind of an inhumane and cruel way. And the hope always was that Israel would be a model democracy, but not just a democracy, but a state that would practice Jewish values, in terms of its humanitarian approach to these issues, its pursuit of justice and so on.
    I have always felt that, for me, the Holocaust experience, which was important to me, since I lived two years under Nazi occupation, most of it running from place to place and in hiding—I always thought that the important lesson of the Holocaust is not that there is evil, that there are evil people in this world who could do the most unimaginable, unimaginably cruel things. That was not the great lesson of the Holocaust. The great lesson of the Holocaust is that decent, cultured people, people we would otherwise consider good people, can allow such evil to prevail, that the German public—these were not monsters, but it was OK with them that the Nazi machine did what it did. Now I draw no comparisons between the Nazi machine and Israeli policy. And what I resent most deeply is when people say, "How dare you invoke the Nazi experience?" The point isn’t, you know, what exactly they did, but the point is the evidence that they gave that decent people can watch evil and do nothing about it. That is the most important lesson of the Holocaust, not the Hitlers and not the SS, but the public that allowed this to happen. And my deep disappointment is that the Israeli public, precisely because Israel is a democracy and cannot say, "We’re not responsible what our leaders do," that the public puts these people back into office again and again.
    AMY GOODMAN: You mentioned your experience as a Holocaust survivor. Could you just go into it a little more deeply? You were born in 1930 in Germany. And talk about the rise of the Nazis and how your family escaped.
    HENRY SIEGMAN: Well, I don’t consider myself a Holocaust survivor, in the sense that I was not in a concentration camp. But I lived under Nazi occupation. I was born in 1930, but the Nazis came to power in—I think in 1933. And shortly thereafter, we lived in Germany at the time. My parents lived in Germany, in Frankfurt. And they left. My father decided to give up a very successful business and to move to Belgium then, and on the assumption that Belgium was safe, that we would be escaping the Nazis. But in 1940, the Germans invaded Belgium, and they invaded France. That was in early 1940, I believe. And so, it’s a long story, but for the next—from that point on until February 1942, when we arrived, finally arrived in the United States.
    And how my father pulled that off is a miracle; to this day, I don’t fully understand, because there were six children that he had to bring with him, and my mother, of course. We ran from place to place. First we were at Dunkirk, where the classic evacuation, memorable evacuation took place, and the French and the British soldiers withdrew to across the channel. We happened to find ourselves there at the time. And then we were sent back by the—when the Nazi troops finally caught up with us in Dunkirk, they sent us back to Antwerp. And then my father had connections with the police chief, because of his business interests in Antwerp before the Nazis came. He was tipped off the morning that we were supposed to be—the Gestapo was supposed to come to our house to take all of us away. And so we just picked up, and we managed to get to Paris. And from Paris, we crossed—we were smuggled across the border into occupied Vichy France, and we were there for about a year, again without proper papers and in hiding. Then we tried to cross into Spain. And we did, but when we arrived at the Spanish border, they finally closed the border and sent us back into France.
    So, then we managed to get a boat to take us from Marseille to North Africa, where we were interned briefly in a camp in North Africa. And then the—what I believe was the last ship, a Portuguese, a neutral ship, taking refugees to the United States stopped in North Africa. We boarded that ship. And we were on the high seas for two months, because the Nazi subs were already busy sinking the ships that they encountered. So we had to go all the way around to avoid various Nazi submarine-infested areas.
    So after two months on the high seas, we arrived in New York, where we were sent to Ellis Island, which was full of Bundists, who had been German Bundists, who were arrested and were being sent back to Germany. But as we walked into Ellis Island into that hallway, something I will never forget, "We’re in America at last!" And those Bundists were greeting each other in the hallway, "Heil Hitler!" So the "Heil Hitlers" that we were trying to escape in Europe was the first thing we encountered as we landed on Ellis Island.
    AMY GOODMAN: And how did you end up becoming head of one of the country’s—or, as you said, country’s two major Jewish organizations? And what was your position on Zionism after World War II?
    HENRY SIEGMAN: Well, my father was one of the leaders of European Zionism. He was the head of the Mizrachi in the religious Zionist movement, not just in Belgium, but in Western Europe. And the leaders, the heads, the founders of the Mizrachi—mayor of Berlin himself, Gold, many others—were guests in our house in Antwerp. And they used to take me on their knees and teach me Hebrew songs from Israel. So, I had—I was raised on mother’s milk, and I was an ardent—as a kid even, an ardent Zionist. I recall on the ship coming over, we were coming to America, and I was writing poetry and songs—I was 10 years old, 11 years old—about the blue sky of Palestine. In those days we referred to it as Palestina, Palestine.
    And so, into adulthood, not until well after the ’67 War, when I came across—and I got to know Rabin and others, and I came across a discussion in which I was told by Israelis, by the Israeli people who I was talking to, government, senior government people, that they had an initiative from Sadat about peace and withdrawal and so on. And Rabin said, "But clearly, the Israeli public is not prepared for that now." And that hit me like a hammer. I always had this notion drilled into me that if only the Arabs were to reach out and be willing to live in peace with Israel, that would be the time of the Messiah. And the Messiah came, and the Israeli leadership said, "No, public opinion is not ready for that." And I wrote a piece then in Moment magazine—if you recall, it was published by Leonard Fein—and he made it a cover story, and the title was, "For the Sake of Zion, I Will Not Remain Silent." And that triggered my re-examination of things I had been told and what was going on on the ground.
    NERMEEN SHAIKH: Prior to that, your sense had always been that if the Arabs reached out, there would be two states: Palestine and Israel.
    HENRY SIEGMAN: I had no doubt about that. I mean, that was, you know, just a given, that we are sharing. The resolution said, you know, two states. The resolution, which Israel—the partition resolution, which Israel invoked in its Declaration of Independence, planted, rooted its legitimacy in that—it cited the Palestinian—the partition plan. But when someone these days says, "But there’s a partition plan that said that the rest of it, that was not assigned to Israel, is the legitimate patrimony of the Palestinian people," the answer given is, "Ah, yeah, but they voted they would not accept it, and the partition plan was never officially adopted." Well, why are you quoting it then in your Declaration of Independence, if you consider it to be null and void and not—anyway.
    AMY GOODMAN: And the response of—or the slogan, the idea that was put forward so much in the founding of the state of Israel: Palestine is a land without people for a people without land?
    HENRY SIEGMAN: Well, that was the common understanding and referred to repeatedly in Ari Shavit’s book and others, that the Zionist movement, at its very birth, was founded on an untruth, on a myth, that Palestine was a country without a people. And as he says, obviously—and he recognizes in his book that it was a lie. And therefore, from the very beginning, Zionism didn’t confront this profound moral dilemma that lay at its very heart. How do you deal with that reality? And as a consequence of that, one of the ways in which they dealt with it was to see to the expulsion of 700,000 people from their cities, from their towns and villages, and the destruction of all of them, which, to his credit, Ari Shavit writes about very painfully and honestly.
AMY GOODMAN: Henry Siegman, former head of the American Jewish Congress. We’ll continue our conversation with him in a minute.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman, as we continue our conversation with Henry Siegman, president of the U.S./Middle East Project, former head of the American Jewish Congress. Democracy Now!'s Nermeen Shaikh and I sat down with him on July 29th. I asked Henry Siegman about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's claim that Israel is just responding to the thousands of rockets that Hamas and other groups are firing from Gaza.
    HENRY SIEGMAN: My response is that they wouldn’t be firing those rockets if you weren’t out—if you didn’t have an occupation in place. And one of the reasons you say you do not have an occupation in place is because you really don’t have a united partner, Palestinian partner, to make peace with, and when Palestinians seek to establish that kind of a government, which they just recently did, bringing Hamas into the governmental structure, Palestinian governmental structure, that is headed by Abbas, you seek to destroy that. You won’t recognize it. And this is why I say there are several reasons for the Israeli action. A primary one is to prevent this new government from actually succeeding. It’s an attempt to break up the new unity government set up by the Palestinians.
    NERMEEN SHAIKH: Why would they do that? Why would they want to do that?
    HENRY SIEGMAN: They want to do that, for the first time—for years, I have been suggesting and arguing that they want to do that because they are intent on preventing the development of a Palestinian state. To put it bluntly, they want all of it. They want all of Palestine.
    Now, this is something that Netanyahu said openly and without any reservations when he was not in government. He wrote about it, published a book about it, his opposition to a Palestinian state, that Israel couldn’t allow that. The difference between the time that he—and he, incidentally, opposed not just Palestinian statehood. He opposed peace agreements with Egypt. He opposed peace agreements with Jordan. Any positive step towards a stabilization and a more peaceful region, Netanyahu has been on record as opposing.
    And when he came into office as prime minister, he understood that it is not a smart thing to say that Israel’s policy is to maintain the occupation permanently. So, the only difference between his positions in the past and the position now is that he pretends that he really would like to see a two-state solution, which, as you know, is the affirmation he made in his so-called Bar-Ilan speech several years ago. And some naive people said, "Ah, you know, redemption is at hand," when, to his own people, he winked and made clear, and as I just read recently—I didn’t know that—that it’s on record that his father said, "Of course he didn’t mean it. He will attach conditions that will make it impossible." But that was his tactic. His tactic was to say, "We are all in favor of it, but if only we had a Palestinian partner."
    Now, in fact, they’ve had a Palestinian partner that’s been willing and able—they set up institutions that the World Bank has said are more effective than most states that are members of the U.N. today. And that, of course, made no difference, and continued to say we do not have a partner, because you have nearly two million Palestinians in Gaza who are not represented. So the unity government became a threat to that tactic of pretending to be in support of a Palestinian state.
    AMY GOODMAN: In a response to the piece that you wrote for Politico that was headlined "Israel Provoked This War," the Anti-Defamation League writes, quote, "Hamas has a charter which they live up to every day calling for Israel’s destruction. Hamas has used the last two years of relative quiet to build up an arsenal of rockets whose sole purpose is to attack Israel. Hamas has built a huge network of tunnels leading into Israel with the purpose of murdering large numbers of Israelis and seizing hostages." Henry Siegman, can you respond?
    HENRY SIEGMAN: What I would point out to my former friend Abe Foxman of the ADL is that, too, is Israel’s charter, or at least the policy of this government and of many previous governments, which is to prevent the emergence of a Palestinian state. And they have built up their army and their armaments to implement that policy. And the difference between Hamas and the state of Israel is that the state of Israel is actually doing it. They’re actually implementing it, and they’re actually preventing a Palestinian state, which doesn’t exist. And millions of Palestinians live in this subservient position without rights and without security, without hope and without a future. That’s not the state of—the state of Israel is a very successful state, and happily Jews live there with a thriving economy and with an army whose main purpose is preventing that Palestinian state from coming into being. That’s their mandate.
    But sadly and shockingly, they can stand by, even though international law says if you’re occupying people from outside of your country, you have a responsibility to protect them. I mean, the responsibility to protect is the people you are occupying. The soldiers who are there, ostensibly to implement that mandate, will watch settler violence when it occurs when they attack Palestinians in the Occupied Territories, and they won’t do a thing to prevent it. They won’t intervene to protect the people they are supposed to protect, and they will tell you, "That’s not our job. Our job is to protect the Jews."
    NERMEEN SHAIKH: On the question of the support, the successive U.S. administrations supporting Israel, I’d like to again quote from something you said in a 2002 New York Times interview with Chris Hedges. You said, "The support for Israel," in the United States, "fills a spiritual vacuum. If you do not support the government of Israel then your Jewishness, not your political judgment, is in question." So could you explain what you mean by that and what the implications of that have been, in terms of U.S. governments supporting Israeli government policy?
    HENRY SIEGMAN: Well, what I meant by that, and that was an interview quite a while ago—
    NERMEEN SHAIKH: 2002, yes.
    HENRY SIEGMAN: I see, OK, which is not all that long ago, for me anyway. I meant by that something quite simple, that for many American Jews—and, I suspect, for most American Jews—Israel has become the content of their Jewish religious identification. It has very little other content. I rarely have been at a Shabbat service where a rabbi gives a sermon where Israel isn’t a subject of the sermon. And typically, they are—the sermons are not in the spirit of an Isaiah, you know, who says, "My god, is this what God wants from you? Your hands are bloody; they’re filled with blood. But he doesn’t want your fast. He doesn’t want—he despises the sacrifices and your prayers. What he wants is to feed, to feed the hungry, to pursue justice and so on." But that’s not what you hear from rabbis in the synagogues in this country. So, what I meant by that is that there’s much more to Judaism and to the meaning that you give to your Jewish identity than support for the likes of Netanyahu.
    NERMEEN SHAIKH: And Henry Siegman, what do you think the Obama administration has done since his first administration? And what do you think he ought to be doing differently, on the question of Israel-Palestine and, in particular, his response to this most recent military assault on Gaza?
    HENRY SIEGMAN: Look, I have written about this for years now. It’s not all that complicated. It is quite clear that, left to its own devices, if Israel—if the United States says to the Palestinians, "Hey, you guys have got to talk not to us; you’ve got to talk to the Palestinians—to the Israelis, and you have to come to an understanding that’s how peace is made, but we can’t interfere. You know, we cannot tell Israel what to do"—left to their own devices, there will never be a Palestinian state. And the question is—I have very serious doubts that we have not gone beyond the point where a Palestinian state is possible. The purpose of the settlement movement was to make it impossible. And I believe they have succeeded: That project has achieved its goal.
    AMY GOODMAN: The Jewish settlements.
    HENRY SIEGMAN: The Jewish settlers have achieved the irreversibility of the settlement movement, in terms of the vast infrastructure that has been put in place. So, even if there were a leftist government, so-called leftist government, that came to power, it would not be able to do it, because of the upheaval that would be necessary to create such a state.
    There is only one thing—as far as I’m concerned, there are only two things that could happen that could still, perhaps, produce a Palestinian state. The first one is for the—because the United States remains absolutely essential in terms of Israel’s security, to its continued success and survival. If at some point the United States were to say, "You have now reached a point—we have been your biggest supporters. We have been with you through thick and thin. And we have based—we have treated you"—you know, a lot of people say, criticizing the U.S. and the international community, that we have double standards, that we expect things of Israel that we don’t expect of the rest of the world. We do have double standards, but it works the other way around: We grant Israel privileges and tolerate behavior that we would not in other allies. We may say there’s nothing we can do to change that, but we don’t give them billions of dollars. And we don’t go to the U.N., at the Security Council, to veto when the international—efforts by the United Nations to prevent that bad behavior. So we have double standards, but it works the other way. But if the United States were to say to Israel, "It’s our common values that underlie this very special relationship we have with you and these privileges that we have extended to you, but this can’t go on. We can’t do that when those values are being undermined. The values—what you are doing today contradicts American values. We are a democratic country, and we cannot be seen as aiding and abetting this oppression and permanent disenfranchisement of an entire people. So, you’re on your own." The issue is not America sending planes and missiles to bomb Tel Aviv as punishment; the issue is America removing itself from being a collaborator in the policies and a facilitator, making it easy and providing the tools for Israel to do that. So, if at some point the United States were to say what is said in Hebrew, ad kan, you know, "So far, but no further. We can’t—this is not what we can do. You want to do it? You’re on your own," that would change—that could still change the situation, because the one thing Israelis do not want to do is have the country live in a world where America is not there to have their back.
    And the other possibility, which I have also written about, is for Palestinians to say, "OK, you won. You didn’t want us to have a state. We see that you’ve won. You have all of it." So our struggle is no longer to push the border to—to maintain a '67 border, where nobody is going to come to their help, because borderlines—international opinion doesn't mobilize around those issues. But this is a struggle against what looks and smells like apartheid—we want citizenship, we want full rights in all of Palestine—and make that the struggle. If Palestinians were to undertake that kind of a struggle in a credible way, where the Israeli public would see that they really mean it and they are going to fight for that in a nonviolent way, not by sending rockets, for citizenship, I am convinced—and I’ve seen no polls that contradict that belief—that they would say to their government, "Wait a minute, that is unacceptable, in fact, for us, and we cannot allow that. We don’t want a majority Arab population here." I’ve talked to Palestinian leadership and urged them to move in that direction. There is now a growing movement among younger Palestinians in that direction. And that, I hope, may yet happen. Now, it has to be a serious movement. It can’t just be a trick to get another state, but only if it is serious, where they are ready to accept citizenship and fight for it in a single state of all of Palestine, is it possible for the Israeli public to say, "This we cannot want, too, and we have to have a government that will accept the two states."
    AMY GOODMAN: Henry Siegman, I wanted to ask you about media coverage of the conflict right now in Gaza. In a comment to close the CBS show Face the Nation on Sunday, the host, Bob Schieffer, suggested Hamas forces Israel to kill Palestinian children.
        BOB SCHIEFFER: In the Middle East, the Palestinian people find themselves in the grip of a terrorist group that is embarked on a strategy to get its own children killed in order to build sympathy for its cause—a strategy that might actually be working, at least in some quarters. Last week I found a quote of many years ago by Golda Meir, one of Israel’s early leaders, which might have been said yesterday: "We can forgive the Arabs for killing our children," she said, "but we can never forgive them for forcing us to kill their children."
    AMY GOODMAN: That was the host, the journalist Bob Schieffer, on Face the Nation. You knew Prime Minister Golda Meir.
    HENRY SIEGMAN: Yes, I did. I wasn’t a friend of hers, but I knew her, and I heard her when she made that statement. And I thought then, and think now, that it is an embarrassingly hypocritical statement. This statement was made by a woman who also said "Palestinians? There are no Palestinians! I am a Palestinian." If you don’t want to kill Palestinians, if that’s what pains you so much, you don’t have to kill them. You can give them their rights, and you can end the occupation. And to put the blame for the occupation and for the killing of innocents that we are seeing in Gaza now on the Palestinians—why? Because they want a state of their own? They want what Jews wanted and achieved? I find that, to put it mildly, less than admirable. There is something deeply hypocritical about that original statement and about repeating it on the air over here as a great moral insight.
AMY GOODMAN: Henry Siegman, president of the U.S./Middle East Project, former head of the American Jewish Congress and the Synagogue Council of America, recently wrote a piece for Politico headlined "Israel Provoked This War: It’s Up to President Obama to Stop It." You can go to our website at democracynow.org if you’d like to get a copy of the full DVD interview with Henry Siegman.

Democracy Now! - August 11, 2014 Image


Democracy Now! - August 11, 2014
Monday, August 11, 2014
Noam Chomsky on Media’s "Shameful Moment" in Gaza & How a U.S. Shift Could End the Occupation
Noam Chomsky on BDS and How the Israeli Occupation is "Much Worse Than Apartheid"

Erasing Gaza - Genocidal Attacks Image


Erasing Gaza - Genocidal Attacks
Erasing Gaza? Israel shell hits another UN school
Published on Jul 29, 2014
At least 13 people have been killed after a shell hit the Palestinian refugee agency (UNRWA) girls' school in Jabalia refugee camp, emergency services say


Keiser Report: Fast Food Tax Evasion (E647) Image


Keiser Report: Fast Food Tax Evasion (E647)

In this episode of the Keiser Report, Max Keiser and Stacy Herbert discuss Burger King, yet another company fleeing America for yet another ‘free’ healthcare nation, Canada. Meanwhile, back in America naked incidents are on the rise and, in Europe, suicide tourism rises four-fold. In the second half, Max interviews Trace Mayer about bitcoin, central banking and geopolitics.WATCH all Keiser Report shows here:http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL768A33676917AE90 (E1-E200)http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLC3F29DDAA1BABFCF (E201-E400)http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLPszygYHA9K2ZtV_1KphSugBB7iZqbFyz (E401-600)http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLPszygYHA9K1GpAv3ZKpNFoEvKaY2QFH_ (E601-current)RT LIVE http://rt.com/on-airSubscribe to RT! http://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=RussiaTodayLike us on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/RTnewsFollow us on Twitter http://twitter.com/RT_comFollow us on Instagram http://instagram.com/rtFollow us on Google+ http://plus.google.com/+RTRT (Russia Today) is a global news network broadcasting from Moscow and Washington studios. RT is the first news channel to break the 1 billion YouTube views benchmark.

Keiser Report:(E642) - Saudi America Image


Keiser Report:(E642) - Saudi America
Keiser Report: Saudi America (E642)
Published on Aug 19, 2014
In this episode of the Keiser Report, Max Keiser and Stacy Herbert ask why, if fracking is so great, is it a state secret? A UK government report looking at the economic consequences in rural Britain is so heavily redacted that none are allowed to know the third “major social impact” the fracking process may cause. They also discuss one energy analyst’s call for fracking as the ‘dotcom bubble’ of our age. In the second half, Max interviews an activist from Germany, Lars Maehrholz, who has seen tens of thousands across Germany attend his weekly Stop the Fed rallies.
Keiser Report:(E641) - Alternative-To-Dollar Image


Keiser Report:(E641) - Alternative-To-Dollar
Keiser Report: End of No-Alternative-To-Dollar Era (E641)
Published on Aug 16, 2014
In this episode of the Keiser Report, Max Keiser and Stacy Herbert note that as the Empire collapses, they’ve killed all the boogeymen and yet blood for oil has not helped create escape velocity. They also discuss what the return of humpback whales and great white sharks to the waters off Manhattan can tell us about the end of a monoculture in fiat currencies where the dollar has reigned supreme. In the second half, Max interviews Dr. Michael Hudson about the war machine, Judge Griesa's ruling, super imperialism and the end of a 60 year cycle in which there was no alternative to the dollar.


Corbett Report. - China’s “War on Terror” Image


Corbett Report. - China’s “War on Terror”
China’s “War on Terror”
by James Corbett
May 8, 2014
On October 28, 2013, an SUV carrying three passengers crashed into a crowd of people waiting outside the gate of the forbidden city across from the infamous Tiananmen Square in the heart of Beijing. All three inside the car were killed in the subsequent fire, along with two bystanders in the crowd. Thirty-eight others were injured. Although not the most spectacular terror attack in the world in recent years, the scene of flames and carnage under the watchful gaze of Chairman Mao in the shadow of the heavily-guarded Tiananmen Square was as unmistakable to the Chinese population as the smoking ruins of the Pentagon was to the American population. This was, or was intended to be taken as, an attack on the Chinese “homeland.”
It was not long before the incident was blamed on Muslim separatists from the country’s northwestern Xinjiang province, China’s largest administrative district and a geostrategic area that shares 2800 kilometres of border with Tajikistan, Kygyzstan and Kazakhstan. As such, the government was quick to claim that the incident represented a bold new escalation in China’s ongoing struggle with its restive Muslim population, part of the ethnic Uyghur minority. Since then, two mass murder incidents involving knife-wielding masked men later identified as members of the East Turkestan Islamic Movement have drawn further attention to the issue.
As Pepe Escobar, geopolitical analyst and frequent BoilingFrogsPost.com contributor, explained last week on The Corbett Report, the Uyghurs are a persecuted minority in the country’s untamed west who find few opportunities for advancement in China’s mainstream society, dominated by the ethnic majority Han Chinese.
Uyghur disenfranchisement is played upon to foment Islamic radicalism and political separatist sentiment. The East Turkestan Islamic movement seeking to wrest Xinjiang from China’s control offers a number of parallels to the shadowy “Al Qaeda” terror organization, including a mysterious leader living in a secret mountain base in Pakistan’s lawless border region and, as FBI whistleblower and BoilingFrogsPost founder Sibel Edmonds revealed in last year’s series on Gladio B, direct support from NATO-associated Gladio operatives seeking to destabilize a geostrategic region in an ongoing, under-the-radar war for control of Central Asia.
Western support for the Xinjiang terrorists is not difficult to spot, and includes the fact that the East Turkestan Government-in-Exile, led by Anwar Yusuf Turani, is based in Washington, D.C., has spoken at the National Press Club, met with President Clinton during his administration, and received explicit offers of support from President Bush, and the National Endowment for Democracy-funded Uyghur World Congress, a German-based organization with a Sweden-based spokesman, Dilxat Raxit, that Central Asia analyst Christoph Germann told The Corbett Report last week, acts as the Western media’s “go to” man for any and all stories about the region.
The incidents so far are by no means massive or spectacular enough to fundamentally change the course of Chinese society or bring about Xinjiang’s independence, but they are serving a number of purposes. For the west, the attacks help take the battle for control of Central Asia directly into the Chinese homeland, and help destabilize a region that, as part of President Xi’s “New Silk Road” corridor of pipeline and trade routes, is of increasing economic importance to Beijing.
But Beijing, too, gains from the attacks in the same way that authoritarian power structures always benefit from attacks and atrocities: by making the formerly impossible appear probable. As Li Wei, a terrorism “expert” at the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations told the Chinese government mouthpiece Global Times last week:
“China has long been considering how to introduce a counter-terrorism law. However, considering the complexity of the anti-terrorism situation, and difficulties of coordinating so many government departments and military forces involved in the issue, the counter-terrorism law still isn’t on the books.”
Beijing is now openly mulling new anti-terror legislation that some are calling China’s Patriot Act and many analysts are expecting to openly target the Uyghur population. Given that the government is already increasing its network of informants in the region with such programs as offering cash rewards for those who inform on neighbors with too much facial hair, it is questionable whether formal terror legislation is even needed at all.
In the end, as with so many of these contrived geopolitical conflicts, the only people who clearly lose are the Uyghur people themselves, whose economic and political marginalization seems set to increase from here. In the great irony of global geopolitics, this will itself create a greater pool of disenfranchised youth to draw upon for future terror attacks, thus perpetuating a descending cycle of chaos and violence. And, sadly, the only plausible way out of this, a plan for bringing about greater opportunities for the Uyghur people to engage in China’s ongoing economic miracle, is so far off the political radar that it can’t be found on anyone’s map.

Escobar on China - China/Russia


Escobar on China - China/Russia 'Deal
Escobar on China/Russia 'Deal of the decade' & Europe's secret US deal blues
Published on Apr 15, 2014
While the West weighs up putting more spanners in the works with sanctions, Russia and China are getting on with business. The two are looking at a deal that could see gas pumped into the world's most-populated nation for the next 3 decades. Asia Times correspondent Pepe Escobar told RT that Beijing's stance on the global political arena is bearing fruit.
East China Sea - China Navy drills Image


East China Sea - China Navy drills
China Navy drills: Jets live fire at targets in East China Sea
Published on Apr 3, 2014
China's East China Sea Fleet launched a live-fire air drill recently, aimed at improving the overall combating capability of the naval air force. The naval aircraft has been an important air force guarding the southeast coast of China for more than half a century


New Vietnam. - Afghan Kills US General, Image


New Vietnam. - Afghan Kills US General,
Afghan Soldier Kills US General, America's Highest-Ranking Fatality Since Vietnam
Fmr. chief of staff to Colin Powell Lawrence Wilkerson discusses the recent killing of a U.S. General by an Afghan insider and the mess America will leave behind after its withdrawal -   August 6, 14
Lawrence Wilkerson is a retired United States Army soldier and former chief of staff to United States Secretary of State Colin Powell. Wilkerson is an adjunct professor at the College of William & Mary where he teaches courses on US national security. He also instructs a senior seminar in the Honors Department at the George Washington University entitled "National Security Decision Making."
Afghan Soldier Kills US General, America's Highest-Ranking Fatality Since VietnamJESSICA DESVARIEUX, TRNN PRODUCER: Welcome to The Real News Network. I'm Jessica in Baltimore. And welcome to this edition of The Wilkerson Report.
Now joining us is Larry Wilkerson. He is the former chief of staff of U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, and he's currently an adjunct professor at the college of William & Mary. And he's also a regular contributor to The Real News.
Thanks for joining us, Larry.
DESVARIEUX: So, Larry, a lot of of news breaking over this general that was killed in Afghanistan. What do you make of this? What does this say about our ability to actually transition power over to the Afghans?
WILKERSON: General Greene was the deputy commander of the Combined Security Transition Command, which is the entity that is supposed to effect the transition of power from essentially the U.S. to the Afghan government, such as it will be, I hope. And he was an engineer by training. So here you have a specialist who is there probably to do the kinds of things that engineers do to make sure that the institutional infrastructure of Kabul and elsewhere as could be impacted was ready, ready for the new leadership in Afghanistan, ready for the UnitedStates to minimize its presence.
So the fact that he was killed, tactically speaking, doesn't say much, except that we still have an inability to weed out the security threats within the Afghan forces--forces, incidentally, of course, that we've trained. This individual I think we had had in the forces for a couple of years before he got into the bathroom with his service weapon and dispatched some 15 or 16 people, either killing them or wounding them. This is an indicator strategically that we have not, as we did not do in Iraq with Iraqi forces, train them very well or instilled in them the kind of patriotism, the kind of desire to protect Afghanistan and the central government in Kabul that should have been there, if it could in any event be instilled in them. I suspect it probably couldn't.
So this is going to be a difficult transition, to say the least. And it's up in the air, I think, as to what Afghanistan looks like in a year or so. My guess right now would be it will look a lot like Iraq does today--a real mess, a mess that in part we are responsible for.
DESVARIEUX: Yeah. And can you elaborate a little bit more about our level of responsibility there?
WILKERSON: We spent so much money, Jessica, in Afghanistan and in Iraq that we could probably have given every Iraqi citizen and every Afghan citizen somewhere in the neighborhood of a annual wage or better had we just handed it over and left. I daresay that might have made a more prosperous Afghanistan and people who are more interested in a central government. It could not have possibly done any worse than we have done. Much of the money we paid out, billions of dollars, approaching $2-3 trillion now, I'm told by people who ought to know, went to U.S. contractors, and U.S. personnel in general, who were more or less more interested in profit than they were in helping Afghanistan. So you combine that with a really poor strategy from the start with regard to any kind of counterinsurgency, where you'd need a density of forces that is so enormous, few nations could even afford to put them on the ground in any country with a significant population and you have a United States that has halfheartedly--foolheartedly, we might say--lingered in Afghanistan for a decade plus and who's going to pay for that by seeing not much change once it leaves. Sad though that prognosis might be, I fear it's closer to the truth than any optimistic prognosis.
DESVARIEUX: Alright. Larry Wilkerson, thanks you so much for joining us.
WILKERSON: Thanks for having me, Jessica.
DESVARIEUX: And thank you for joining us on The Real News Network.
Near Kabul:Video - 400 Fl tankers on fire Image


Near Kabul:Video - 400 Fl tankers on fire
400 fuel tankers set on fire near Kabul "Video"
Published on Jul 5, 2014
A spokesman for Kabul's police chief said police were investigating the cause of the fire, which continues to burn, and that there are fears of casualties. Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid has claimed responsibility for the attack.
America-Afghanistan - US w opium factory Image


America-Afghanistan - US w opium factory
America runs the world's opium factory: Afghanistan

Published on Jul 4, 2014
Watch full Keiser Report: Saturday
In this episode of the Keiser Report, Max Keiser and Stacy Herbert discuss the central banking model of passing off downmarket potato wedges of cheap money for high-end, luxury housing bubbles. No value has been added, no wealth created and yet the fraud continues. They talk about the reverse process of taking the National Health Service in the UK and turning it into a downmarket privatised entity. In the second half, Max interviews Jeffrey Sommers, professor at University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee about a new book he's edited with Charles Woolfson called, "The Contradictions of Austerity: The Socio-Economic Costs of the Neoliberal Baltic Model." In particular, they discuss the economic miracle that is NOT Latvia and how Swedish bankers are acting as conquistadors in Latvia.