US blockade against Cuba, the worst violation of human rights

Beijing, Dec 5 (Prensa Latina) China today described the US blockade against Cuba as the worst example of the continuous and serious violation of human rights, denouncing Washington’s disregard for democracy.

The Foreign Ministry criticized in a document the persistence of that hostile stance kept for decades and the application of unilateral sanctions that infringe on the freedoms of the peoples of both countries.

“For more than 60 years, overlooking the multiple resolutions of the UN General Assembly, the United States kept intact its blockade against Cuba, based on embargo policies and domestic laws such as Torricelli and Helms-Burton,” it added.

He also remarked that it is the “longest and cruelest trade embargo, economic blockade and financial sanctions in modern history”, since they seriously obstruct development on the island and caused losses of more than 100 billion dollars.

The Chinese Foreign Ministry’s text in three chapters listed several facts, figures and opinions of experts and international organizations about the flaws of democracy in the United States, in reaction to a summit on the subject to be held by Washington this week.

He criticized the disadvantages of the American democratic system, as well as the overexploitation of the issue to meddle in the internal affairs of other nations.

He denounced the predominance of money in politics, the abuse of power by the elites, the invisibilization of ethnic minorities and the injustice in the rules of the electoral process there.

He emphasized that the crisis in democratic practices led to the unprecedented assault on the Capitol, exacerbated racism, contributed to the mismanagement of the Covid-19 pandemic, widened the gap between rich and poor, and undermined the freedom of speech.

He also cited as other consequences of the imposition of the American model the outbreak of “color revolutions” to undermine stability in countries and regions of the world, humanitarian tragedies and abuse of sanctions also against Syria, Venezuela, Iran and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea that violate international regulations

Sanctions kill more people than bombs or wars … Sara Flounders

December 16 2019

RT:  So joining us to understand sanctions a little better we’re being joined by Sarah Flounders she’s the co-director of the International Action Center in New York City.

Sarah thank you for being with us today. So you say in your article that sanctions actually kill more people than bombs or guns.  Can you explain that to us.

SF:  Yes sanctions are war. They are actually directed at the poorest, the most defenseless, those who are older, sick; the youth, and as such they have a deadly consequence.

If the most basic medicine, or if you create artificial famine – and that is what they do – it actually helps to spread disease by preventing the most basic medicine.  And it happens in country after country. 39 countries, a third of the population of the world, think of the impact and there are countries where it’s well known – Venezuela, Cuba, Russia, China and so on.  And there are all kinds of countries around the world that we don’t know and that you see on the sanctions list; and this is true for Zimbabwe or Laos or Guinea.  We could go on – Mali, Nicaragua, one country after another, that suddenly can’t get the most basic material.

RT:   And Ajama Baraka has actually said on on this very program that sanctions he said softens a country for military invasion.  What recent invasions can you point to that can prove that point is that a true thing.?

SF:   Well when you look at the impact in Venezuela certainly sanctions were used absolutely to try to undercut support for a very popular government.   We could look at Syria where sanctions since 2003 were an economic destabilizing force and and created great dissension within the country.  So it can be a precursor to military action, to using contra and reactionary forces; and at the same time the economic strangulation is meant to undercut support for popular and for elected governments around the world.

It happens without us being aware of it here and that’s why we need really a grassroots International People’s Campaign which is exposing this as an act of war.

….

Jimmy Carter Lectures Trump: US Is ‘Most Warlike Nation in History of the World’

Source:  TeleSUR
April 13 2019

jimmy carter 3Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter makes remarks at a luncheon following
a morning symposium for the 25th anniversary of the Camp David Peace
Accords between Israel and Egypt. | Photo: Reuters

 The former president says peaceful China “ahead of us in almost every way.”

The only U.S. president to complete his term without war, military attack or occupation has called the United States “the most warlike nation in the history of the world.”

RELATED:  US Marks Anniversary of Its Defeat at Bay of Pigs by Imposing New Sanctions Against Cuba

During his regular Sunday school lesson at Maranatha Baptist Church in his hometown of Plains, Georgia, Jimmy Carter revealed that he had recently spoken with President Donald Trump about China. Carter, 94, said Trump was worried about China’s growing economy and expressed concern that “China is getting ahead of us.”

Carter, who normalized diplomatic relations between Washington and Beijing in 1979, said he told Trump that much of China’s success was due to its peaceful foreign policy.

“Since 1979, do you know how many times China has been at war with anybody?” Carter asked. “None, and we have stayed at war.” While it is true that China’s last major war — an invasion of Vietnam — occurred in 1979, its People’s Liberation Army pounded border regions of Vietnam with artillery and its navy battled its Vietnamese counterpart in the 1980s. Since then, however, China has been at peace with its neighbors and the world.

Carter then said the U.S. has been at peace for only 16 of its 242 years as a nation. Counting wars, military attacks and military occupations, there have actually only been five years of peace in US history — 1976, the last year of the Gerald Ford administration and 1977-80, the entirety of Carter’s presidency. Carter then referred to the US as “the most warlike nation in the history of the world,” a result, he said, of the US forcing other countries to “adopt our American principles.”

China’s peace dividend has allowed and enhanced its economic growth, Carter said. “How many miles of high-speed railroad do we have in this country?” he asked. China has around 18,000 miles (29,000 km) of high speed rail lines while the US has “wasted, I think, $3 trillion” on military spending. According to a November 2018 study by Brown University’s Watson Institute of International and Public Affairs, the US has spent $5.9 trillion waging war in Iraq,

Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan and other nations since 2001.

“It’s more than you can imagine,” Carter said of U.S. war spending. “China has not wasted a single penny on war, and that’s why they’re ahead of us. In almost every way.”

“And I think the difference is if you take $3 trillion and put it in American infrastructure you’d probably have $2 trillion leftover,” Carter told his congregation. “We’d have high-speed railroad. We’d have bridges that aren’t collapsing, we’d have roads that are maintained properly. Our education system would be as good as that of say South Korea or Hong Kong.”

While there is a prevalent belief in the United States that the country almost always wages war for noble purposes and in defense of freedom, global public opinion and facts paint a very different picture. Most countries surveyed in a 2013 WIN/Gallup poll identified the United States as the greatest threat to world peace, and a 2017 Pew Research poll found that a record number of people in 30 surveyed nations viewed US power and influence as a “major threat.”

The U.S. has also invaded or bombed dozens of countries and supported nearly every single right-wing dictatorship in the world since the end of World War II. It has overthrown or attempted to overthrow dozens of foreign governments since 1949 and has actively sought to crush nearly every single people’s liberation movement over that same period. It has also meddled in scores of elections, in countries that are allies and adversaries alike.

Brett Wilkins is an independent journalist and activist based in San Francisco. His work, which covers issues of war and peace and human rights, is archived atwww.brettwilkins.com. 

Zakharova: Neither Russia nor Venezuela are US provinces

Source:  TeleSUR
March 28 2019

russia tells trump telesur.jpgForeign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova at a press conference in
Moscow, Russia March 15 2019 Photo EFE

Russian technical cooperation is not geopolitically motivated and is based on respect for international and domestic laws.

Russia’s Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova rejected Thursday President Donald Trump’s statements regarding the presence of Russian military in Venezuela and noted that her country’s actions were legitimate and agreed upon with the President Nicolas Maduro administration.

RELATED:  US Calls on Russia to Withdraw from Venezuela

“The Russian side did not violate anything: neither the international agreements nor Venezuelan laws. Russia is not changing the balance of power in the region; Russia is not threatening anyone, unlike [Washington officials],” Zakharova said and added that “Russian specialists… arrived in accordance with the clauses of a bilateral agreement on technical-military cooperation.”

The spokeswoman called the U.S. criticism “an arrogant attempt” to dictate to sovereign states how their bilateral relations should be.

“Neither Russia nor Venezuela are U.S. provinces,” the Kremlin spokeswoman insisted and explained that the Russian military presence in Venezuela “is not linked to possible military operations.”

The official also stressed that her country respects the Venezuelan people and its elected rulers. “If we talk about the authority, there is no authority in Venezuela except the President’s Maduro government,” she said.

teleSUR English@telesurenglish

| Spokesperson for the Russian chancellery, Maria Zajárova, clarified that the Russian military specialists’ objective in is to strengthen the technical-military cooperation. It does NOT violate international law.

Hansell Oro@HansellteleSUR

#Moscú | La portavoz de la cancillería rusa, María Zajárova, aclaró que los especialistas militares rusos en #Venezuela es con el objetivo de fortalecer la cooperación técnico-militar. NO viola el derecho internacional. No se trata de la presencia militar de #Rusia en el país.

View image on Twitter
President Trump Wednesday called on Russia to pull its military from Venezuela and indicated that the U.S. maintains “all options open” for the Russian military to leave that country. In a similar sense, the U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo insisted that Russia’s influence on Cuba and Nicaragua must be stopped.

The U.S. reaction comes after the arrival of two Russian planes into Venezuela on Feb. 23. According to local media, these planes carried 99 military personnel and 35 tons of material, an operation which was carried out under the command of the Ground Army Chief General Vasily Tonkoshkurov.

The Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman also commented that the U.S. should be more concerned about fulfilling its promises about Syria than about what Russia and Venezuela should do.

“Before advising someone to leave somewhere, the U.S. needs to implement its own exit plan from Syria… a month has passed… can it be specified if it has been retired or not?” Zakharova asked and added that “I would advise the U.S. administration to fulfill promises given to the international community before handling other countries’ legitimate interests.”

Going Down With the Bad Ship U.S.A.

Source:  Black Agenda Report
March 15 2018

going down with the bad ship.jpgGoing Down With the Bad Ship U.S.A.

“All that it can offer to the emerging nations of the world is a bad example and the threat of annihilation.”

There is no mystery to the ideological collapse of U.S. ruling class politics under late stage capitalism and imperial decline. Simply put, the corporate duopoly parties have nothing to offer the masses of people except unrelenting austerity at home and endless wars abroad. A shrunken and privatized Detroit serves as the model for U.S. urban policy; Libya and Syria are the scorched-earth footprints of a demented and dying empire. The lengthening shadow of economic eclipse by the East leaves the U.S. Lords of Capital with no cards left to play but the threat of Armageddon.

As China reclaims its historic place at the center of the earth, alongside the huge and heavily armed landmass of Russia, Washington flails about in a frenzy of firewall-building, buying time with the blood of millions, hoping to somehow preserve its doomed hegemony. But the “exceptional” superpower has no Marshall Plan to rescue itself from the throes of systemic decay, and all that it can offer to the emerging nations of the world is a bad example and the threat of annihilation. Its own people tire of the “Great Game,” finally realizing that they are the ones who have been played.

“Washington flails about in a frenzy of firewall-building, buying time with the blood of millions.”

George Bush drawled the “last hurrah” of empire with his declaration of “Mission Accomplished,” 15 years ago — and was quickly contradicted. With the failure in Iraq, the pretense of “spreading democracy” came ingloriously undone. A refurbishing of the imperial brand was attempted, with a bright and shiny new face – a Black-ish one — plus a new logo to justify invasion and regime-change: “humanitarian” intervention. But Obama’s assault on Syria revealed that the U.S. and its junior partners could only project power in the region through an alliance with Islamic jihadist terror. The architects of the War on Terror were, in fact, the godfathers of al Qaida.

“Do you realize now what you’ve done?” Vladimir Putin demanded of the Americans, at the United Nations, in 2015. “It is hypocritical and irresponsible to make loud declarations about the threat of international terrorism while turning a blind eye to the channels of financing and supporting terrorists, including the process of trafficking and illicit trade in oil and arms. It would be equally irresponsible to try to manipulate extremist groups and place them at one’s service in order to achieve one’s own political goals in the hope of later dealing with them or, in other words, liquidating them.”

The U.S. and its junior partners could only project power in the region through an alliance with Islamic jihadist terror.”

Washington’s jihadist strategy has rapidly unraveled ever since. The empire was unmasked in the world’s most public forum, revealing the utter depravity of U.S. policy and, more importantly, the weakness of Washington’s position in the region. The mighty fortress of global capital, the self-appointed defender of the world economic “order,” was revealed as, not just in collusion with head-chopping, women-enslaving, sectarian mass-murdering terrorists, but militarily dependent on the very forces it claims to wage a twilight, “generational” battle to destroy. The U.S. has been spouting The Mother of All Lies, and most of humanity knows it. Deep down, most Americans suspect as much, too.

With its intervention in Syria as a stalwart foe of jihadism and in defense of the principle of national sovereignty, Russia spoke the language of international law and morality, presenting a fundamental challenge to U.S. imperial exceptionalism. By deploying his forces against Washington’s jihadist proxies, in a region infested with American bases, Putin put muscle behind his call for a “multi-polar” world order.

China understands clearly that the ultimate U.S. aim is to block China’s access to the region’s energy and markets, at will. Beijing has praised Russia’s military role in the war, and stood with Moscow in vetoing western Security Council resolutions targeting Damascus. China routinely joins with Russia – and most other nations on the planet — in pursuit of a more “multi-polar world.”

“Putin put muscle behind his call for a “multi-polar” world order.”

The U.S. now uses the desperate Kurdish militia as surrogates in Syria, in an attempt to justify its presence in the country, while continuing to arm, finance and train other “rebel” groups, reportedly including former ISIS fighters. The U.S. has always avoided targeting the al Qaida affiliate in Syria, formerly known as the al Nusra Front — which, with ISIS on the run, remains the most effective anti-government force in the country.

The Trump administration declares that it will remain in Syria for the foreseeable future — without even a fig leaf of legal cover. Although there is now no possibility for a jihadist victory, Washington seems intent on drawing out the war as long as possible. The truth is, Washington doesn’t know how to extricate itself, because to do so would amount to yet another admission of defeat, and lead quickly to the dissolution of the jihadist networks the Pentagon has so long cultivated.

Withdrawal from Syria — and, sooner rather than later, from Iraq, whose parliament this month called for a timetable for U.S. forces to vacate the country — would totally unravel U.S. strategy to dominate events in the oil-rich region. Obama launched the jihadist war against the Syrian government in 2011 to force his way into the country. ISIS’s seizure of Mosul, Iraq’s second largest city, gave the U.S. the opportunity to return to that country, militarily. There will be no third chances, in Syria or Iraq.

“Washington doesn’t know how to extricate itself, because to do so would amount to yet another admission of defeat.”

The American people will not stand for another such adventure. They feel tainted by the experience in both Syria and Iraq, and don’t trust what their government says about the “good guys” and the “bad guys” in the Arab world. If only for reasons of racism, they want out.

Everyone smells U.S. defeat, inside and outside the empire. It is a stink that only Americans that were conscious in the Vietnam era can remember. It makes folks anxious — like the loss of a cocoon. Just as whites reaped a “psychological wage ” from Jim Crow privileges, according to W.E.B. Dubois, even if they were poor, so do citizens of empire feel psychological benefits, even when the cost of the war machine is impoverishing the country. U.S. politics in the era of imperial decline will be nasty, stupid, petty and racist — just as we are already experiencing. There must be scapegoats for the national de-exceptionalization. The Russians fit the bill, for now, and so does anybody that talks like a Russian, or a Chinese — for example, people that would like to live in a “multi-polar world.”

Do not expect the Republicans or the Democrats to make any sense of a world of diminishing empire. The duopolists are incapable of seeing any future beyond their rich patrons’ vision –- and the rich have no vision beyond continued accumulation of wealth, which requires a harsher and harsher austerity.

Most dangerous, they cannot imagine a world in which they are not on top. We will have to fight to keep them from blowing us all up, in rich man’s despair.

BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at Glen.Ford@BlackAgendaReport.com .

When Is there Going to be Accountability for US Wars and Aggression?

Source:  Cuba-Network in Defense of Humanity

February 5 2018

by Rick Sterling

us accountability

  • US makes new claims of WMD in Syria
  • It’s WMD all over again.

Anonymous “US officials” are once again accusing a targeted “regime” of using “chemical weapons” and threatening that the U.S. military may have to “hold it accountable”. Once again, western media is broadcasting these accusations and threats without skepticism or investigation.

The Washington Post story is titled “Trump administration: Syria probably continuing to make, use chemical weapons”. Jane’s Defence Weekly quotes a U.S. offical saying “They clearly think they can get away with this ….”

Jerusalem Online says “A US official says Syrian President Assad’s forces may be developing new types of chemical weapons, which which could reach as far as the US..”

The Reuters story in the New York Times says “US officials have said the Syrian government may be developing new types of chemical weapons, and President Donald Trump is prepared to consider further military action…. President Bashar al Assad is believed to have secretly kept part of Syria’s chemical weapons stockpile….”

The Washingon Post article concludes with the threat, “If the international community does not take action now . . . we will see more chemical weapons use, not just by Syria but by non-state actors such as ISIS and beyond,” the first official said. “And that use will spread to U.S. shores.”Based on a review of facts from recent history, it is very likely the story is false and is being broadcast to deceive the public in preparation for new military aggression. Anyone who thinks that politicians don’t consider timing and marketing needs to only recall the statement of a GW Bush official that “from a marketing point of view, you don’t introduce new products in August.” The “product” was the PR campaign to get the American public to accept the invasion of Iraq.

Accountability for the US military industrial complex

When is there going to be some accountability for the US military industrial complex and their political and media enablers and promoters?

Vietnam

The invasion of Vietnam with over 500 thousand US soldiers was preceded by the phoney Gulf of Tonknin incident where a US ship was supposedly attacked by a North Vietnamese vessel. It was untrue and President Johnson knew it. The resolution was passed unanimously (416-0) in the House and only Wayne Morse and Ernest Gruening had the integrity and insight to oppose it in the Senate. Was anyone ever held accountable for the lie that led to 55 thousand dead US soldiers and millions of dead Vietnamese? No.

Iraq

The 1991 attack on Iraq and subsequent massacre of Iraqi soldiers and civilians was preceded by the fabricated testimony of the Kuwaiti Ambassador’s daughter pretending to be a nurse who had witnessed Iraqi soldiers stealing incubators and leaving Kuwaiti babies on the floor. Were the marketing officials Hill & Knowlton and politicians such as Tom Lantos who managed this deceit ever held accountable? No.

In 2003 the US launched the invasion of Iraq leading to the death of over a million Iraqis based on the false and fabricated evidence provided by the CIA and uncritically promoted by the mainstream media. For example, Michael Gordon and Thomas Friedman promoted and lauded the invasion at the NYTimes. Were they held to account? No, they carry right on to today.

Libya

In 2011 the US led NATO attacks on Libya with the stated purpose to “protect civilians” from massacre. This was explained and encouraged by journalists and pundits such as Nicholas Kristofand Juan Cole. NATO officials bragged about their operation. After the brief western euphoria, it became clear that the campaign was based on lies and the real result was an explosion of extremism, massacres and and chaos which continues to today. Accountability? None. One rarely hears about Libya today. Out of sight, out of mind.

Syria

In August of 2013 we heard about a massive sarin gas attack on the outskirts of Damascus. Human Rights Watch and others promoting a western attack quickly accused the Syrian government. They asserted that Assad had crossed Obama’s “red line” and the US needed to intervene directly. Subsequent investigations revealed the gas attack was not carried out by the Syrian government. It was perpetrated by a Turkish supported terrorist faction with the goal of pressuring the Obama administration to directly attack Syria. Two Turkish parliamentarians presented evidence of Turkey’s involvement in the transfer of sarin. Some of the best and most time-proven US investigative journalists, including Robert Parry and Seymour Hersh, researched and discovered the evidence points to Turkish supported “rebels” not Syria. Despite the factual evidence exposing the “junk heap” of false claims, mainstream media and their followers continue to assert that Assad committed the crime.

In April 2017 it was the same thing: US and allies made accusations which were never proven and ultimately discredited. The UN / OPCW investigation team never visited the scene of the crime. They discovered the curious fact that dozens of victims in multiple locations showed up at hospitals with symptoms of chemical injuries before the attack happened. This is strong evidence of fraud but that investigation was not pursued. With or without awareness of the deceit, Trump ordered missile strikes on a Syrian air base which killed 13 people including four children. Accountability? None.

Recently it has become clear that dark forces in the US government ad military do not intend to stop their efforts to destroy Syria. Despite confusion and contradictory claims in the US administration, a core fact is that the US is training and supplying a sectarian military militia inside northern Syria against the wishes of the Syrian government. The US said they were in Syria to get rid of ISIS but now that ISIS is largely gone, the US military says it is not leaving. On the contrary, the US military helped escort ISIS fighters from Raqqa to al Bukamal and the US is nowtraining ISIS fighters to be reincarnated as yet another anti-Assad “rebel” force.

As always, US aggression needs some measure of political support. To gain that, they need a justification. Thus it’s WMD all over again. Once again. the “bad guys” are using chemical weapons on their own people. Supposedly the Syrian government is incredibly stupid …. they just keep on using chemical weapons and giving the US a justification to act as judge, jury and executioner.

The American public

Most of the American public is too busy, distracted or overwhelmed with problems to investigate U.S. government claims. Mainstream media, including some alternative media, are failing badly. They are supposed to be holding government to account, critically questioning the assertions, investigating the facts, exposing contradictions and falsehoods. Along with the politicians and government, they have some responsibility for the ongoing wars and aggression. They all should be accountable. When is that going to happen?

Cuba-Network in Defense of Humanity

Cuba Delivers Vaccines Against Meningitis to Syrian People

Source:  TeleSUR
December 18 2016

Aleppo Syria.jpg

A man sits amid debris near Umayyad mosque, in the government-controlled area of Aleppo. | Photo: Reuters

The cooperation between the two countries has a 51-year history.

Syrian authorities announced Sunday the arrival of 293,650 doses of Cuban vaccines against meningitis, for an estimated value of US$930,000, as the Syrian people are affected by a Western trade blockade.

RELATED:  Anti-Govt Forces Blamed for Burning Civilian Buses near Aleppo

The delivery was part of an agreement signed by Syria and Cuba, which includes bank settlements for Syria’s recent debts and the importation of a variety of Cuban medicines, according to the Public Establishment of Foreign Trade in Syria.< /p>

Cuban vaccines

In 2016, the Cuban government sent vaccines meant to fight diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough, Hepatitis B and influenza.

The Syrian government also imported vaccines against five communicable diseases affecting children from other sources.

The war-torn country has suffered six years of conflict, which may be coming to an end after the Syrian army liberated Aleppo from anti-government forces.

World War 3 has never been so close

Russian Reaction to US Attack

Source:  Information Clearing House

Date:  September 23 2016

us bombs syria.jpgAs we have already said many times, the main aspect of this political season is not elections, but war. But if elections do have importance somewhere, then this is in the US where, once again, they are closely connected to war. Two days ago, on Saturday, September 17th, the likelihood of this war was breathtakingly high. As we know, American troops, who no one ever invited to Syria, bombed the positions of the Syrian army at Deir ez-Zor. As a result of the bombing, 60 Syrian soldiers were killed.

A war declariation on Russia

This strike was extremely important for ISIS militants, whom the US is informally advising and arming while supposedly fighting them. This crossed the line. Bombing Syrian soldiers is one thing, but this means declaring war not only against Syria, but also Russia, which is fighting in Syria on Assad’s side. And this means that we have reached a climax.

Sure, the US leadership immediately reported that the airstrike was a mistake and warned the Russian leadership not to express any emotions. But Americans can only be lying, as modern technology allows satellite objects to be seen from a desktop. Theoretically, American bombers could not have simply confused such a strike. And what’s most important: if they had told you that they were preparing to bomb you, and you said nothing, then does that mean you agree?

US is preparing to start a war against Russia

It is completely obvious that the US is preparing to start a war against Russia. Border incidents represent reconnaissance operations. But how will Moscow, Putin, and the Kremlin react? The point of no return has not yet been crossed, but did Moscow’s reaction not show just how many Russians are ready for a direct, frontal confrontation with the US and NATO? This was why the airstrike was launched against Syrian army positions.

A war needed before Trump gets in office

The globalist US leadership obviously cannot rule the whole world and, what’s more, the threat posed by Trump puts their control over America itself into question. Now, while the puppet Barack Obama is still in office and the globalist candidate Hillary Clinton is falling apart in front of American voters’ very eyes, is the last chance to start a war. This would allow them to postpone elections or force Trump, if he were to win, to begin his presidency in catastrophic conditions. Thus, the US neoconservatives and globalists need war. And fast, before it’s too late. If Trump gets into the White House when there will be peace, then there will be no such war, at least for the foreseeable future. And this would spell the end of the omnipotence of the maniacal globalist elites.

Thus, everything at this point is very, very serious. NATO’s ideologues and the US globalists falling into the abyss need war right now – before the American elections. War against us. Not so much for victory, but for the process itself. This is the only way for them to prolong their dominance and divert the attention of Americans and the whole world from their endless series of failures and crimes. The globalists’ game has been revealed. Soon enough, they’ll have to step down from power and appear before court. Only war can save their situation.

Russia doesn’t need a war

But what about us? We don’t need war. Not now, now tomorrow, never. Never in history have we needed war. But we have constantly fought and, in fact, we have almost never lost. The cost entailed terrible losses and colossal efforts, but we won. And we will always win. If this were not so, then today we wouldn’t have such an enormous country free from foreign control.

But in this case, we need to buy as much time as possible. The Americans have essentially attacked our positions, like the Georgians in Tskhinvali in August 2008. Russians are under fire, and this cannot be ignored. Our reaction is extremely cautious and balanced. We have expressed what we think about this American act of aggression, but in very deliberate terms.

The struggle for peace

The fatality of the situation lies in that, if Washington decides to opt for war now, then we cannot avoid it. If they will insist and repeat the September 17th situation again and again, then we will have to either accept the challenge and go to war, or knowingly admit defeat.

In this situation, the outcome of the struggle for peace which is, as always, fully in our interests, does not depend on us. We really need peace, to buy time until November 8th, and then everything will be much easier. But will the collapsing colossus allow us this time?

God forbid that this happens. But those who could pray prayed on the eve of the First and Second World War. In any case, our goal is always and only victory. Our victory.

The Americans are bombing our guys. A Third World War has never been so close.

Aleksandr Gelyevich Dugin is a Russian political scientist. He has close ties with the Kremlin and the Russian military, having served as an advisor to State Duma speaker Gennadiy Seleznyov and key member of the ruling United Russia party Sergei Naryshkin

Looking Back at 9/11 After 15 Years of Wars

Source:  TeleSUR
September 10 2016

By: Gregory Shupak

The U.S. government responded to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks by killing thousands more…Physicians for Responsibility finds that the first ten years of the Bush-Obama “war on terror” killed 1.3 million people in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

us army soldier in afghanistan.jpg

U.S. Army soldiers from the 2nd Platoon, B battery 2-8 field artillery, fire a howitzer artillery piece at Seprwan Ghar forward fire base in Panjwai district, Kandahar province southern Afghanistan, June 12, 2011. | Photo: Reuters

The fifteenth anniversary of 9/11 should occasion reflection on how the U.S. government has interacted with the rest of the world in the years following the attacks. The atrocities made clear the consequences of the U.S. ruling class’ pursuit of global hegemony since the American state laid the groundwork for 9/11 in its Cold War proxy war with the USSR.

But, because U.S. foreign policy is set by people with a vested interest in war profiteering and global supremacy, there was no chance the U.S. would change course. Instead the U.S. has carried out countless 9/11s of its own—in fact, it has done far worse and played a major role in the almost total destruction of several countries—and in so doing has created conditions for further 9/11s in America and states with which it is allied.

OPINION:  Afghanistan: The Forever-War We Never Question

The U.S. invaded Afghanistan

Immediately after the attacks, the U.S. invaded Afghanistan, where it is still at war. The Bush administration said the war was necessary because Afghanistan’s Taliban government was harbouring 9/11 mastermind Osama bin Laden but, when the Taliban offered to turn over bin Laden in exchange for an end to US-bombing, the U.S. rejected the offer and opted for war instead.

During the fifteen year occupation, Western bombings in Herat, Farah, and Kunduz have caused mass civilian casualties as have nighttime house raids in Ghazi Khan and Khatabeh. In Oct. 2015, an MSF Trauma centre in Kunduz was hit several times during sustained bombing by US-led coalition forces, leaving the hospital very badly damaged and killing at least 42, including 24 patients; MSF repeatedly provided the coalition with the coordinates of the hospital and had done so as recently as four days before the attack.

Twelve million Afghans are internally displaced

Such violence cannot be seen as a high price for the ultimately worthwhile cause of bringing peace, freedom, and prosperity to Afghanistan. While the Bush administration as well as many Democrats and liberals in the media said that the war was necessary to liberate Afghans, they continue to live in dire conditions. The UN reports that for the last decade one third of Afghans have been continuously food insecure and that the war is one of the underlying reasons. The country has the worst infant mortality rate in the world. Twelve million Afghans are internally displaced, a figure that has doubled since 2013. Meanwhile, the Taliban hold more ground in Afghanistan than at any point since 2001 and the condition of the country is such that ISIS has been able to find a home there.

The 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq – over a million civilians deaad

The 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq ripped the country apart. Estimates of the numbers of Iraqis killed by the invasion vary but all are massive: The World Health Organization put the number at 151,000 by June 2006; the Lancet estimated 426,369–793,663 by July 2006, Britain’s Opinion Business Research counted over a million civilians. U.S. elites made a killing off the killing and one result was the birth of ISIS.

In Syria, U.S. policy has been to carry out a proxy war against Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah

In Syria, U.S. policy has been to carry out a proxy war against Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah. This cannot be understood as an effort to help Syrians replace the highly repressive government they currently have with one that respects human rights. America and its allies have backed vicious sectarian forces in Syria, including Jaish al-Fatah, a coalition led by al-Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate, Jabhat al-Nusra. Al-Nusra’s leader, Rania Khalek shows, has openly praised the 9/11 attacks. As Asa Winstanley writes, “15 years on from 9/11, who would have imagined that we would be having to make the case that Western and Israeli support for Al-Qaeda is a bad idea and should stop?”

INTERVIEW:  Anand Gopal on the Iraq War That Never Ended

At the same time that the U.S. supports jihadists in Syria, it bombs Syria in what it says is an effort to defeat the jihadist group ISIS and one recent strike that appears to have been carried out by the US-led coalition killed at least 56 civilians and perhaps many more. Thus far coalition airstrikes in the anti-ISIS campaign have killed an estimated minimum of 1,592 Iraqi and Syrian civilians.

Since the US-led coalition overthrew the Libyan government, the country has been in a state of chaos

In the 2011 Libyan war, the U.S. refused to explore possible diplomatic solutions and caused civilian deaths: its motives included a desire to establish American military bases throughout Africa, resource competition with China, and Wall Street’s interests. Since the US-led coalition overthrew the Libyan government, the country has been in a state of chaos that enabled the spread of weapons to other conflict zones such as Syria, sent Libyan refugees to die at sea, and allowed ISIS to gain a foothold in Libya. Now, citing the presence of ISIS, the U.S. is again bombing Libya. This campaign will surely kill more civilians and send more refugees fleeing but it’s virtually impossible to imagine that it will help resolve Libya’s political crisis and bring its people peace.

The U.S. played a central role in a Saudi-led war on Yemen – Yemeni hospitals cannot cope with the volume of dead bodies

Since 2015 the U.S. has also played a central role in a Saudi-led war on Yemen that aims to secure regional hegemony for the U.S. and its proxies. US-Saudi aggression has inflicted a humanitarian disaster on Yemen and, like Afghanistan, has involved attacks on MSF hospitals. The war has been so devastating that Yemeni hospitals cannot cope with the volume of dead bodies. Furthermore, the war has strengthened Al-Qaeda’s Yemeni franchise as well as the ISIS outfit there.

U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan and Somalia

Furthermore, U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan and Somalia in the name of fighting terrorism have caused untold civilian death in those countries. Physicians for Responsibility finds that the first ten years of the Bush-Obama “war on terror” killed 1.3 million people in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

More 9/11s in the U.S. and the countries with which it is allied

All of these policies are virtually certain to result in more 9/11s in the U.S. and the countries with which it is allied. Elites in the U.S. and its partner countries know what they are doing—they have access to everything cited in this article and much more. They simply care more about enriching themselves than protecting civilians in their own countries or around the world.

All is not dire

All is not dire, however. Configurations like The Movement for Black Lives and the Palestine solidarity movement aim to weaken the hegemony and militarism of the U.S. and its clients and have considerable momentum, particularly among young people. To stop or curb the U.S. from causing more 9/11s abroad and at home, mass movements like these will need to dramatically re-shape the balance of power inside America and its ancillary states.

Yes, Obama and Clinton Created ISIS – Too Bad Trump Can’t Explain How It Happened

Source:  Black Agenda Report
August 17 2016

by Glen Ford

“Together, the U.S. and the Saudis gave birth to the international Islamic jihadist movement.”

yes obama and clinton created isis.jpgClinton supporters rejected out of hand Donald Trump’s charge that she and Barack Obama “created” the Islamic State — and even Trump seemed to retreat from his statement. But, a solid case can be made that Obama and Clinton were, indeed, the “most valuable players” in spawning ISIS. Moreover, it is an historical fact that the U.S. and Saudi Arabia created the international jihadist network from which al Qaida and ISIS sprang, almost four decades ago.

The Zbigniew Brzezinski plan

Donald Trump has backtracked — sort of — on his assertion that President Obama and Hillary Clinton are “the founders” of ISIS, or the “most valuable players” on the Islamic State team. “Obviously, I’m being sarcastic,” said the self-styled “America-Firster” – quickly adding, “but not that sarcastic, to be honest with you.”

Trump cannot articulate or fully grasp the horrific truth of his original statement because that would require a much more fundamental indictment of U.S. imperial policy in the Muslim world since the last days of 1979, when Zbigniew Brzezinski convinced President Jimmy Carter to set the jihadist dogs loose in Afghanistan. As stated in his memoir From the Shadow, Brzezinski advised Carter to aid the right-wing Muslim resistance to the leftist, secular government in Afghanistan in order to “induce a Soviet military intervention” and thus embroil the USSR in a Vietnam-like quagmire.

Brzezinski viewed the so-called Mujahadeen as potential foot soldiers of U.S. global policy. “What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?” Brzezinski asked, rhetorically, decades later.

Carter, Reagan, the CIA and the Saudis

Having acted in accordance with Brzezinski’s counsel, President Carter can accurately be described as a founding “creator” of al Qaida, along with fellow “most valuable player” Ronald Reagan, whose CIA partnered with Saudi Arabia to spend billions drawing Muslims from around the globe into the war in Afghanistan. Together, the U.S. and the Saudis gave birth to the international Islamic jihadist movement – a phenomenon that had not previously existed in world history. The jihadists would become an essential weapon in the U.S. imperial armory, a ghastly tool for regime change in the Muslim world which also doubled as justification for the never ending American quest for planetary dominance, now that the Soviet boogeyman was gone.

In 2011, Obama launched the Mother of All Proxy Wars

Brzezinski became Barack Obama’s foreign policy guru, with consequences that should have been predictable for U.S. Middle East policy but were largely ignored by liberals and so-called progressives in their euphoria at the exit of George W. Bush.

Clearly, the U.S. public would not tolerate another episode of massive, direct U.S. troop involvement in the region; that was no longer an option. But what force, then, was available to execute Washington’s unfinished agenda for conquest in this part of the worldIn 2011, Obama launched the Mother of All Proxy Wars, first against Muammar Gaddafi’s government in Libya, then swiftly mobilizing the totality of the international jihadist network that had been created out of whole cloth under Carter and Reagan nearly 30 years before.

Washington and its NATO partners in the Libya aggression, in close concert with Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, turned Syria into a cauldron of death, funneling billions of dollars in weapons to literally hundreds of Salafist and outright mercenary militias, with Al Qaida’s regional affiliate, al Nusra, at the core. This was Obama’s idea of a “smart” war: a frenzied terror offensive cloaked in lies and deception.

Creating the basis and space for the emergence of ISIS

The criminal foreign policy pursued by Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is rooted in the same worldview arrogantly articulated by Brzezinski when he derided those who fretted over the blowback that might result from deploying “some stirred-up Moslems” as foot soldiers of imperialism. As the U.S. and its allies literally competed with each other to flood Syria with the weapons, funds, intelligence resources and diplomatic and media cover to bring down the government in Damascus, they collectively created both the material basis and political space for the jihadists to pursue their own ideological objectives. ISIS emerged, to establish a caliphate of its own in Syria and Iraq. No one should have expected otherwise.

“This was Obama’s idea of a ‘smart”’war: a frenzied terror offensive cloaked in lies and deception.”

Back in July of 2014, we at Black Agenda Report described the rise of ISIS as signaling “the final collapse of U.S. imperial strategy in the Muslim world — certainly, in the Arab regions of Islam.” We wrote:

“Think of it as a Salafist declaration of independence…from the Arab monarchies and western intelligence agencies that have nurtured the international jihadist network for almost two generations. The Caliphate threatens, not only its immediate adversaries in the Shiite-dominated governments of Syria and Iraq, but the potentates of the Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait and the Mother of All Monarchist Corruption in the Arab Sunni heartland, the Saudi royal family. The threat is not inferential, but literal, against ‘all emirates, groups, states and organizations’ that do not recognize that ISIS in its new incarnation is the embodiment of Islam at war.’”

Russian intervention in Syria

ISIS did not exist when President Obama took office and put Hillary Clinton in charge at Foggy Bottom. His (and her) regime change in Libya and massive, terroristic pivot to Syria “created” ISIS. And, let’s get the history right, on this score: the U.S. did not reject the jihadist death cult that became ISIS; rather, the Islamic State divorced itself from the U.S. and its European and royal allies. Yet, it still took the Russian intervention in Syria in September of last year to push Washington to mount more than token air assaults against ISIS. Apparently, the U.S. wants to avoid killing too many Islamic State fighters, in hopes that there will be lots of them left to join U.S.-sanctioned jihadist outfits when it gets too hot for ISIS. (Al Nusra has changed its name and resigned from al Qaida — with the blessing of al Qaida’s leadership in Pakistan — so as to better blend in with the other jihadist outfits on western payrolls.)

“U.S. military intelligence saw clearly the imminent rise of ISIS.”

You don’t need to take Donald Trump’s word for it, that Obama and Clinton have been “most valuable players” for ISIS. The U.S. military’s Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) came to much the same conclusion, back in 2012. The military spooks’ reports, declassified last year, showed the DIA had warned that “the West, Gulf countries, and Turkey [which] support the [Syrian] opposition” believe “there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime.”

The DIA was alarmed that

“…the deterioration of the situation has dire consequences on the Iraqi situation and are as follows:

“This creates the ideal situation for AQI [al Qaida in Iraq, which became ISIS] to return to its old pockets in Mosul and Ramadi, and will provide a renewed momentum under the presumption of unifying the jihad among Sunni Iraq and Syria, and the rest of the Sunnis in the Arab world against what it considers one enemy, the dissenters [meaning, Shia Muslims]. ISI could also declare an Islamic State through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria, which will create grave danger in regards to unifying Iraq and the protection of its territory.”

Thus, a year after Obama and his European and Arab friends brought down Libya’s Gaddafi and shifted their proxy war of regime change to Syria, U.S. military intelligence saw clearly the imminent rise of ISIS — and that “this is exactly” what “the West, Gulf countries and Turkey…want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime.”

Only Arabs and Africans and people that Americans have never heard of, die

Yes, Obama created ISIS, with the enthusiastic assistance of Hillary Clinton, and he is still nurturing al Nusra, the erstwhile affiliate of al Qaida, which was mid-wifed into existence by Jimmy Carter and Zbigniew Brzezinski. In the intervening years, the jihadists have become indispensable to U.S. imperial policy, but especially so since George W. Bush’s defeat in Iraq, which soured the American public on “dumb” wars – meaning, in Obama-Speak, wars in which large numbers of Americans die. Proxy wars are ideal — “smart,” because only Arabs and Africans and people that Americans have never heard of, die. Libya wasn’t even a war, according to Obama, since no U.S. personnel perished.

Extreme imperial chauvinism

The truth about ISIS and the Obama administration is so obvious that even Donald Trump has a hazy idea of what happened in Syria and Libya. However, the spoiled man-brat white nationalist billionaire from Queens is incapable of putting the Obama/Clinton/ISIS connection in the historical context of U.S. imperial policy. Sadly, most “liberals” and far too many “progressives” (including Black ones) are afflicted with the same disease as Trump: extreme imperial chauvinism — which is practically inseparable from white supremacism.  Extreme imperial chauvinism allows Americans to send to the White House people that should, instead, be sent to the gallows or a firing squad (after a trial, of course). It allows Americans that claim to be on the “left’ side of the spectrum to recoil in horror at Donald Trump (who hasn’t killed anybody that we know of, and who says he will not engage in regime change as president), yet will vote for a woman whose career is soaked in the blood of hundreds of thousands in the Middle East and the northern tier of Africa, and whose husband set in motion a genocide that has killed six million people in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

One candidate, Trump, most resembles the late Alabama governor George Wallace with a “let’s make a deal” foreign policy. The other, Clinton, is a genocidal maniac, whose crimes as president will be Hitlerian in scale.

What is scarier than Clinton or Trump, is that Americans seem to have no visceral aversion to genocide (of non-white peoples). But, unless you’re a Green or some shade of Red, genocide isn’t even an election issue.

BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at Glen.Ford@BlackAgendaReport.com.