Wayne Madsen

[Photo: Angelina Jolie (left) works closely with the United Nations Human Committee for Refugees as a Goodwill Ambassador in various nations.]

The national aspirations of peoples are governed by rank public relations schemes

On July 9, the Republic of South Sudan became the newest internationally-recognized nation-state. As the result of a civil war truce and peace deal worked out five years previously, South Sudan and its former master, the Republic of Sudan, independent since 1956, mutually recognized their divorce.

Unlike the “velvet divorce” of the Czech Republic and Slovakia from the former Czechoslovakia, the Sudanese divorce of the largely Muslim north and majority Christian south was all but peaceful. The two sides staked rival claims to border regions such as the oil-rich Abyei and a renewed war between north and south Sudan loomed as the south achieved independence.

The independence gala in the South Sudan capital of Juba was attended by such luminaries - some would call them “interlopers” - as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, U.S. Africa Command chief General Carter Ham, British Foreign Secretary William Hague, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, and French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe. The international “glitterati” from the West studiously avoided meeting Sudan’s President Omar al-Bashir, who faces an International Criminal Court arrest warrant for war crimes in Darfur.

The snub of Bashir in Juba by the Western leaders points to the essence of international diplomacy today. International relations have become a “reality television show,” where leaders who do not comport to the standards dictated by a consortium of political leaders representing multi-national corporate interests and international “do-gooders” like actor George Clooney and actress Angelina Jolie representing un-elected and well-paid executives of non-government organizations decide what peoples are repressed, what regions deserve independence, and what leaders are “good guys” and “bad guys.” International diplomacy has become a children’s game and the effects have plunged nations and peoples into civil war and strife.

More »

Adnan Al-Daini

The image that pops into my head when I think of “the special relationship” between the US and Britain is of Tony Blair and George Bush wearing tight jeans and windcheaters, walking towards the camera on George Bush’s ranch in Crawford, Texas.  The smirk on Tony Blair’s face projects an image of “Look at me, aren’t I great; I am next to the most powerful person on the planet, and we have just decided to pulverise Iraq”.

The British corporate media is obsessed with the “special relationship” and the “personal chemistry” between British prime ministers and American presidents. When the two meet, the body language and every gesture are nauseatingly analysed, seeking reassurance that Britain is still America’s best friend.  This clinginess is unhealthy; it leads to unquestioning acquiescence and deference to the senior partner, the US. Special relationships should mean being honest and frank, and saying things your special friend may not want to hear.  At least that is what I think it should be. 

According to Wikipedia, the phrase “special relationship” was first used in 1946 by Winston Churchill to describe the close political, diplomatic, cultural and historical relationship between the US and Britain.  Tony Blair’s interpretation of it is that of grovelling sycophancy towards George Bush culminating in the disaster that was the Iraq war. Whatever Blair’s thinking was about the war, he felt that because of the “special relationship” Britain must act as its cheerleader.  This was also the view of most of the British cabinet.

Contrast that with the attitude of France and Germany, who opposed the Iraq war on logical, thoughtful calculations - that the war was unnecessary, illegal and not in the West’s interest. 

That illegal war has caused death, injury and suffering to thousands of British and American people, and inflicted enormous suffering on the entire Iraqi people with death and injury to hundreds of thousands if not millions. It has also caused enormous damage to the reputation of the US and Britain, weakened the rule of international law, and the authority of international institutions. It has also invigorated international terrorism. You would think after such a disaster future British governments would be more circumspect in foolishly and slavishly following America in its future wars. Not a bit of it.

More »

Stephen Lendman

On July 14, Mossad-connected DEBKAfile headlined, "The Libyan War ends. Obama makes Moscow peace broker. NATO halts strikes," saying "Bar the shouting, the war in Libya ended Thursday morning, July 14, when (Obama) called Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to hand Moscow the lead role in negotiations with (Gaddafi to end) the conflict - provided only that the Libyan ruler steps down in favor of a transitional administration."

More about Obama's demand below. For now, America's Libya terror bombing continues unabated, despite a White House July 13 Office of the Press Secretary release, saying Obama thanked "Russia's efforts to mediate a political solution in Libya, emphasizing that (Washington) is prepared to support negotiations that lead to a democratic transition....as long as (Gaddafi) steps aside."

In fact, Obama spurns democratic values abroad and at home, intolerable notions he won't accept, nor peace, waging multiple imperial wars with no letup. In Libya, moreover, at issue isn't Gaddafi, it's colonizing another country, controlling its resources, plundering its wealth, and exploiting its people, the same US aim always.

On July 15, Washington and about 30 European and Middle East countries illegally recognized insurgent leaders as Libya's legitimate government - the so-called Transitional National Council (TNC). Meeting in Istanbul (without China and Russia), the Libya Contact Group issued a statement, saying "Henceforth, and until an interim authority is in place, participants agreed to deal with the (TNC) as the legitimate government authority in Libya."

It added that Gaddafi no longer had legitimacy and must leave Libya with his family.

Explaining what's clearly illegitimate, Secretary of State Clinton said:

"We still have to work through various legal issues (in order words, avoid them entirely), but we expect this step on recognition will enable the TNC to access additional sources of funding," including $30 billion of up to $150 billion of Libya's stolen wealth, besides its rich oil, gas, and water resources worth many multiples more.

More »

Stephen Lendman

Mount Doom and Sauron's tower of Barad-dûr in Mordor, as depicted
in the Peter Jackson film. (Lord of the Rings)

Famed journalist George Seldes (1890 - 1995) condemned press prostitutes in books like "Lords of the Press," denouncing their corruption, suppression of truth, and news censorship before television reached large audiences, saying:

"The most sacred cow of the press is the press itself - the most powerful force against the general welfare of the majority of the people."

Australian journalist Bruce Page authored a book on Murdock titled, "The Murdoch Archipelago," calling him: "one of the world's leading villains (and) global pirate(s)," rampaging the mediasphere, telling world leaders what he expects from them and what he'll offer in return. It's "let's make a deal," Murdoch-style that's uncompromisingly hardball, some on the receiving end calling it an offer they can't refuse.

On air and in print, his operations support allies and beat up on adversaries, enough at times to affect political outcomes his way, especially in Britain and his native Australia, but also helping hard-right US candidates.

For mass audiences, he specializes in sensationalist pseudo-journalism, distorting the truth, at the same time juicing-up reports on murder, mayhem, mishaps, celebrity gossip and soft porn for audiences that love it.

He's so beyond respectability, in fact, that former Chicago columnist Mike Royko (1932 - 1997) once said "no self-respecting fish would (want to) be wrapped in a Murdoch paper....His goal (isn't) journalism, (it's) vast power, political power," and, of course, bottom line priorities. If ideologically acceptable and sells, he'll feature it and has for decades.

From his early beginnings to his current unrivaled media world status (unless scandal now brings him down), he's wielded unchallenged power ruthlessly as a world class predator, using deception, chicanery, arrogance, artfulness, charm, cunning, sheer muscle, will, intimidation, poisonous influence and toadying to get his way by bullying people to prevail.

Bereft of ethics, his media empire includes a bordello of print and broadcast outlets. In his book titled, "The Man Who Owns the News: Inside the Secret World of Rupert Murdoch," Michael Wolff called him a monarch, gangster and con man, interested only in power, control and profits.

More »

Khalid Amayreh in occupied Jerusalem

According to recent reports from Washington, the Obama administration is proposing a trade-off to reach a breakthrough in the stalled Palestinian-Israeli talks.

The new formula, which the U.S. tried (but failed) to sell to other members of the Quartet, proposes a Palestinian recognition of the "Jewishness" of Israel in exchange for an American endorsement of a Palestinian "state" on unspecific parts of the West Bank in addition to a few scattered neighborhoods of occupied East Jerusalem.

The United States has already approached some Arab states, asking them to endorse the American ideas and pressure the weak Palestinian Authority (PA) leadership to do likewise.

Unfortunately, the notoriously obsequious PA is yet to utter a clarion and unequivocal "NO" in response to increasingly daring Israeli and American efforts to force the Palestinian leadership to commit a historic adultery with Palestinian honor, legitimate rights and future, since recognizing the "Jewishness" of Israel would be a historic obscenity exceeding any other obscenity.

Some shallow-minded Palestinian officials seem unable to grasp the actual and potential gravity of the issue at hand. These people must be asked to shut up, or get lost, as they have no right whatsoever to sacrifice the rights of future Palestinian generations to freedom, dignity, and equality.

More »

Kate Randall

NY Times’ David Brooks on “Death and Budgets”

In an op-ed piece published Friday, New York Times columnist David Brooks reveals the real thinking of America’s financial aristocrats in relation to health care spending. In chilling terms he gives vent to their bitterness over the “squandering” of resources to extend the lives of commoners and their determination to put an end to it.

The column made its appearance in the midst of discussions between the White House and congressional Democrats and Republicans on a bipartisan plan to slash trillions of dollars from health and retirement programs for the elderly and the poor, including Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. The Obama administration has taken the lead in this unprecedented attack on basic social reforms dating back to the 1930s, insisting that any move to raise the debt ceiling must be tied to massive cuts.

The essence of Brooks’ column is summed up in the headline, “Death and Budgets.” In order to resolve the budget deficit, he argues, people will have to die sooner.

“This fiscal crisis is about many things,” he writes, “but one of them is our inability to face death—our willingness to spend our nation into bankruptcy to extend life for a few more sickly months.” It is the American people’s selfish and ignorant desire to live longer, not the mindless greed and extravagant wealth of the ruling elite or the trillions spent on war and bank bailouts, that is bankrupting the country, he argues.

More »

Gilad Atzmon

The Stoning of Achan by Gustave Doré. Achan failed to carry out the terms of herem, and according to Joshua 7, came under the ban himself. (WP)

It seems that the entire world of Jewish identity politics is a matrix of herems and exclusion strategies. In order to be ‘a proper Jew’, all you have to do is to point out whom you oppose, hate, exclude or boycott.

The European Union appear concerned about the new Israeli herem law. The law suggests that a person or an organisation calling for the boycott of Israel , including the settlements, can be sued by the boycotts' targets, without having to prove that they sustained any damage.

“We are concerned about the effect that this legislation may have on the freedom of Israeli citizens and organisations to express non-violent political opinions" said spokesperson for foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton.

More and more people and institutions now understand that Israel is not a ‘civilised society’: it is impervious to notions of human and civil rights, and it also does not share the common and fundamental foundations of a Western value system. Israel is not a democracy and it has never been one. At the most, Israel has managed to mimic some of the appearances of a Western civilisation, but it has clearly failed to internalise the meaning of tolerance and freedom.

This should not take us by surprise: Israel defines itself as a Jewish state, and Jewishness is, sadly enough, inherently intolerant; indeed, it may be argued that Jewish intolerance is as old as the Jews themselves.

Regarding legislation then, how are we to understand the implications of the word ‘herem’? The Hebrew word herem in its contemporary usage refers to a ban, boycott and sanction. However, within the biblical context, the word suggests the total destruction of the enemy and his goods at the conclusion of a campaign.

The emergence of Christianity then, can be viewed as an attempt to rectify such a situation of stark intolerance -- it can be understood as an attempt to drift away from The Old Testament’s dark ideology. Christianity introduced ideas of harmony and love. And it is no wonder that the man who dared suggest to his Judean contemporaries to ‘love their neighbours’ ended up being subject to a vile herem campaign and, finally, was nailed to wood.

More »

Stephen Lendman

Photo: A Israeli protester against the new law. Her sign reads: “There is no free market when it’s inconvenient for Bibi!”

Buoyed by passage of their anti-boycott bill, Knesset Yisrael Beitenu and Likud party extremists taste blood and want more. Most worrisome is a proposed measure to investigate leftist group activities, heading for a final vote next week.

YNet News writer Moran Azulay quoted Meretz party chairwoman, Sahava Gal-On, calling it "a political inquisition," adding:

"The Boycott Law has whetted the appetite of the settler Coalition. This is an attempt at perpetuating the persecution of left-wing and civil organizations. What will be the next step? Sham trials? Throwing people into gulags?"

Weighing in, Labor party MK Eitan Cabel said:

"The prime minister has lost control over his partners, who are running wild in the Knesset and taking advantage of the (tyranny) of the majority in order to trample the minority. We are in the midst of legislative anarchy."

United Arab List-Ta'al party MK Ahmad Tibi wondered which ruling coalition partner was most racist, Yisrael Beiteinu or Likud, saying:

"In the beginning they were against Arabs. Now they're against leftists, and maybe tomorrow they will go up against the feinschmeckers of the Likud" or anyone challenging them.

According to Kadima party MK Ruhama Avraham:

"This government does not pursue peace or social justice, but rather its own citizens."

More »

Rehanna Jones-Boutaleb

Young Muslim men attend an interfaith vigil in support of the Muslim community in Corvallis, Ore. A mosque that was occasionally attended by FBI entrapment target Mohamed Mohamud suffered arson after inflammatory media coverage. (Photo credit: Motoya Nakamura / The Oregonian)

On August 28, 2008, two childhood friends from Midland, Texas, Bradley Crowder and David McKay, traveled north to join thousands of protesters at the 2008 Republican National Convention (RNC). In the company of six Austin activists, Crowder and McKay were ready for adventure, and prepared, in Crowder's words, to protest to "change the world." What began as a journey of hope, however, ended in sudden catastrophe. Crowder and McKay's efforts to mark their opposition to the Republican administration and the U.S. involvement in Iraq resulted in multiple charges of domestic terrorism and a high- stakes entrapment defense in federal court. What the "Texas Two" hadn't realized in Minnesota was that their trusted comrade, Brandon Michael Darby - the very activist to whom they had looked for inspiration and guidance - was in fact an FBI informant.

Tracing Crowder and McKay's saga from its very origins, the 2011 documentary Better this World cunningly unveils the intricacies of the two protestors' federal trials, as well as the media sensation they precipitated. The film, which is scheduled to air nationally on PBS's "POV" series, not only provides a nuanced perspective of two alleged cases of domestic terrorism but also cuts to the heart of the "war on terror" and its effect upon civil liberties.

Aiming to go beyond the "nice-kids-turned-domestic- terrorists" narrative propagated by mainstream media sources, film-makers Kelly Galloway and Kelly Duane de la Vega have turned their attention to the viewpoints of the key players themselves: Crowder, McKay, and Darby. Although both directors are clearly sympathetic toward the convicted Texas youths, they take care to interview multiple FBI agents and prosecutors, providing viewers with conflicting approaches to the trials. The result is a documentary thriller that stands as both a compelling character study and a necessary reminder of the broader themes behind McKay and Crowder's testimony, namely the post-9/11 security apparatus and the use, and abuse, of informants in the government's "war on terror."

More »

Stephen Lendman

John Boehner (left) is the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and
a member of the Republican Party. Neither he nor Barak Obama work for the
people of America, who elected them. Obama works for the bankers, the war
profiteers, the Military Industrial Complex and, apparently, for Israel.

Short of finalizing details and assuring enough bipartisan support, it's a done deal to slash Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other social spending while leaving outsized military budgets and generous handouts to corporate favorites in place. At the same time, the timeline to accomplish it is undetermined. Political posturing may extend the August 2 deadline until fall or beyond.

It's how corrupted Washington always works, notably since the 1980s under both parties. Obama was elected to assure continuity and accomplish by rhetorical duplicity what Republicans on their own can't do.

Notably after capitulating last December on tax cuts for America's super-rich, he proposed deep budget cuts, affecting disease prevention, children's and community healthcare, education, supplemental grants to poor women and children, community block grants for housing, energy efficiency and renewable energy, and other benefits for people most in need.

He's a charlatan, not a leader who cares. Earlier, he proposed hundreds of billions in Medicare cuts. It was step one ahead of incrementally ending entitlements and other social benefits altogether, including publicly funded pensions, returning America to dark age harshness.

Bipartisan duplicity supports it, including slashing healthcare, education, housing, virtually all social benefits incrementally, eliminating them all altogether. Obama and many Democrats tacitly agree. Timing is mostly at issue with an eye to 2012.

In principle, Obama and Speaker Boehner privately agreed to $4 trillion in Social Security, Medicare, and other social spending cuts, backtracking when word leaked prematurely to a more modest $2.4 trillion package, then resurrecting the $4 trillion one.

At a July 11 press conference, Obama again stressed "shared sacrifice," leaving unexplained he means working households sacrifice to let America's super-rich share.

More »

Rodrigue Tremblay

The Parthenon is regarded as an enduring symbol of Ancient Greece and of
Athenian democracy. Modern Greece now is being destroyed by fascist EU.

Refusing to accept the obvious, i.e. an orderly default, would please Greece's banking creditors but will badly hurt its economy, its workers and its citizens.

On the 4th of July, the credit agency Standard & Poor’s called the country of Greece for what it is, i.e. a country in de facto financial bankruptcy.

No slight of hand, no obfuscation, no debt reorganization and no “innovative” bailouts can hide the fact that the defective rules of the 17-member Eurozone have allowed some of its members to succumb to the siren calls of excessive and unproductive indebtedness, to be followed by a default on debt payments accompanied by crushingly higher borrowing costs.

Greece (11 million inhabitants), in fact, has abused the credibility that came with its membership in the Eurozone. In 2004, for instance, the Greek Government embarked upon a massive spending spree to host the 2004 Summer Olympic Games, which cost 7 billion euros ($12.08 billion). Then, from 2005 to 2008, the same government decided to go on a spending spree, this time purchasing all types of armaments that it hardly needed from foreign suppliers. —Piling up a gross foreign debt to the tune of $533 billion (2010) seemed the easy way out. But sooner or later, the piper has to be paid and the debt burden cannot be hidden anymore.

More »

Stephen Lendman

"According to the law, a person or an organization calling for the boycott of Israel, including the settlements, can be sued by the boycott’s targets without having to prove that they sustained damage. The court will then decide how much compensation is to be paid. The second part of the law says a person or a company that declare a boycott of Israel or the settlements will not be able to bid in government tenders." (Shalom Rav/Haaretz)

A previous article discussed it in detail, accessed through this link.

Before and after its July 11 passage, critics called it outrageous, shameful, lawless, and anti-democratic. More on that below.

In contrast, Netanyahu praised the measure, saying he authorized the bill:

"If I hadn't authorized it, it wouldn't have gotten here. I am opposed to boycotts against Israel and boycotts against groups within Israel."

The pro-Israeli NGO Monitor (NGOM) tried having it both ways, saying:

It doesn't "see this legislation as the appropriate means to combat the BDS movement. However, numerous NGOs have released misleading and false statements about the new law, (including saying it) criminalizes freedom of speech."

In fact, that's precisely what it does, infringing on the right of Israelis to speak freely on any issue without fear of recrimination.

NGOM, however, called public debate about it "indicative of the strength and vibrancy of Israeli democracy," when it exists solely for Jews, increasingly only well-off ones, benefitting at the expense of lower income Israelis like in America and other Western states.

More »

Current Concerns

Taking the Principle of the Subject’s Dignity Seriously - A criticism of the Libya war, the necessary reform of the United Nations and the dialogue among the civilizations.

An Interview with Professor Hans Köchler (Professor of Philosophy at the University of Innsbruck, President of the International Progress Organisation)

Current Concerns: Professor Köchler, 3 months ago you published a memorandum to the attention of the UN Secretary General and the President of the Security Council (cf. Current Concerns No 5, June 2011). This memorandum deals with the Security Council’s resolution 1973 (2011) of 17 March and the ensuing war against Libya 2 days later. Could you tell us the core ideas of your memorandum? What induced you to write this memorandum?

Professor Dr Hans Köchler: The principal reason, why I made this step and sent a text to the Secretary General of the United Nations and the President of the Security Council, lies in my fundamental refusal of the instrumentalization of the Security Council for superficial purposes in power politics. This resolution is more or less a full authorization for the interested states to intervene in another country at their own discretion.

As for myself, I was personally not only irritated, but shocked about the hard to beat hypocrisy forming the basis for the adoption of this resolution; the official reason for adopting this resolution or the goal of this resolution was the protection of civilians in Libya. Actually, the resolution is about some countries’ military intervention in Libya in the name of the United Nations, even if the United Nations themselves do not have any influence on the actions – on the one hand they wanted to install a so-called no fly zone, on the other hand they wanted to protect the civilian population, a goal separately formulated in the resolution.

In reality the use of armed forces has endangered the lives of civilians even more, and another fact is above that this resolution was decided when a civil war situation had already developed in Libya; so that now the intervention by these interested states – and it is not at all the international community of states – is more or less siding with one conflict party against the other one. In the meantime we have seen the implementation of the resolution degenerate into a war, by means of which the government in Libya is to be altered – a goal, that is not compatible with the spirit and the letter of the Security Council resolution.

More »

James Petras

The US government (White House and Congress) spends $10 billion dollars a month, or $120 billion a year, to fight an estimated “50 -75 ‘Al Qaeda types’ in Afghanistan”, according to the CIA and quoted in the Financial Times of London (6/25 -26/11, p. 5). During the past 30 months of the Obama presidency, Washington has spent $300 billion dollars in Afghanistan, which adds up to $4 billion dollars for each alleged ‘Al Queda type’.

If we multiply this by the two dozen or so sites and countries where the White House claims ‘Al Qaeda’ terrorists have been spotted, we begin to understand why the US budget deficit has grown astronomically to over $1.6 trillion for the current fiscal year.

During Obama’s Presidency, Social Security’s cost-of-living adjustment has been frozen, resulting in a net decrease of over 8 percent, which is exactly the amount spent chasing just 5 dozen ‘Al Qaeda terrorists’ in the mountains bordering Pakistan.

It is absurd to believe that the Pentagon and White House would spend $10 billion a month just to hunt down a handful of terrorists ensconced in the mountains of Afghanistan. So what is the war in Afghanistan about? The answer one most frequently reads and hears is that the war is really against the Taliban, a mass-based Islamic nationalist guerrilla movement with tens of thousands of activists. The Taliban, however, have never engaged in any terrorist act against the territorial United States or its overseas presence. The Taliban have always maintained their fight was for the expulsion of foreign forces occupying Afghanistan. Hence the Taliban is not part of any “international terrorist network”. If the US war in Afghanistan is not about defeating terrorism, then why the massive expenditure of funds and manpower for over a decade?

More »

Stephen Lendman

On June 29, Reuters writer Daniel Trotta headlined, "Cost of war at least $3.7 trillion and counting," explaining:

In June, when Obama claimed America's post-9/11 (Iraq/AfPak) wars cost $1 trillion, he did what he does best - lied about how much, in fact, was spent and projected, five or more times his figure.

According to a June Brown University Watson Institute for International Studies (WIIS) "Cost of War" report, up to $5,444 trillion was spent and projected with all related expenses and obligations included. More on that below.

In March, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) made its own estimate in an Amy Belasco report titled, "The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11," saying:

Post-9/11, America "initiated three military operations:"

>1) Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) in:

● Afghanistan (OEF-A), combined with an undeclared Pakistan one; as well as small Global Wars on Terror (GWOT) in
● the Philippines (OEF-P);
● Horn of Africa (OEF-HOA);
● Pankisi Gorge (near Russia, completed in 2004);
● Trans Sahara (OEF-TS, in 10 North and Sub-Saharan African countries);
● Caribbean/Central American (OEF-CCA) ones; and
● Kyrgyzstan (completed in 2004).

(2) Operation Noble Eagle (ONE) for military operations related to homeland and base security, including mobilizing National Guard troops to protect military installations, airports, power plants, port facilities, and other vital infrastructure.

(3) Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), renamed Operation New Dawn in September 2010.

Through FY 2011, CRS lowballed a $1,283 trillion cost, including:

● $806 billion for Iraq;
● $444 billion for Afghanistan;
● $29 billion for enhanced security; and
● an unallocated $6 billion.

The full CRS report can be accessed through this link.

More »

Stephen Lendman

Previous articles discussed:

● NATO's illegal Libya aggression;
● American and Western media in the lead cheerleading it; some reporters, in fact, complicit with NATO forces by supplying target coordinates;
● planning it many months (perhaps years) before fighting began last winter;
● waging it to conquer, colonize, loot, and balkanize Libya, masquerading as humanitarian intervention;
● covertly funding, arming and training mercenary insurgents, including Al Qaeda linked Libya Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) paramilitaries;
● establishing an illegitimate Transitional National Council (TNC) government with CIA/British Intelligence (SIS/MI6) links;
● terror bombing Libya daily since March 19, using depleted uranium weapons, cluster bombs and perhaps other illegal weapons;
● bombing nonmilitary civilian infrastructure, hospitals, schools, heritage sites, a bus with civilians, a hotel, a restaurant, a food storage facility, commercial sites, a university, civilian neighborhoods, fishermen at sea, Gaddafi's personal compound to kill him and his family, as well as other nonmilitary targets;
● collectively punishing Libyans; in government-controlled areas, the ratio of civilian to military deaths is about 10 to one;
● blocking shipments of food, fuel and medicine; and
● overall laying waste to large areas, what Pentagon-led wars always do, destroying countries to save them, never waging wars for humanitarian reasons or even contemplating the idea.

More »

Bill Van Auken

Tuesday’s killing of Ahmed Wali Karzai, the Afghan president’s half brother, represents a serious blow to US strategy in the key southern province of Kandahar.

The powerful Kandahar warlord and longtime asset of the US Central Intelligence Agency was shot in the chest and the head by one of his henchmen, described by associates as one of the most trusted commanders of the militia gunmen loyal to Karzai.

The Taliban took credit for the assassination, claiming that the gunman, Sardar Mohammad, had been recruited a “long time” ago and had finally gotten “the chance today and achieved the objective.” It described the killing as one of its “biggest achievements.” Mohammad was killed by other bodyguards immediately after shooting Karzai.

Mohammad had reportedly worked for Karzai for the last seven years, commanding militiamen who man roadblocks around the family’s village of Karz in the Dand district, south of Kandahar City.

Initially there were suggestions that the killing was the result of a personal dispute. But, while Kandahar’s acting chief of police, General Abdul Raziq, described the assassin as a “good friend” of Karzai, he announced at a press conference in Kandahar City that several suspects had been arrested in connection with the assassination and were undergoing interrogation.

Raziq, who assumed his post after his predecessor was assassinated by a Taliban infiltrator on April 15, said that he could not rule out the involvement of a “foreign hand” in the latest killing and described Karzai’s death as a “big loss.”

A favorite of the US military occupation authorities, Raziq—like Karzai himself—has been linked in published reports to the region’s lucrative opium trade and is charged by critics with carrying out systematic extra-judicial executions of suspected “insurgents.”

Kandahar Governor Tooryalai Wesa went further, calling the assassination “a catastrophe for everyone,” asserting that Karzai had “helped bring peace and stability to the region.”

In reality, Karzai functioned as the province’s de facto governor and more. Described as the “king of Kandahar,” his official title was head of the provincial council. His power, however, flowed from his relationship to his brother’s central government and his control over a string of private security companies that have held a virtual monopoly over security operations for supply convoys and private contractors.

More »

Fred Branfman

Obama should be held accountable for vastly expanding the military establishment's worldwide license to kill.

Although President's Obama's partial Afghan troop withdrawal announcement has received more attention, his June 29 "National Strategy for Counterterrorism" is of far greater long-term significance. This remarkable document states that the U.S. government intends to "disrupt, dismantle, and eventually defeat al-Qa'ida and its affiliates and adherents," in the following "areas of focus": "The Homeland, South Asia, Arabian Peninsula, East Africa,Europe, Iraq, Maghreb and Sahel, Southeast Asia (and) Central Asia."

This assassination strategy is already operational in six Muslim countries with a combined population of 280 million: Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia and Libya, which has become a laboratory experiment for urban drone assassinations. The London Sunday Times reported a year ago that "President Obama has secretly sanctioned a huge increase in the number of US special forces ... with American troops now operating in 75 countries." There are presently 60,000 Special Operations forces worldwide, with 7,000 U.S. assassins unleashed upon Afghanistan and 3,000 in Iraq. Lt.-Col. John Nagle (ret.), an enthusiastic assassination supporter, has correctly called these operations "an almost industrial-scale counterterrorism killing machine."

More »

William T. Hathaway

From the Book RADICAL PEACE: People Refusing War by William T. Hathaway. Published by Trine Day 2010.

I was sitting in full lotus, body wrapped in a blanket, mind rapt in deep stillness, breathing lightly, wisps of air curling into the infinite space behind my closed eyes. My mantra had gone beyond sound to become a pulse of light in an emptiness that contained everything.

An electric shock flashed down my spine and through my body. My head snapped back, limbs jerked, a cry burst from my throat. Every muscle in my body contracted ― neck rigid, jaws clenched, forehead tight. Bolts of pain shot through me in all directions, then drew together in my chest. Heart attack! I thought. I managed to lie down, then noticed I wasn't breathing ― maybe I was already dead. I groaned and gulped a huge breath, which stirred a whirl of thoughts and images.

Vietnam again: Rotor wind from a hovering helicopter flails the water of a rice paddy while farmers run frantically for cover. Points of fire spark out from a bamboo grove to become dopplered whines past my ears. A plane dives on the grove to release a bomb which tumbles end over end and bursts into an orange globe of napalm. A man in my arms shakes in spasms as his chest gushes blood.

I held my head and tried to force the images out, but the montage of scenes flowed on, needing release. I could only lie there under a torrent of grief, regret, terror, and guilt. My chest felt like it was caving in under the pressure. I clung to my mantra like a lifeline to sanity. I was breathing in short, shallow gasps, but gradually my breath slowed and deepened, the feelings became less gripping, and I reoriented back into the here and now: my small room in Spain on a Transcendental Meditation teacher training course.

I lay on my narrow bed stunned by this flashback from four years ago when I'd been a Green Beret in Vietnam. I had thought I'd left all that behind, but here it was again.

More »

Uri Avnery

Rabbi Shapira, no grounds for remand (Photo: Noam Moskowitz)

The Archbishop of New York announces that any Catholic who rents out an apartment to a Jew commits a mortal sin and runs the risk of excommunication.

A protestant priest in Berlin decrees that a Christian who employs a Jew will be banished from his parish.

Impossible? Indeed. Except in Israel – in reverse, of course.

The rabbi of Safed, a government employee, has decreed that it is strictly forbidden to let apartments to Arabs – including the Arab students at the local medical school. Twenty other town rabbis – whose salaries are paid by the taxpayers, mostly secular, including Arab citizens - have publicly supported this edict. A group of Israeli intellectuals lodged a complaint with the Attorney General, arguing that this is a case of criminal incitement. The Attorney General promised to investigate the matter with all due haste. That was half a year ago. “Due haste” has not yet produced a decision.

The same goes for another group of rabbis, who prohibited employing Goyim.

(In ancient Hebrew, “Goy” just meant a people, any people. In the Bible, the Israelites were called a “holy Goy”. But in the last centuries, the term has come to mean non-Jews, with a decidedly derogatory undertone.)

This week, Israel was in uproar. The turmoil was caused by the arrest of Rabbi Dov Lior.

The affair goes back to a book released more than a year ago by Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira. Shapira is, perhaps, the most extreme inhabitant of Yitzhar, which is perhaps the most extreme settlement in the West Bank. Its members are frequently accused of carrying out pogroms in the nearby Palestinian villages, generally in “retaliation” for army actions against structures that have been built without official consent.

The book, called Torat ha-Melekh (“the Teaching of the King”)[1] deals with the killing of Goyim. It says that in peacetime, Goyim should generally not be killed – not because of the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” which, according to the book, applies to Jews only, but because of God’s command after the Deluge (Genesis 9:6): “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God made he man.” This applies to all Goyim who fulfill some basic commandments.

However, the situation is totally different in wartime. And according to the rabbis, Israel has been at war since its foundation, and probably will be for ever more.

More »