Quantcast
Channel: stan van houcke
Viewing all 33541 articles
Browse latest View live

Putin Bored by Netanyahu’s Bible Stories

$
0
0

Putin Bored by Netanyahu’s Bible Stories, Invites Israeli PM to Join Real World

Netanyahu's Sore Loser Summit with Putin in Moscow did not go quite as planned
2 hours ago | 2,53532
No one cares about your stories about Moses.
No one cares about your stories about Moses.
It seems that we missed a crucial exchange from yesterday's Sore Loser Summit in Moscow
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu came to Moscow on Thursday to complain to Putin about big, bad Iran and how tragic it is that Tehran destroyed legions of "moderate" rebels and ISIS fanatics in Syria.
Here's Netanyahu, tissue in hand, telling Putin some Bible stories:
Thank you for your congratulations on the upcoming Purim holiday. In ancient Persia, an attempt was made to destroy the Jewish people 2,500 years ago, and it failed. This is what this holiday celebrates. Today, ancient Persia’s successor, Iran, continues attempts to destroy the Jewish state.
Putin's  reply:
Putin noted that those events had taken place “in the fifth century BC,”added that “we now live in a different world” and suggested discussing the actual up-to-date problems in the region. 
Can you imagine how tedious and petty international relations would become if each and every country on earth cited events from 2,500 years ago in order to rationalize their geopolitical worldviews?
Yes, we live in a different world. The "real" world.


Disgraceful U.S. Support for the War on Yemen Continues

$
0
0

Disgraceful U.S. Support for the War on Yemen Continues

Ibrahem Qasim/Flickr: air strike in Sana’a, May 2015 
As expected, the Trump administration is undoing the minimal, belated limits that the previous administration put on arms sales to the Saudis:
The State Department has approved a resumption of weapons sales that critics have linked to Saudi Arabia’s bombing of civilians in Yemen, a potential sign of reinvigorated U.S. support for the kingdom’s involvement in its neighbor’s ongoing civil war.
The proposal from the State Department would reverse a decision made late in the Obama administration to suspend the sale of precision guided munitions to Riyadh, which leads a mostly Arab coalition conducting airstrikes against Houthi rebels in Yemen.
U.S. support for the Saudi-led war on Yemen has been a disgrace for almost two years, but this latest decision shows that the new administration is going to compound the earlier errors that Obama made in enabling that war. The U.S. has been deeply complicit in the coalition’s war crimes and its role in creating one of the worst humanitarian crises in the world, and thanks to Trump and Tillerson that complicity is only going to get worse. Millions of Yemeni civilians will continue to suffer and many thousands will die, and all so that our government can placate our despotic client states.
The truly disgusting part of all this is that Trump could have easily withdrawn U.S. support for the war and halted arms sales to coalition governments when he took office, and it would have cost him almost nothing politically. Just as no one cares that the U.S. is aiding and abetting in the destruction and starvation of Yemen, few would care if it stopped providing that aid. The current administration isn’t backing the Saudis and their allies because they have to, but because they choose to and because they buy into nonsensical claims that this has something to do with combating Iran. Throwing more weapons at the Saudis and their allies won’t do anything to Iran, but it will continue to implicate the U.S. in the horrible crimes that the coalition commits with those weapons with the help of U.S. refueling and intelligence support.

Posted in . Tagged .
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/disgraceful-u-s-support-for-the-war-on-yemen-continues/

Pepe Escobar on CIA

$
0
0

Oh, that traitorous WikiTrump

Nothing so trivial as the technical proof we’re all being spied upon can be allowed to threaten or add nuance to established narrative

 MARCH 9, 2017 12:36 AM (UTC+8)
The massive WikiLeaks Vault 7 release is an extremely important public service. It’s hard to find anyone not concerned by a secret CIA hacking program targeting virtually the whole planet – using malware capable of bypassing encryption protection on any device from iOS to Android, and from Windows to Samsung TVs.
In a series of tweets, Edward Snowden confirmed the CIA program and said code names in the documents are real; that they could only be known by a “cleared insider;” the FBI and CIA knew all about the digital loopholes, but kept them open to spy; and that the leaks provided the “first public evidence” that the US government secretly paid to keep US software unsafe.
Someone among the former US government hackers and contractors ended up leaking portions of the CIA archive (Snowden II?). WikiLeaks also stressed how the CIA had created, in effect, its “own NSA” – maximum unaccountability included.
Even though millions already knew – without the technical details – that they were being spied upon by their iPhone or their 4K Samsung, the Vault 7 revelations are far more relevant – and practical – to the average citizen than the 24/7 hysteria fingering President Trump as a Putin puppet. Intel sources are volunteering the – still unexplored – Vault 7 treasure trove is more crucial than what Snowden himself revealed.
And still, vast corporate media sectors embedded with the neocon/neoliberal galaxy are spinning that Vault 7 benefits Trump by changing the subject from alleged Russian hacking interference in the US elections and possible Obama administration-ordered hacks of Team Trump’s communications.
So, if anyone hasn’t got the message, the song remains the same.
WikiLeaks + Snowden + Russia + Trump = the bad guys. CIA deploying its own NSA around the world = the good guys. After all, CIA spokesman Jonathan Liu duly issued a non-denial denial.
Loony mainstream factions are even advancing that “the Russians” leaked the CIA info to WikiLeaks, thus fueling more suspicion that Russia will interfere in upcoming French and German elections.

May I have an Orwellian iPhone, please?

As we’re mired deep in an Orwellian total screen environment, already conceptualized by Baudrillard in the go-go 1980s, nothing so trivial as the technical proof we’re all being spied upon could alter the (im)balance. The US is already ravaged by a vicious sociopolitical war – and no “threat” to e4493563214_0638e16df2_bstablished narratives allows for nuance.

The implication is that, as it stands, there won’t be a US-Russia reset anytime soon – despite hosting invitations from Iceland, Finland or Slovenia; the neocon/neoliberal galaxy nestled in powerful deep state factions will do their best to deny it.
It hardly matters that Trump absolutely does not want war: his entire domestic US economy remix could not possibly allow it. The Pentagon now is essentially an extended special ops unit: it cannot possibly fight a land war (Iran? North Korea? Ukraine?)
Russia, on the other hand, would be ready for war if needs be. The S-500 missile defense system is being deployed: some analysts (not the Ministry of Defense) are sure it’s already protecting the whole Russian landmass. China, by 2021, will have more than 1,000 very mobile warheads, or hidden in those submarines lounging in Hainan. By that time, both Iran and Pakistan will be deep into a strategic defense network with Russia-China, via the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, shielded with their own S-400 and S-500 systems.
Putin is not playing chess. He’s playing Go — and if we look at the board, reality is indeed painful.
Moscow is all but deciding the practical future of Syria, in Astana. Russia virtually wrote the Minsk II agreements, routinely broken by Kiev. Crimea as part of Russia is a fait accompli. Novorossiya for all practical purposes is already a totally autonomous region, with the economy working in rubles. Erdogan owes his imminent regime change in reverse – a presidential sultanate? – to Putin, as Russia warned him about the military coup hours in advance, according to several Russian media sources. Moscow protected Iran’s energy industry during the hardcore OPEC negotiations. Putin all but designed the Russia-China strategic partnership.
Beijing has managed to convince Moscow that One Belt, One Road and the Eurasia Economic Union should be connected, merged and tackled as a win-win Eurasia integration process. If Russia eventually loses economic preeminence across the Central Asian “stans,” it maintains its paramount military/security status.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov never ceases to stress that “our relations with China are at their best level ever in our two countries’ history.”
The last refuge of the scoundrels is cognitive dissonance
Add to it a geo-economic gambit; hints of key factions of European business elites getting ready to hitch themselves to China’s growing – slowly but surely – monetary/financial clout, linked to Beijing’s imperative of preventing a collapse of global supply chains. Xi Jinping’s “inclusive globalization,” announced in Davos, sounds more and more like a reality in the making.
In contrast to reality, where China-Russia expand their strategies without exceptionalist illusions, 24/7 neocon/neoliberal hysteria offers a constant barrage of childish, pathetic eruptions. As the self-delusion school of foreign policy refuses to admit Moscow will not sell out China and Iran for a deal with Washington, the last refuge of the scoundrels is cognitive dissonance; fear of Russia incited to cold war 2.0 heights.
So, relax, global citizen; the CIA is benign and benevolent, even when they’re watching you. You have nothing to fear but fear itself – and its name is Russia.

Big Brother Spying by America

$
0
0
Big Brother Spying by America

By Stephen Lendman


March 09, 2017 "Information Clearing House" - US spy agencies trample on Bill of Rights protections. Their spying domestically and abroad is pervasive.
Anything goes is official policy, rule of law principles circumvented. Edward Snowden earlier said he hoped his revelations would make people worldwide aware of how their freedoms and protections are compromised.

Mass surveillance goes on in ways few people realize. Numerous techniques are used - metadata collected unrelated to national security without court authorized warrants.

Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, Skype, YouTube, Apple, and major telecommunications companies are complicit in spying on their customers.

Phone conversations are recorded, emails collected and stored. New WikiLeaks documents revealed that the CIA (and presumably the NSA, FBI and other US spy agencies) can circumvent encryption, turn television sets into listening devices, and monitor people in ways Orwell never imagined.

If its information is accurate, Langley has over 1,000 malware systems and other software, able to infiltrate and control personal electronics.

Documents WikiLeaks obtained perhaps came from the agency’s Center for Cyber Intelligence - operating in Langley, VA and Washington’s Frankfurt, Germany consulate.

Via Twitter, Snowden said the document trove “looks authentic.” Sophisticated spying capability leaves everyone vulnerable, including foreign leaders and the president of the United States.

William Binney is a cryptanalyst, mathematician, creator of the NSA’s global surveillance system turned whistleblower. Agency activities are unconstitutional, he stressed.

Earlier he said we’re perilously close to a “totalitarian state.” The NSA and other US intelligence agencies can spy on virtually everything we do.

Information obtained is laundered, making it look legitimate. Binney calls it “a total corruption of the justice system…a totalitarian process, (meaning) we are now in a police state.”

Monday on Fox News, he said Trump is “absolutely right” to claim he was wiretapped and monitored. “His phone calls, everything he did electronically, was being monitored.”

Everyone’s electronic communications are monitored and stored. Big Brother is real. Binney called the FISA court “irrelevant.” What’s going on is “outside of the courts…outside of the Congress.”

He designed the system enabling this type sophisticated spying on anyone. America’s intelligence community was likely behind sensitive leaks about Trump, gaining firsthand knowledge of his communications by monitoring him electronically.

It’s unclear whether Congress will subpoena spy agency officials to testify under oath about Trump’s accusations - and if so, how far will it go in exposing what likely went on.


Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net . - His new book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III." http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html - Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

'Collective Narcissism' and World Politics

$
0
0
fatsoenlijke politiek, de mensen die — laat ik zeggen — echt iets willen, en ook een verwezenlijkt idee hebben van wat Nederland moet zijn, dat die een toon en argumenten aandragen die — laten we zeggen — uitvoerbaar zijn, redelijk en begrijpelijk, en niet alleen maar een emotie bedienen,


Het verwezenlijkte idee van de Nederlandse politiek:

"The ECB has the capacity to close down all the banks of a member state. At the same time, it has a charter which grants it - supposedly - complete independence from politics. 



How 'Collective Narcissism' Is Directing World Politics

A little-known personality trait may lie behind the political upheaval across the world.
How do you feel about your nation? Does it make you angry when others criticise your country? Do you feel the world would be a better place if your country had more of a say? Do you wish other countries would more quickly recognise your country’s authority?
Anyone who answered “yes” to these questions would be showing signs of “collective narcissism” at the level of their nationality – at least according to social psychologists. The questions are adapted from a nine-item Collective Narcissism Scale used in research. 
A lot of us are familiar with the psychological construct of narcissism as applied to an individual: someone who is grandiose and overconfident on the outside, but needy and vulnerable underneath. But collective narcissism is something different: it is when someone exhibits an exaggerated belief in the superiority of their in-group, be that a gang, religion or nation, but deep down feels doubtful about their group’s prestige and therefore craves its recognition by others. This ‘fragility’ makes it different from simply having pride in one’s country – in much the same way that a narcissist is quite different from an individual with healthy self-esteem.
(Credit: Getty Images)
Collective narcissism has been documented in many countries, including Poland, which has seen a rise in nationalism among young people (Credit: Getty Images)
One way that psychologists have studied collective narcissism is by using the “Implicit Association Test” (IAT). The test can take different forms, but usually involves pressing keyboard keys to decide whether a word fits into different categories. The basic idea is that we’re quicker to respond when the same key is allocated to categories that we associate in our mind. If you have good self-esteem, for instance, you will be quicker if you have to use the left arrow to sort both positive words, and those that relate to yourself.
To take one example of how the test has been applied to the study of collective narcissism, Polish people showing signs of collective narcissism were slower than average to associate Polish symbols with positive words. Although there’s controversy around how to interpret the IAT, these findings suggest that at least on some level the Polish collective narcissists didn’t see their national in-group in a positive light. This would explain why they desperately sought affirmation of their country’s worth from other people.
Other evidence suggests that certain aspects of collective narcissism emerge as a way to compensate for feelings of personal inadequacy – in much the same way that individual narcissists may vaunt their self-importance to hide their anxiety. Aleksandra Cichocka and colleagues at the University of Warsaw recently found that people who felt less in control of their lives were more likely to show signs of collective narcissism, for instance.
Along these lines, the researchers also found that they could increase their participant’s scores on collective narcissism by prompting them to think about times in their lives when they didn’t have control. Conversely, encouraging them to think about times they’d had control had the effect of reduced the participants’ collective narcissism.
(Credit: Getty Images)
Both sides of the Brexit debate may have appealed to voters' collective narcissism to a greater or lesser extent (Credit: Getty Images)
The concept of collective narcissism isn’t new – it was first proposed by the psychoanalyst Erich Fromm and sociologist Theodor Adorno in the 1930s – but social psychologists’ increasing interest in the idea is especially timely given the political upheaval going on in the world right now. Indeed, Cichocoka’s former professor, Agnieszka Golec de Zavala at Goldsmiths, University of London has found preliminary evidence that collective narcissists were more likely to vote for Donald Trump, and Brexit. (And just to be clear, that does not mean that all people who voted for Trump and Brexit were collective narcissists.)
In fact, politicians from both sides of any debate may appeal to collective narcissism to a greater or less extent. With talk of restoring Britain’s rightful sovereignty and independence, for instance, the Brexit Leave campaign may have struck a chord with people with those traits. But the Remain side may have also recognised the need to appeal to this same mindset. Consider how the Prime Minister at the time, David Cameron, justified voting Remain in patriotic terms: 
“I don’t think Britain at the end is a quitter. I think we stay and fight. That is what we should do. That is what made our country great and that’s how it will be great in the future.”
It is also intriguing – and potentially relevant – that collective narcissists tend to be more inclined to believe in conspiracy theories, especially those involving outsiders. For example, another study by Golec de Zavala and Cichocka, published last year, found that Polish people who scored highly in collective narcissism tended to believe that the Smolensk plane crash of 2010 (in which the Polish President and dozens of other politicians died) was an act of terror by the Russians.
(Credit: Getty Images)
Turkish people scoring higher in collective narcissism were more likely to hold hostile views towards Germans - as seen in this protest (Credit: Getty Images)
Worryingly, Golec de Zavala and Cichocka suggest that collective narcissism could fuel hostility between countries – since collective narcissists are also more likely to endorse revenge, when they feel that their group has been insulted.
In a study published last year, for example, Turkish participants who scored highly on collective narcissism were more likely to say that it was a national humiliation that their country had not been allowed to join the EU, and at the same time they said they took pleasure in the economic woes of the block. Similarly, Portuguese participants with collective narcissism saw Germany as a threat (presumably because they blamed the Germans for the EU austerity measures imposed on Portugal) and said they’d enjoy any chance to retaliate against the Germans. Another study with US students found that those scoring higher in collective narcissism were more likely to favour military aggression.
Despite these findings, it’s worth underlining that collective narcissism is quite different from other kinds of national pride – and positive feelings about one’s own country can bring many benefits. In fact, in her recent review of the field Cichocka explains how feeling a strong sense of identification with a larger group can be constructive. People can find great purpose and meaning in doing things for the greater good of their group, and healthy patriotism is associated with more tolerance and understanding of other nationalities. What makes collective narcissism distinct is its defensive and paranoid tone, and the insatiable desire for due recognition from others.
Another thing to bear in mind is that a lot of the research on collective narcissism involves deliberately factoring out the influence of other related psychological and sociological constructs, including those usually seen as negative, such as in-group glorification (believing in the superiority of one’s own group over others), and others that are more positive, such as constructive patriotism (loving one’s country while also recognising flaws and seeking ways to help bring about improvements). In the messiness of real life, of course many of us hold these kind of feelings to varying degrees all at the same time. And our attitudes and beliefs can change with time – they are not set in stone.
These caveats aside, people from all sides of the political spectrum would do well to take these results seriously: if the events of 2016 are anything to go by, we may be hearing a lot more of this little-known personality type.
--
Dr Christian Jarrett edits the British Psychological Society's Research Digest blog. His next book, Personology, will be published in 2019.

Push for ECB transparency

$
0
0

Bas Heijne: 'fatsoenlijke politiek, de mensen die — laat ik zeggen — echt iets willen, en ook een verwezenlijkt idee hebben van wat Nederland moet zijn, dat die een toon en argumenten aandragen die — laten we zeggen — uitvoerbaar zijn, redelijk en begrijpelijk, en niet alleen maar een emotie bedienen,'


Het verwezenlijkte idee van de Nederlandse politiek:

"The ECB has the capacity to close down all the banks of a member state. At the same time, it has a charter which grants it - supposedly - complete independence from politics. 


Push for ECB transparency

  • Yanis Varoufakis, when still a minister of finance in 2015. (Photo: ec.europa.eu)

Former Greek finance minister Yanis Varoufakis has joined forces with the German left-wing MEP Fabio De Masi in a bid to clarify whether the European Central Bank (ECB) had a legal right to limit the liquidity of Greece’s banks in 2015. 
The duo told journalists in Brussels on Wednesday (8 March) that they were collecting signatures for a petition to ECB president Mario Draghi, asking him to disclose two legal opinions commissioned by the bank. 
  • A bank in Athens during capital controls in July 2015 (Photo: EUobserver)
The first study was ordered in February, before the ECB decided to limit the access of Greek banks to ECB funding and opted instead to open access to the emergency liquidity assistance (ELA) - a fund with more restrictive access conditions.
The decision was taken a few days after the radical left-wing Syriza party came to power, with Varoufakis as finance minister.
The second study, in June 2015, was about the ECB's decision to freeze the amount of money available through the ELA after the Greek government's decision to hold a referendum on the bailout conditions required by the country's creditors.
The measure was taken over concerns that Greek banks would become insolvent because of the deadlock in bailout talks. It also put more pressure on the Greek government to accept the lenders' conditions. 
To avoid a bank run, where large numbers of people withdraw money from their deposit accounts at the same time, the government introduced capital controls. This meant that Greek people were only able to withdraw a maximum of €60 per day. 
The measure prevented a capital run, but also put pressure on Athens to agree to creditors' terms for a third bailout.
Varoufakis, who was finance minister at the time, said this was a breach of the independence of the bank. 
"The ECB has the capacity to close down all the banks of a member state. At the same time, it has a charter which grants it - supposedly - complete independence from politics. And yet, there is no central bank, at least in the West, which has less independence of the political process," Varoufakis said. 
He said Draghi was "completely reliant" on the decisions of an "informal group of finance ministers", referring to the fact that the Eurogroup, which gathers the finance ministers of the 19 eurozone countries, isn't enshrined in EU treaties. 
"It is apparent that Draghi didn't feel that he was on solid legal ground when proceeding with the closing of Greek banks," Varoufakis said.
When a Greek journalist noted that Varoufakis had himself signed the legal act that imposed capital controls, Varoufakis replied: "I signed the death certificate, I did not commit the murder." 
"On 21 June, the ECB made a decision which ensured that the following Monday morning banks would run out of cash, in other words that they would close. It was a decision by our government that because banks would anyway close as a result of the ECB decision, they would not open to avoid civic unrest and putting bank clerks in harm's way," he added. 
He then called the journalist's question a “campaign of misinformation” that blamed the victim, instead of coming to terms with "what really matters" - the question of the ECB's independence. 

Professional privilege

Fabio De Masi already asked Draghi for the opinions in September 2015. But the ECB chief, in a letter made public by the MEP, said the bank does not plan to publish the legal opinions because this would "undermine the ECB’s ability to obtain uncensored, objective and comprehensive legal advice, which is essential for well-informed and comprehensive deliberations of its decision-making bodies". 
"Legal opinions provided by external lawyers and related legal advice are protected by legal professional privilege (the so-called ‘attorney-client privilege’) in accordance with European Union case law," Draghi said. 
"Those opinions were drafted in full independence, on the understanding that they can only be disclosed by the addressee and only shared with people who need to know in order to take reasoned decisions on the issues at stake," he added. 
The campaigners are now collecting signatures for a freedom of information request. They said they will go to court if the ECB fails to fulfil their demands. 
Around 25,000 people have already signed the petition, which was launched last month. 
Supporters include French socialist presidential candidate, Benoit Hamon; German veteran social democrat, Gesine Schwan; and the co-chair of German left-wing party Die Linke, Katja Kipping.

U.S. Government Denies Climate Change

$
0
0

EPA Head Pruitt Denies the Basic Science of Climate Change 

In a CNBC interview the EPA administrator contradicts his own Senate testimony. Scientists worry the agency will reverse key findings on carbon dioxide pollution.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt denied the basic science of climate change that carbon dioxide is a primary driver, in an interview on March 9, contradicting his own Senate confirmation testimony from February. Credit: Aaron P. Bernstein/Getty Images
Wrapping himself unabashedly in the mantle of climate science denial, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt declared on Thursday that he does not believe carbon dioxide is a primary contributor to global warming.
The statement contradicts a firmly established tenet of climate changescience. By questioning it, Pruitt appeared to signal a coming challenge by the Trump administration to the agency's key science finding that obligates it to regulate carbon dioxide pollution from the burning of fossil fuels.
It sparked a chorus of unambiguous contradiction from leading scientists, including those working at the foremost government institutions.
"Mr. Pruitt is wrong," said one of them, Ben Santer of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. "Embracing ignorance is not an option."
John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy under President Obama, called Pruitt's claim "the purest ignorance."
"There is simply no scientific question," Holdren said. "The evidence for climate change caused by humans and principally by CO2 comes from many different lines of observation, monitoring, research, analysis. It's all consistent."
In an interview on CNBC's Squawk Box program, Pruitt was asked by host Joe Kernen if he believes that carbon dioxide is the "primary control knob for climate."
"I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there's tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact," Pruitt answered. "So no, I would not agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see." Pruitt added, "We need to continue the debate and continue the review and the analysis."
Kernen also denied that the consensus science was "settled."

The most recent authoritative statement of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which represents the global scientific consensus, declared that "it is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century." That human influence comes mainly from increased atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases (primarily carbon dioxide) from burning fossil fuels, deforestation, agriculture and the like.
Former EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy denounced her successor's remarks. "The world of science is about empirical evidence, not beliefs," she wrote in a statement. "I cannot imagine what additional information the administrator might want from scientists for him to understand that."
McCarthy went on to condemn the Trump administration's larger campaign to remove government scientists who believe human activity contributes to global warming. "Giving pink slips to scientists across the federal government, including 43 percent of EPA scientists, and proposing to eliminate the U.S. Climate Global Research Program in its entirety, makes one question who this administration will rely on for scientific research and facts." She was referring to a plan that, if approved, would cut funding for the EPA's Office of Research and Development by 43 percent.
Kevin Trenberth, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. said Pruitt is denying what has been indisputably verified.
"There is no doubt whatsoever that the planet is warming and it is primarily due to increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from burning of fossil fuels," he said. "Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and we can demonstrate clearly that the observed warming of the planet would not have occurred without that change in atmospheric composition. These are scientific facts, not opinion, and it is incumbent on politicians to take account of the scientific evidence."
Pruitt's statement on CNBC went beyond his more guarded words at his Senate confirmation hearings, when his record of climate denial was under intense scrutiny by Democrats.
"The climate is changing and human activity contributes to that in some manner," he said in response to a question from Sen. Bernie Sanders. "I believe the ability to measure with precision the degree of human activity's impact on the climate is subject to more debate."

This time, there was no way to construe his remarks as being consistent with mainstream science.
In a written response to questions from senators that he submitted during his confirmation process, Pruitt said he would fulfill the duties of the administrator in regulating greenhouse gases.
"As Pruitt testified before Congress, it is the legal duty of the EPA to tackle the carbon pollution that fuels the climate crisis," Sierra Club's executive director, Michael Brune, said in a statement. "Pruitt is endangering our families, and any sensible senator should demand he be removed from his position immediately for misleading Congress and being unfit and unwilling to do the job he has been entrusted to do."
David Doniger, director of the climate and clean air program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said he considered the situation bizarre. "Having an EPA administrator who claims carbon pollution is not the primary cause of climate change is like having a U.S. surgeon general who says smoking is not the primary cause of lung cancer.''
Sabrina Shankman contributed reporting to this story.        

Low sea ice extent contributes to high methane levels

$
0
0

SATURDAY, MARCH 4, 2017

Low sea ice extent contributes to high methane levels at both poles

[ click on images to enlarge ]
On March 2, 2017, Antarctic sea ice extent was at a record low since satellite readings started.

As the image on the right shows, sea ice extent in 2017 (light blue) around Antarctica has been more than 1 million km² lower than the 1981-2010 median.

At the same time, Arctic sea ice extent was at a record low for the time of the year since 1979.

As the image underneath on the right shows, Arctic sea ice extent in 2017 has also been more than than 1 million km² lower than the 1981-2010 median.

[ click on images to enlarge ]
For about half a year now, global sea ice extent has been more than 2 million km² lower than it used to be, not too long ago, as illustrated by the image below, by Wipneus.

This means that a lot of sunlight that was previously reflected back into space, has been absorbed instead by Earth, contributing to global warming, especially at the poles.

Greater warming at the poles has also caused more extreme weather, resulting in stronger winds and waves and in wild weather swings, further accelerating the decline of the sea ice.

The combination of rising ocean heat and stronger winds looks set to devastate the sea ice around Antarctica. Ocean heat is increasing particularly in the top layer (see image on the right).

Warming water is increasingly reaching the coast of Antarctica. The image below illustrates how much sea ice melt has occurred close to the coast of Antarctic over the past few months, while much sea ice has drifted away from the coast due to strong currents and wind.


As said, less sea ice means that a lot of sunlight is no longer reflected back into space, but is instead further warming up the poles. As a result, methane levels can be very high at both poles. The combination image below shows methane levels as high as 2560 ppb on March 1, 2017. The image in the panel on the left shows high methane levels over Antarctica in an area with much grey, indicating that it was hard to get a good reading there. On the image in the panel on the right, high methane levels do show up clearly in that area.

[ click on images to enlarge ]
As discussed before, methane hydrates can be present both on Greenland and on Antarcticaunderneath thick layers of snow and ice. Due to global warming, wild weather swings are now common at the poles, as illustrated by the image below. This can cause sequences of rapid and extreme expansion, compacting and fracturing of snow and ice, resulting in destabilization of methane hydrates contained in the permafrost.


The image below shows methane levels as high as 2562 ppb, with solid magenta-colored areas showing up over the Laptev Sea on March 4, 2017.

The image below shows that sea surface temperatures in the Arctic Ocean were as high as 12.7°C or 54.9°F on March 3, 2017 (at the location marked by the green circle), i.e. 12°C or 21.6°F warmer than in 1981-2011.


The danger is that self-reinforcing feedback loops such as albedo decline and methane releases will further accelerate warming and will, in combination with further warming elements, cause a temperature rise as high as 10°C or 18°F by the year 2026, as described at the extinction page.

The situation is dire and calls for comprehensive and effective action as described in the Climate Plan.


Links

• Climate Plan
http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/climateplan.html

• Extinction
http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/extinction.html

• Methane hydrates
http://methane-hydrates.blogspot.com/2013/04/methane-hydrates.html

• Earthquakes in the Arctic Ocean
http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2014/04/earthquakes-in-the-arctic-ocean.html



Warning of mass extinction within one decade

$
0
0

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2017

Warning of mass extinction of species, including humans, within one decade


[ click on images to enlarge ]
On February 10, 2017, 18:00 UTC it is forecastto be 0.1°C or 32.1°F at the North Pole, i.e. above the temperature at which water freezes. The temperature at the North Pole is forecast to be 30°C or 54°F warmer than 1979-2000, on Feb 10, 2017, 18:00 UTC, as shown on the Climate Reanalyzer image on the right.

This high temperature is expected as a result of strong winds blowing warm air from the North Atlantic into the Arctic.

The forecast below, run on February 4, 2017, shows that winds as fast as 157 km/h or 98 mph were expected to hit the North Atlantic on February 6, 2017, 06:00 UTC, producing waves as high as 16.34 m or 53.6 ft.


A later forecast shows waves as high as 17.18 m or 54.6 ft, as illustrated by the image below.


While the actual wave height and wind speed may not turn out to be as extreme as such forecasts, the images do illustrate the horrific amounts of energy contained in these storms.

Stronger storms go hand in hand with warmer oceans. The image below shows that on February 4, 2017, at a spot off the coast of Japan marked by green circle, the ocean was 19.1°C or 34.4°F warmer than 1981-2011.


As discussed in an earlier post, the decreasing difference in temperature between the Equator and the North Pole causes changes to the jet stream, in turn causing warmer air and warmer water to get pushed from the North Atlantic into the Arctic.

The image below shows that on February 9, 2017, the water at a spot near Svalbard (marked by the green circle) was 13°C or 55.3°F, i.e. 12.1°C or 21.7°F warmer than 1981-2011.

[ click on images to enlarge ]
Warmer water flowing into the Arctic Ocean in turn increases the strength of feedbacks that are accelerating warming in the Arctic. One of these feedbacks is methane that is getting released from the seafloor of the Arctic Ocean. Update: The image below shows that methane levels on February 13, 2017, pm, were as high as 2727 ppb, 1½ times the global mean at the time.

[ click on image to enlarge, right image added for reference to show location of continents ] 
What caused such a high level? High methane levels (magenta color) over Baffin Bay are an indication of a lot of methane getting released north of Greenland and subsequently getting pushed along the exit current through Nares Strait (see map below). This analysis is supported by the images below, showing high methane levels north of Greenland on the morning of February the 14th (left) and the 15th (right).



The image below shows methane levels as high as 2569 ppb on February 17, 2017. This is an indication of ocean heat further destabilizing permafrost at the seafloor of the Laptev Sea, resulting in high methane concentrations where it is rising in plumes over the Laptev Sea (at 87 mb, left panel) and is spreading over a larger area (at slightly lower concentrations) at higher altitude (74 mb, right panel).


This illustrates how increased inflow of warm water from the North Atlantic into the Arctic Ocean can cause methane to erupt from the seafloor of the Arctic Ocean. Methane releases from the seafloor of the Arctic Ocean have the potential to rapidly and strongly accelerate warming in the Arctic and speed up further feedbacks, raising global temperature with catastrophic consequences in a matter of years. Altogether, these feedbacks and further warming elements could trigger a huge abrupt rise in global temperature making that extinction of many species, including humans, could be less than one decade away.

Youtube video by RT America

Without action, we are facing extinction at unprecedented scale. In many respects, we are already in the sixth mass extinction of Earth's history. Up to 96% of all marine species and 70% of terrestrial vertebrate species became extinct when temperatures rose by 8°C (14°F) during the Permian-Triassic extinction, or the Great Dying, 252 million years ago.

During the Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), which occurred 55 million years ago, global temperatures rose as rapidly as by 5°C in ~13 years, according to a study by Wright et al. A recent study by researchers led by Zebee concludes that the present anthropogenic carbon release rate is unprecedented during the past 66 million years. Back in history, the highest carbon release rates of the past 66 million years occurred during the PETM. Yet, the maximum sustained PETM carbon release rate was less than 1.1 Pg C per year, the study by Zebee et al. found. By contrast, a recent annual carbon release rate from anthropogenic sources was ~10 Pg C (2014). The study by Zebee et al. therefore concludes that future ecosystem disruptions are likely to exceed the - by comparison - relatively limited extinctions observed at the PETM.

An earlier study by researchers led by De Vos had already concluded that current extinction rates are 1,000 times higher than natural background rates of extinction and future rates are likely to be 10,000 times higher.

from the post 2016 well above 1.5°C
As above image shows, a number of warming elements adds up to a potential warming of 10°C (18°F) from pre-industrial by the year 2026, i.e. within about nine years from now, as discussed in more detail at the extinction page.


Above image shows how a 10°C (18°F) temperature rise from preindustrial could be completed within a decade.

https://sites.google.com/site/samcarana/climateplan
The situation is dire and calls for comprehensive and effective action, as discussed in the Climate Plan.


Links

• Climate Plan
http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/climateplan.html

• Arctic Ocean Feedbacks
http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2017/01/arctic-ocean-feedbacks.html

• Extinction
http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/extinction.html

• How much warming have humans caused?
http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2016/05/how-much-warming-have-humans-caused.html

• Estimating the normal background rate of species extinction, De Vos et al. (2015)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25159086

• Anthropogenic carbon release rate unprecedented during the past 66 million years, by Zebee et al. (2016)
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v9/n4/full/ngeo2681.html

• Evidence for a rapid release of carbon at the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum, Wright et al. (2013)
http://www.pnas.org/content/110/40/15908.full?sid=58b79a3f-8a05-485b-8051-481809c87076

• RT America Youtube video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSnrDRU6_2g

• RT America Facebook video
https://www.facebook.com/RTAmerica/videos/10154168391051366



OPEN LETTER TO THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL

$
0
0
Anoniem heeft een nieuwe reactie op je bericht "Disgraceful U.S. Support for the War on Yemen Cont..." achtergelaten: 

En wie laten de VS z'n gang gaan? En wie anders dan Saudi's bezetten 'zomaar' hoge posten in VN vluchtelingen of mensenrechten commissies? Het is slechts wachten op de Blowback, wegens het failliet van de VN: 'United Nothings'. De media blijven, het hoofd half weggerot, doen alsof hun neus bloed! 

EU Security and Defence package (stopwapenhandel.org
Op 9 en 10 maart is er een Europese Raadsvergadering, waar onder meer plannen voor EU geld naar de wapenindustrie worden besproken. Het European Network Against Arms Trade schreef een open brief: De EU moet voorop lopen bij het vreedzaam oplossen van conflicten, in plaats van bijdragen aan een nieuwe wapenwedloop waarvan vooral de wapenindustrie profiteert.

Lees de brief op European Network Against Arms Trade - Open Letter 



page1image504
Brussels, 8 March 2017
To Donald TUSK, President of the European Council
To the Heads of States and Governments of the 28 EU Member States
To Jean-Claude JUNCKER, President of the European Commission

OPEN LETTER TO THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL:
THE EU SHOULD LEAD THE WAY TOWARDS THE PEACEFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICTS, RATHER THAN CONTRIBUTE TO A NEW ARMS RACE WHICH MAINLY BENEFITS THE ARMS INDUSTRY

Dear President Tusk, Heads of States and Governments and President Juncker,

You are about to discuss further the proposals under the Implementation Plan for Security and Defence of the EU Global Strategy and the EU Defence Action Plan. A summary of the arms-related proposals is:
  • €90 million to be dedicated to military research from 2017 to 2019 under the Preparatory Action (PA) and at least €3'500 million for a full military research programme from 2021 to 2027;
  • a €5'000 million capability window for the development and acquisition of military equipment. The EU budget could cover the administrative costs and even contribute to this 'pot' of national contributions;
  • to divert part of the EU budget for “capacity building in support of security and development", in other words 'train & equip' the military of third countries with EU development funds (IcSP funding);
  • to start or increase access to several EU budget lines by the arms industry from 2017. The lines include regional funds, structural funds, COSME, Erasmus + ...;
  • a suggestion that part of the EIB and EFSI funds be diverted to the arms industry for military applications, putting into question the current general principles of EIB and EFSI and their restricted sectors.
    These proposals are largely the result of long-term discreet lobbying by the arms industry, which is looking for new opportunities in the EU budget to add to national funds they already benefit from. But those with alternative views are not properly consulted or listened to.
    Even though some arms companies are still partially owned by Member States, they all behave as economic actors wanting to export their products and make profits. However arms sales are not a 'normal business', and proposals aimed at boosting the arms industry competitiveness and its capacity to export are not what many EU citizens would want to see:
- Those seeking greater security in the current international climate are very well aware that increasing arms sales and military expenditure is not a good way forward. This is shown by EU-wide polls and our online petition against the PA.
- Jobs and growth are not a justification: these objectives could more easily be met by investing in crucial sustainable development projects which comply with the UN Climate Agreement and Europe 2020 commitments. Concrete proposals exist for the conversion of arms-related jobs to environmentally sustainable ones.
- These proposals do not represent any savings as this expenditure is meant to be in addition to, not instead of, national military spending. Separately, NATO is also asking several EU states to increase the latter.
Last but not least, many military experts consider that spending more is not necessary. Combined EU Member State military spending is second in the world after the United Sates, far more than Russia and still more than China. According to these experts the problem lies in the lack of political will, cooperation and common
page1image29344page1image29504page1image29664page1image29824
European Network Against Arms Trade - ENAAT
page1image30672
Quaker House, Square Ambiorix 50, B-1000 Brussels
page1image31520
Tel: +32.2.234.30.60 - info@enaat.org
-
www.enaat.org
page1image33144page1image33304page1image33464page1image34056

strategy between Member States in military and security matters. Giving more money to the arms industry without resolving first these serious shortcomings will only result in further waste of public money.
In conclusion, we do not believe these proposals will serve the EU's general interest, but rather that they are another subsidy to the arms industry. The latter will then sell and transfer abroad many of the technologies developed with public money, thus exacerbating a global arms race which in turn negatively impacts conflicts.
There is no question that security today is a major challenge and that the EU has a critical role to play in addressing it. But threats to security have many causes and the solutions that the EU proposes must be clearly based on the Treaties and be innovative and courageous, rather than repeating the mistakes of the past.
For decades we have been told that more weapons and military spending should lead to more peace through deterrence.
According to the SIPRI figures, military spending worldwide reached $1'760 Billion in 2015, with a cumulative amount of $38'275 Billion (in 2014 USD) since 1988. If arms and military responses worked, then the world should have been a peaceful place for a long time.

page2image10560
The European Network Against Arms Trade calls you to uphold on the founding mission of the EU, 60 years after its creation, by:
  • ✔  reconsidering these proposals and ending the support for arms industry interests
  • ✔  seriously supporting and funding peaceful and sustainable ways of resolving and preventing conflicts, including tackling their root-causes, rather than diverting the EU budget to the arms industry
  • ✔  facilitating a genuine public debate with full transparency of the decision-making process so that alternative options are considered and the interests of EU citizens prevails.
Yours sincerely,
Laëtitia Sédou
EU Programme Officer
ENAAT members:
Agir pour la Paix, Belgium
BUKO-Campaign: Stop the Arms Trade, Germany Campaign Against Arms Trade, United Kingdom
Centre Delàs for Peace Studies, Spain
Committee of 100 in Finland, Finland
Gruppe für eine Schweiz ohne Armee (GsoA), Switzerland

Rete Italiana per il Disarmo, Italy
Peace Union of Finland, Finland
Stop Wapenhandel, the Netherlands
S
wedish Peace and Arbitration Society (SPAS), Sweden Vredesactie, Belgium

War Resisters' International, United Kingdom
page2image24288page2image24456page2image24616page2image24776
International Peace Bureau, Switzerland
Nesehnuti, Czech Republic
page2image26032
the world is over-armed and peace is underfunded” Ban-Ki-Moon, former UN Secretary General “I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary;
the evil it does is permanent” Mahatma Gandhi -
European Network Against Arms Trade - ENAAT
Norwegian Peace Association, Norway
page2image29800page2image29960
Human Rights Institute, Slovakia
Observatoire des armements, France
page2image31256page2image31416
Quaker House, Square Ambiorix 50, B-1000 Brussels
page2image32264
Tel: +32.2.234.30.60 - info@enaat.org
www.enaat.org
page2image33440

Destruction Of CIA

$
0
0

Counter-Coup Spookmaster Dr. Steve Pieczenik Discusses Destruction Of CIA And Game Changing Implications Of #Vault7




ZeroPointNow's picture
This is as close to a real life spy novel as you're going to get...
Dr. Steve Pieczenik is a legend. For those of you who don't know - he's the guy Tom Clancy based Jack Ryan on. He's served 5 U.S. Presidents (Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan and the 1st Bush) and was co-founder of Delta Force. Pieczenik served as former Dep. Sec of State under Kissinger, Vance and Baker - and was instrumental in negotiating the 1978 Camp David Accords. He holds degrees from Cornell, M.I.T. and Harvard, and as a CIA expert in psychological warfare, he was the first psychiatrist ever to receive a PhD focusing on international relations. Steve can probably crush your larynx with his mind.
Shortly before the election, Pieczenik released a series of YouTube videos explaining just what in the hell was going on with all of the Wikileaks revelations - which, as he revealed, were part of a "counter-coup" by patriotic elements within the intelligence community - assisted by Julian Assange, to wrestle control out of the hands of the globalists by exposing Hillary Clinton and the deep-state apparatus she represented.
If you haven't seen the original clips - check them out.
Last night, Pieczenik appeared on Infowars to discuss #Vault7, the counter-coup, Edward Snowden, Currencies, Steve Mnuchin, the death of the DNC, and where we go from here. The entire interview is almost 50 minutes long, however here are some select clips (or scroll down for the entire thing):
The implications of Vault7, technology overreach, and the fact that the NSA has a mandate for cyber-command and cyber-warfare. The CIA never did, and it has committed "crimes against the state"


Dr. Pieczenik elaborates on why he was used as a mouthpiece by the good guys, as well as their mandate:

Second American Revolution, Snowden:

CIA a "Stupid, self-destructive entity" which has left a "legacy of ashes" 

Structural problems in the EU - eventual dissolution, currency fluctuations - NWO does not exist anymore, Soros irrelevant, China technically insolvent: 

Don't want to eliminate enemies - instead, the goal is to discredit them. No violence. Trump has brought in Mnuchin to realign US Dollar with rest of the world to boost exports.



This is the third counter coup. CIA will be cleaned out - gives thanks Rand and Ron Paul for trying to clean out NeoCons: 



We've won - but we need to have humility. Oh, and the left "is already in the cemetery. All we've got [to do] is put flowers on their graves and walk away"
Dr. Steve Pieczenik Discusses winning with humility, and the DNC is "already in the cemetary" - with Alex Jones

ENTIRE INTERVIEW:
Content originally generated at iBankCoin.com * Follow on Twitter @ZeroPointNow

Inkomens en Vermogens in Verkiezingstijd

$
0
0
wallstreet

Inkomens en vermogens, genegeerd in de verkiezingstijd?

Het Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (CBS) publiceert jaarlijks gegevens over inkomens en vermogens in Nederland. Tot dusver werd de informatie over het voorgaande jaar in het vierde kwartaal van het lopende jaar gepubliceerd, dus in 2015 de gegevens over 2014. Dit is echter niet gebeurd in het vierde kwartaal van 2016. Sterker, het wachten is nog steeds op deze statistieken van het CBS. En dat is vreemd. In de verkiezingstijd zou je toch zeggen dat politici er behoefte aan hebben om te weten hoe Nederland er voor wat betreft de inkomens en vermogens ervoor staat. Vooral de verdeling van die inkomens en vermogens is daarbij van belang, omdat er dan geen algemene uitspraken behoeven te worden gedaan, zoals: ‘de economie groeit en gemiddeld staan we er beter voor’ en ‘Nederland behoort bij de rijkste landen van de wereld’.
Dat de werkelijkheid anders is dan de globale uitspraken die erover worden gedaan blijkt uit deze twee grafieken:
inkomensgroepen-zonder-subsidie
vermogensverdeling 2014 2
De eerste geeft de verdeling van de besteedbare inkomens van huishoudens in Nederland weer, waarbij die huishoudens zijn verdeeld in tien in aantal gelijke groepen.
De tweede grafiek geeft de netto vermogens weer, exclusief overwaarde op de eigen woning van alle huishoudens in Nederland, ook verdeeld in tien in aantal gelijke groepen.
De scheefheid van de inkomens en vooral van de vermogens wordt – pijnlijk- duidelijk uit deze grafieken. Vooral als je je bedenkt dat de rijksten inkomen en vermogen hebben dat aan de aandacht van het CBS ontsnapt.
Uit de officiële cijfers blijkt al dat de rijkste 10% ongeveer 74% bezit van alles wat er te bezitten valt en dat minstens de helft van de Nederlanders weinig tot geen (vrij) vermogen heeft.
De besteedbare inkomens zijn voor minstens 60% van de Nederlandse huishoudens matig tot slecht, zeker als daarbij in aanmerking wordt genomen dat de hoge vaste lasten (wonen, zorg , energie) nog van die besteedbare inkomens af gaan. De Werkgroep Gelijke Behandeling Volkshuisvesting heeft de inkomens en oorzaken van de groeiende ongelijkheid diepgaand onder de loep genomen in het rapport: ‘Inkomensverschillen in Nederland’, dat ontnuchterende informatie geeft over hoe slecht het is met de inkomens in dit land. 17-02-27 Inkomensverschillen 02-2017(1) Ik kan iedereen aanbevelen om dit rapport te lezen voordat je naar de stembus gaat.
Het is verbijsterend, dat de politiek dit onderwerp vrijwel geheel laat liggen. Het lijkt haast opzet.
VERMOGENS CBS
INKOMENS CBS
(c) Ad Broere, econoom






Lodewijk Asscher. Breaking News!!!

$
0
0
Verkiezingskrant

De Telegraaf kwam vanmorgen met de traditionele verkiezingskrant, gemaakt door de lijsttrekkers van de zes grootste partijen in de Tweede Kamer.

Opvallend is een interview met de vrouw van Asscher: Jildau Piena. Ze openbaart dat Asscher nogal graag smartlappen zingt, ook als ze ruzie hebben.

'Ook om me een beetje te plagen natuurlijk. "Sorry seems to be the hardest word..." Soms ben ik daarna nog kwader op hem. Hahaha!' aldus Piena.


http://www.nu.nl/verkiezingen-2017/4467147/verkiezingsblog-laatste-nieuws-in-aanloop-verkiezingen.html?redirect=1

Paul Craig Roberts 262

$
0
0
Our Age Of Folly

By Paul Craig Roberts

March 10, 2017 "Information Clearing House" - The United States has been growing progressively insane for a long time. For my generation, the realization descended upon us in the 1960s when the military/security complex convinced Americans that if we permitted Vietnamese nationalist leader Ho Chi Minh to unify Vietnam, the dominoes would fall until the Communist World Revolution had us in its grip. This despite the fact that Stalin had killed off the Trotskyist world revolutionaries and declared “Socialism in one country.”
Nationalists in the West’s colonies, such as Vietnam and Cuba, misinterpreted the talk about making the world safe for self-determination as applying to them. Ho Chi Minh helped the US against Japan during World War 2. His requests for US help for Vietnamese independence from France were cold-shouldered by the Truman administration. He did not turn against the US until Washington turned against him. http://www.historynet.com/ho-chi-minh-and-the-oss.htm
America’s participation in the Vietnam War lasted for a decade or thereabouts. The extraordinary carnage and war crimes served no interest other than the power and profit of the military/security complex and the paranoia of the arbiters of US foreign policy.
No lesson learned, we have spent the entirety of the 21st century to date repeating the mistake. This time it is stateless Muslim terrorists who somehow were merged in official US propaganda into the governments of seven countries in the Middle East and North Africa. After 17 years of murdering women, children, and village elders, destroying the infrastructure of countries, and bombing weddings, funerals, children’s soccer games, schools and hospitals, Washington has surpassed its criminal record in Vietnam. 
The folly of the Vietnam War was not explicated for us until the war’s aftermath. However, the folly of our 21st century crusade against evil was presented to us in monthly installments as the folly unfolded by Lewis Lapham’s articles in Harper’s and later in the Lapham Quarterly. These essays have been collected together in a book, Age of Folly: America Abandons Its Democracy (Verso, 2016).
Lapham is one of the remaining “men of letters” who date from a time when some Americans still existed who preferred the red pill to the blue pill. In the 21st century, awareness has been out of fashion, and there were few to learn from Lapham’s demonstrations of our folly.
Lapham’s book should be titled “Our Age of Folly.” As I read Lapham, every age has been one of folly, and America has been abandoning its democracy from day one, if America ever had a democracy to abandon. 
Few remember that the Iraq War, ongoing since 2003, was supposed to be a “cakewalk” that would last three weeks. The war would not be the multi-trillion dollar event it turned out to be. We were assured the war would cost only $70 billion and be paid for with Iraqi oil revenues. George W. Bush fired his White House economist, Lawrence Lindsey for saying that the war could cost $200 billion. The only beneficiaries of the war are the recipients of the profits of the military/security complex and the police state agencies that the “war on terror” was used to justify.
Lapham finds in Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney’s announcement that the US was launching a “war of liberation to remove Saddam’s regime from Iraq” the same hubris, arrogance, and hegemonic aspirations that caused ancient Athens to ruin itself in the Peloponnesian War. Reading Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War, Lapham reports, “was as if I were reading the front page of the New York Times or the Pentagon’s Defense Planning Guidance.”
Being a man of letters, Lapham can make words dance and bite, and many are bitten. Michael Ignatieff, “a brand-name foreign-policy intellectual recruited from the faculty of Harvard University,” writes in behalf of Washington’s exercise of America’s imperial power “sententious and vacant prose, most of it indistinguishable from the ad copy for an Armani scarf or a Ferragamo shoe. Too much direct quotation from the professor’s text might be mistaken for unkindness.”
Lapham describes the transformation by the media and national security experts of the ragged, lightly armed Taliban into “an Arab host gathered on the plain of Armageddon under the glittering banners of militant Islam.” He relates policy arguments in which one expert declared that it is time to “flip” Iran. No said Dimitri Simes, president of the Nixon Center, it is the moment to drop a nuclear bomb on Afghanistan for the “very strong demonstration effect” that would get the entire Middle East in line with Washington’s orders. Challenged by someone who thought this prescription displayed a cavalier disregard for human life, Simes responded that “the NATO victory in Serbia was not won against the Serbian military ‘but because we were effective against the Serbian civilian infrastructure.’”
Ah, the morality of Americans. Winning is all that counts.
Few movers and shakers could resist hitching their wagon to the pursuit of Osama bin Laden, who died from renal failure in December 2001 before the hunt for him was well underway. Lapham reports that Geraldo Rivera, not to be outdone in the patriotic show of hunting down evil, “went off to the Khyber Pass with a pistol in his luggage, informing his viewers on FOX News that he would consider killing Osama bin Laden if the chance presented itself somewhere on the snowy heights of Tora Bora.”
Lapham’s essays walk us through the period from arrogance to quagmire to defeat covered up with a declaration of victory. In 2015 the Russians had to come in to clear up the mess Washington made of the Middle East, a favor for which we have not forgiven them.
Lapham thinks that the readers of Harper’s could have done a better job of running US foreign policy than the supervisors of the empire in Washington. I am sure that he is right, and so could have my own readers.
For Lapham the US government is a font of folly. He sees the 21st century American government in the way that Winston Churchill saw the British government in 1904:


“A party of great vested interests, banded together in a formidable confederation; corruption at home, aggression to cover it up abroad . . . sentiment by the bucketful; patriotism and imperialism by the imperial pint; the open hand at the public exchequer; the open door at the public house; expensive food for the millions, cheap labour for the millionaire.”
Lapham doesn’t get everything correct. He doesn’t give Reagan a fair break or credit for ending stagflation and the Cold War. Instead, Lapham portrays Reagan as just another servant of the rich. Lapham doesn’t catch on until late about 9/11, but neither did most others, including architect Richard Gage, founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, now 3,000 strong. Lapham never says 9/11 was an inside job, but he artfully describes how the orchestra and chorus were miraculously ready to play the required tune, just as somehow the US military was ready and able to invade Afghanistan less than one month after 9/11. In other words, the invasion force was assembled awaiting the pretext, and the orchestra and chorus were awaiting the 9/11 conductor’s baton.
Lapham spares no one, least of all his own class. As a young man Lapham was a member of the upper class and remains today a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. He could expect a career guaranteed by the preferments bestowed on his class. Returning from Cambridge University, he secured an interview with the CIA, looking forward to an exciting life as a spy serving the cause of freedom and democracy. In a passage that is perhaps the most amusing in the book, he describes boning up for the interview by “reading about Lenin’s train and Stalin’s prisons, the width of the Fulda Gap, the depth of the Black Sea. Instead of being asked about the treaties of Brest-Litovsk or the October Revolution, I was asked three questions bearing on my social qualifications for admission into what the young men at the far end of the table clearly regarded as the best fraternity on the campus of the free world.”
His fellow Yalies wanted proof of his upper class bonafides and relied on three questions that would reveal if Lapham were the real goods. Lapham had to answer the question, which club does one take from the golf bag when standing on the thirteenth tee at the National Golf Links in Southampton, followed by the question of the direction at dusk in late August of the prevailing wind on final approach under sail into Hay Harbor on Fishers Island, followed by “Does Muffy Hamilton wear a slip?” 
Muffy was a very beautiful, very rich young socialite “much admired for the indiscriminate fervor of her sexual enthusiasms,” which those with bonafides would have experienced. Lapham correctly answered the first two questions. His experience with Muffy was limited to mixing her a drink at the New Haven Fence Club. He knew only by second hand authority that her underclothes consisted of Belgian lace.
The questions, Lapham reports, killed his interest in a CIA career. He apologized for having misread the job description and walked out of the interview. So much “smug complacence, self-glorifying certainty and primogeniture crowed into so small a room” offended Lapham and revealed to him an attitude “not well positioned for intelligence gathering.”
The failure of intelligence, not only the CIA’s, but also the failure of the intelligence of the leadership class, politicians, media, and a goodly chunk of the American people, explains the folly that has devoured our civil liberties and the economic prospects of our people and has left us with children unfamiliar with the world both past and present, making them “easy marks for the dealers in totalitarian politics” of which our country has an excess supply.
In this digital age in which wordsmiths are extinct, to read a Lapham essay is a delight for those of us old enough to appreciate the performance. One of Lapham’s virtues is that he is a delight to read whether or not one agrees with him. His other virtue is that in his sarcasm is a true picture of our era of folly. 

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts' latest books are The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the WestHow America Was Lost, and The Neoconservative Threat to World Order.
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/46637.htm

The Government Is Still the Enemy of Freedom

$
0
0

The Government Is Still the Enemy of Freedom


 165  22  51
By John W. Whitehead
March 06, 2017

“Rights aren’t rights if someone can take them away. They’re privileges. That’s all we’ve ever had in this country, is a bill of temporary privileges. And if you read the news even badly, you know that every year the list gets shorter and shorter. Sooner or later, the people in this country are gonna realize the government … doesn’t care about you, or your children, or your rights, or your welfare or your safety… It’s interested in its own power. That’s the only thing. Keeping it and expanding it wherever possible.”— George Carlin
My friends, we’re being played for fools.
On paper, we may be technically free.
In reality, however, we are only as free as a government official may allow.
We only think we live in a constitutional republic, governed by just laws created for our benefit.
Truth be told, we live in a dictatorship disguised as a democracy where all that we own, all that we earn, all that we say and do—our very lives—depends on the benevolence of government agents and corporate shareholders for whom profit and power will always trump principle. And now the government is litigating and legislating its way into a new framework where the dictates of petty bureaucrats carry greater weight than the inalienable rights of the citizenry.
We’re in trouble, folks.
Freedom no longer means what it once did.
This holds true whether you’re talking about the right to criticize the government in word or deed, the right to be free from government surveillance, the right to not have your person or your property subjected to warrantless searches by government agents, the right to due process, the right to be safe from soldiers invading your home, the right to be innocent until proven guilty and every other right that once reinforced the founders’ belief that this would be “a government of the people, by the people and for the people.”
Not only do we no longer have dominion over our bodies, our families, our property and our lives, but the government continues to chip away at what few rights we still have to speak freely and think for ourselves.
If the government can control speech, it can control thought and, in turn, it can control the minds of the citizenry.
The unspoken freedom enshrined in the First Amendment is the right to think freely and openly debate issues without being muzzled or treated like a criminal.
In other words, if we no longer have the right to tell a Census Worker to get off our property, if we no longer have the right to tell a police officer to get a search warrant before they dare to walk through our door, if we no longer have the right to stand in front of the Supreme Court wearing a protest sign or approach an elected representative to share our views, if we no longer have the right to protest unjust laws by voicing our opinions in public or on our clothing or before a legislative body—no matter how misogynistic, hateful, prejudiced, intolerant, misguided or politically incorrect they might be—then we do not have free speech.
What we have instead is regulated, controlled speech, and that’s a whole other ballgame.
Protest laws, free speech zones, bubble zones, trespass zones, anti-bullying legislation, zero tolerance policies, hate crime laws and a host of other legalistic maladies dreamed up by politicians and prosecutors are conspiring to corrode our core freedoms purportedly for our own good.
For instance, the protest laws being introduced across the country—in 18 states so far—are supposedly in the name of “public safety and limiting economic damage.”
Don’t fall for it.
No matter how you package these laws, no matter how well-meaning they may sound, no matter how much you may disagree with the protesters or sympathize with the objects of the protest, these proposed laws are aimed at one thing only: discouraging dissent.
In Arizona, police would be permitted to seize the assets of anyone involved in a protest that at some point becomes violent.
In Minnesota, protesters would be forced to pay for the cost of having police on hand to “police” demonstrations.
Oregon lawmakers want to “require public community colleges and universities to expel any student convicted of participating in a violent riot.”
proposed North Dakota law would give drivers the green light to “accidentally” run over protesters who are blocking a public roadway. Florida and Tennessee are entertaining similar laws.
Pushing back against what it refers to as “economic terrorism,” Washington wants to increase penalties for protesters who block access to highways and railways.
Anticipating protests over the Keystone Pipeline, South Dakota wants to apply the governor’s emergency response authority to potentially destructive protests, create new trespassing penalties and make it a crime to obstruct highways.
In Iowa, protesters who block highways with speeds posted above 55 mph could spend five years in prison, plus a fine of up to $7,500. Obstruct traffic in Mississippi and you could be facing a $10,000 fine and a five-year prison sentence.
North Carolina law would make it a crime to heckle state officials. Under this law, shouting at a former governor would constitute a crime.
Indiana lawmakers wanted to authorize police to use “any means necessary” to breakup mass gatherings that block traffic. That legislation has since been amended to merely empower police to issue fines for such behavior.
Georgia is proposing harsh penalties and mandatory sentencing laws for those who obstruct public passages or throw bodily fluids on “public safety officers.”
Virginia wants to subject protesters who engage in an “unlawful assembly” after “having been lawfully warned to disperse” with up to a year of jail time and a fine of up to $2,500.
Missouri wants to make it illegal for anyone participating in an “unlawful assembly” to intentionally conceal “his or her identity by the means of a robe, mask, or other disguise.”
Colorado wants to lock up protesters for up to 18 months who obstruct or tamper with oil and gas equipment and charge them with up to $100,000 in fines.
Oklahoma wants to create a sliding scale for protesters whose actions impact or impede critical infrastructure. The penalties would range from $1,000 and six months in a county jail to $100,000 and up to 10 years in prison. And if you’re part of an organization, that fine goes as high as $1,000,000.
Michigan hopes to make it easier for courts to shut down “mass picketing” demonstrations and fine protesters who block entrances to businesses, private residences or roadways up to $1,000 a day. That fine jumps to $10,000 a day for unions or other organizing groups.
Ask yourself: if there are already laws on the books in all of the states that address criminal or illegal behavior such as blocking public roadways or trespassing on private property—because such laws are already on the books—then why does the government need to pass laws criminalizing activities that are already outlawed?
What’s really going on here?
No matter what the politicians might say, the government doesn’t care about our rights, our welfare or our safety.
How many times will we keep falling for the same tricks?
Every despotic measure used to control us and make us cower and fear and comply with the government’s dictates has been packaged as being for our benefit, while in truth benefiting only those who stand to profit, financially or otherwise, from the government’s transformation of the citizenry into a criminal class.
Remember, the Patriot Act didn’t make us safer. It simply turned American citizens into suspects and, in the process, gave rise to an entire industry—private and governmental—whose profit depends on its ability to undermine our Fourth Amendment rights.
Placing TSA agents in our nation’s airports didn’t make us safer. It simply subjected Americans to invasive groping, ogling and bodily searches by government agents. Now the TSA plans to subject travelers to even more “comprehensive” patdowns.
So, too, these protest laws are not about protecting the economy or private property or public roads. Rather, they are intended to muzzle discontent and discourage anyone from challenging government authority.
These laws are the shot across the bow.
They’re intended to send a strong message that in the American police state, you’re either a patriot who marches in lockstep with the government’s dictates or you’re a pariah, a suspect, a criminal, a troublemaker, a terrorist, a radical, a revolutionary.
Yet by muzzling the citizenry, by removing the constitutional steam valves that allow people to speak their minds, air their grievances and contribute to a larger dialogue that hopefully results in a more just world, the government is deliberately stirring the pot, creating a climate in which violence becomes inevitable.
When there is no steam valve—when there is no one to hear what the people have to say, because government representatives have removed themselves so far from their constituents—then frustration builds, anger grows and people become more volatile and desperate to force a conversation.
Then again, perhaps that was the government’s plan all along.
As John F. Kennedy warned in March 1962, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”
The government is making violent revolution inevitable.
How do you lock down a nation?
You sow discontent and fear among the populace. You terrorize the people into believing that radicalized foreigners are preparing to invade. You teach them to be non-thinkers who passively accept whatever is told them, whether it’s delivered by way of the corporate media or a government handler. You brainwash them into believing that everything the government does is for their good and anyone who opposes the government is an enemy. You acclimate them to a state of martial law, carried out by soldiers disguised as police officers but bearing the weapons of war. You polarize them so that they can never unite and stand united against the government. You create a climate in which silence is golden and those who speak up are shouted down. You spread propaganda and lies. You package the police state in the rhetoric of politicians.
And then, when and if the people finally wake up to the fact that the government is not and has never been their friend, when it’s too late for peaceful protests and violence is all that remains to them as a recourse against tyranny, you use all of the tools you’ve been so carefully amassing—the criminal databases and surveillance and identification systems and private prisons and protest laws—and you shut them down for good.
As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, once a government assumes power—unconstitutional or not—it does not relinquish it. The militarized police are not going to stand down. The NSA will continue to collect electronic files on everything we do. More and more Americans are going to face jail time for offenses that prior generations did not concern themselves with.
The government—at all levels—could crack down on virtually anyone at any time.
Martin Luther King saw it coming: both the “spontaneous explosion of anger by various citizen groups” and the ensuing crackdown by the government.
“Police, national guard and other armed bodies are feverously preparing for repression,” King wrote shortly before he was assassinated. “They can be curbed not by unorganized resort to force…but only by a massive wave of militant nonviolence….It also may be the instrument of our national salvation.”
Militant nonviolent resistance.
“A nationwide nonviolent movement is very important,” King wrote. “We know from past experience that Congress and the President won’t do anything until you develop a movement around which people of goodwill can find a way to put pressure on them… This means making the movement powerful enough, dramatic enough, morally appealing enough, so that people of goodwill, the churches, laborers, liberals, intellectuals, students, poor people themselves begin to put pressure on congressmen to the point that they can no longer elude our demands.
“It must be militant, massive nonviolence,” King emphasized.
In other words, besides marches and protests, there would have to be civil disobedience. Civil disobedience forces the government to expend energy in many directions, especially if it is nonviolent, organized and is conducted on a massive scale. This is, as King knew, the only way to move the beast. It is the way to effect change without resorting to violence. And it is exactly what these protest laws are attempting to discourage
We are coming to a crossroads. Either we gather together now and attempt to restore freedom or all will be lost. As King cautioned, “everywhere, ‘time is winding up,’ in the words of one of our spirituals, corruption in the land, people take your stand; time is winding up.”
WC: 2135
ABOUT JOHN W. WHITEHEAD
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His new book Battlefield America: The War on the American People (SelectBooks, 2015) is available online at www.amazon.com. Whitehead can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org.
PUBLICATION GUIDELINES / REPRINT PERMISSION
John W. Whitehead’s weekly commentaries are available for publication to newspapers and web publications at no charge. Please contact staff@rutherford.org to obtain reprint permission.


Obama. Black But Not Beautiful

$
0
0

 That Barack Obama’s a lovely guy, right?
Handsome, intelligent, eloquent, charming, witty; he can sing, dance, shoot hoops, and make speeches that stir the soul.
Oh, and he’s a great husband, father, son and friend.
In fact, to many around the world, President Perfect is the complete antithesis of his replacement Donald Trump.
That’s why millions have marched to protest against the current POTUS, who they brand the ‘new Hitler.’
That Barack Obama’s a lovely guy, right? He's a great husband, father, son and friend
That Barack Obama’s a lovely guy, right? He's a great husband, father, son and friend
Handsome (did you see that cool leather jacket this week?)
he can sing, dance, shoot hoops, and make speeches that stir the soul

Handsome (did you see that cool leather jacket this week?) charming, witty; he can sing, dance, shoot hoops, and make speeches that stir the soul
Why, they squeal with rage, can’t ‘Monster’ Trump just be more like ‘Saint’ Obama?
Hmmm.
Forgive me if I don’t join the ecstatic global race to canonize Mr Obama quite so enthusiastically.
For beneath his ever-smiley beatific halo lies a rather different, far murkier reality.
My favourite question for the anti-Trump brigade is this: ‘How many people did Barack Obama deport from America during his eight years as President?’
Most people guess 5,000, maybe 10,000. Even those with a good knowledge of how the real world of US immigration policy works rarely respond with a number higher than around 500,000.
In fact, Obama deported nearly THREE MILLION people.
That is the most deported by any president, ever.
His appalled critics even dubbed him ‘Deporter-in-Chief.’
When challenged, Obama loved to pretend that he was only deporting ‘criminals’.
The truth is very different. Over half of all immigrants deported under Obama had no criminal convictions. Many others were slung out for minor offences involving traffic violations or marijuana possession.
The truth about Obama's presidency? He deported three million people. He also was a hawk, served two terms of war and killed thousands of people with drones - ordering 26,171 bombs dropped and they all targeted Muslims
The truth about Obama's presidency? He deported three million people. He also was a hawk, served two terms of war and killed thousands of people with drones - ordering 26,171 bombs dropped and they all targeted Muslims
Obama also loved to make out that when it came to killing people, he was a very reluctant dove; a man of peace, not war.
Again, the truth is the complete opposite.
He was at war longer than any president in US history, and is the only president to have served two whole terms with America at war.
By contrast, the much-maligned Jimmy Carter never ordered a US military bullet to be fired in anger during his four-year tenure.
Obama was a hawk, alright, and a lethal one.
Recently released figures revealed that in 2016, US special operations were active in 70% of the world’s nations, or 138 countries. This was a 130% increase over Bush’s administration.
In the same year, Obama ordered his military to drop at least 26,171 bombs. That’s 72 a day, or three every hour.
They rained relentlessly down on seven majority-Muslim countries – Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan.
Yes, Bomber Barack deliberately targeted Muslims, folks.
Only he wasn’t exposing them to ‘extreme vetting’ as Trump wants to do, he was killing them.
Obama ordered 10 times more drone strikes than George W. Bush, a mind-blowing statistic.
Yet when he left office, his administration laughably tried to claim only 117 civilians died in all this bombing.
That was an obvious lie.
Independent assessors put the estimated death toll massively higher, in the 1000s.
So Obama killed a lot of innocent people but prefers us not to know about it.
He also allowed a lot of other innocent people to die in Syria by choking when President Assad crossed Obama’s chemical weapons ‘red line’.
That empowered both Assad and Vladimir Putin, and weakened America.
This wasn’t the only time Obama said one thing and did another.
His lofty moral principles were never more startlingly exposed than with his broken election pledge in 2008 to shut Guantanamo Bay.
‘As president, Barack Obama will close the detention center facility at Guantanamo,’ it stated.
Not ‘might’ or ‘will try’ but ‘will’.
Yet, it’s still open, eight years later, and remains a toweringly disgraceful monument of illegal detention and torture that makes a mockery of Obama’s claim to stand for justice and fairness.
Broken promises became a theme of Obama’s tenure.
Under him, over 250,000 people in America died from gun violence.
Obama tearfully vowed to the parents of the 20 slain children at Sandy Hook elementary school he would ‘get action’ on new gun control laws, a message he repeated ad nauseam after each mass shooting.
Remember when Obama tearfully vowed to the parents of the 20 slain children at Sandy Hook elementary school he would ‘get action’ on new gun control laws?  He failed to do anything
Remember when Obama tearfully vowed to the parents of the 20 slain children at Sandy Hook elementary school he would ‘get action’ on new gun control laws?  He failed to do anything
But he failed to get anything done at all. Instead, he was battered into submission by the NRA, and the mayhem and slaughter has continued, unabated.
There have been more than 180 shootings at schools and colleges in the US since Sandy Hook alone.
Obama also promised to bring ‘hope and change’ to Washington but again, failed miserably. Asked about this near the end of his presidency, he admitted to Vice News: ‘Well, that didn’t work out. There is no doubt that one of the central goals that I had was to make the politics in Washington work better. I haven’t accomplished that.’
His other failures make equally unedifying reading.
Drug abuse in America, particularly involving opiates, rocketed to obscene levels in the Obama years.
Racial tensions, especially between police and civilians, worsened to levels not seen since the 60s and 70s.
Violent crime, on a downward curve for several decades, spiked by 15% in each of the last two years.
(Obama’s hometown Chicago, run by his former chief of staff Rahm Emanuel is one of the cities most responsible for that spike.)
Even Obamacare, his once-vaunted flagship health program, has disintegrated amid bitter acrimony and soaring costs to millions of Americans.
As for ‘Monster’ President Trump’s war with the media, arguably the single worst offender in presidential history when it came to attacking press freedom was…you’ve guessed it, Barack Obama.
Under Obama, the Justice Department and FBI spied on reporters by monitoring their phone records, and pursued Fox News reporter James Rosen’s private emails, then misled Congress about it.
His administration set a record for failing to provide information requested by the press and public under the Freedom of Information Act.
As for Trump’s war with the media, arguably the single worst offender when it came to attacking press freedom was Obama. Under him, the Justice Department and FBI spied on reporters by monitoring their phone records, and pursued Fox News reporter James Rosen’s private emails, then misled Congress about it
As for Trump’s war with the media, arguably the single worst offender when it came to attacking press freedom was Obama. Under him, the Justice Department and FBI spied on reporters by monitoring their phone records, and pursued Fox News reporter James Rosen’s private emails, then misled Congress about it
It used the Espionage Act to prosecute whistle-blowing leakers more than all of his predecessors combined.
Veteran New York Times reporter James Risen said Obama’s administration was ‘the greatest enemy of press freedom that we have encountered in at least a generation.’ Others say it was even worse than in the Nixon era.
Mr ‘Transparent’ turned out to be as transparent as the heavily fortified doors on the presidential car, The Beast.
So, no, I don’t share the view that Barack Obama was a great or even good president.
History will, I suspect, judge him far more harshly than the current blindly-loyal sycophants who love the way he sings like Al Green.
Even less impressive than his record as president is Obama’s behaviour since leaving office.
His predecessor George W. Bush was a divisive and polarizing president, particularly due to his appalling misjudgement in waging the Iraq War.
Yet he vowed when he left office not to publicly criticize his successor, believing the job to be hard enough as it is, and to his great credit, he kept his word.
There must have been many things Obama did or said which Bush disagreed with, but he never stirred the media pot about them or plotted against him.
Now the former president has set up a nerve center for a Trump insurgency from his DC home, pictured here
Now the former president has set up a nerve center for a Trump insurgency from his DC home, pictured here
Obama, by contrast, seems hell-bent on bringing Trump down.
A close Obama family friend told DailyMail.com last week that Obama’s goal now was to oust Trump by forcing his resignation or through his impeachment.
He’s turned his new home in Washington, just two miles from the White House, into a nerve center for the mounting insurgency against Trump, even moving his long time consigliere Valerie Jarrett into the mansion.
Obama’s former Attorney General Eric Holder told reporters: ‘It’s coming. He’s coming. And he’s ready to roll.’
I’m sure he is.
But as ‘Saint’ Obama rolls against ‘Monster’ Trump, it may be worth remembering just what a deadly, deporting, press freedom-destroying, and generally weak president he was himself.  

Obama spent over two years on blocked immigration reform

Progress: 0%
0:00
Previous
Play
Skip
Mute
Current Time0:00
/
Duration Time1:12
Fullscreen
Need Text


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4301466/PIERS-MORGAN-Obama-deported-millions-killed-thousands.html#ixzz4b3GxgF59
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

U.S. TERROR DESTROYED AFGHANISTAN

$
0
0
Bookmark and Share
 Print Friendly and PDF


Afghanistan - Notes From A Broken Land
By Andre Vltchek

March 10, 2017 "Information Clearing House" - It is now winter in Kabul, end of February 2017. At night the temperature gets near zero. The mountains surrounding the city are covered by snow.
It feels much chillier than it really is.
Soon it will be 16 years since the US/UK invasion of the country, and 16 years since the Bonn Conference, during which Hamid Karzai was “selected” to head the Afghan Interim Administration.
Almost everyone I spoke to in Afghanistan agrees that things are rapidly moving from bad to rock bottom.
Afghans, at home and abroad, are deeply pessimistic. With hefty allowances and privileges, at least some foreigners based in Kabul are much more upbeat, but ‘positive thinking’ is what they are paid to demonstrate.
Historically one of the greatest cultures on Earth, Afghanistan is now nearing breaking point, with the lowest Human Development Index (2015, HDI, compiled by the UNDP) of all Asian nations, and the 18th lowest in the entire world (all 17 countries below it are located in Sub-Saharan Africa). Afghanistan has also the lowest life expectancy in Asia (WHO, 2015).
While officially, the literacy rate stands at around 60%, I was told by two prominent educationalists in Kabul that in reality it is well below 50%, while it is stubbornly stuck under 20% for women and girls.
Statistics are awful, but what is behind the numbers? What has been done to this ancient and distinct civilization, once standing proudly at the crossroad of major trade routes, influencing culturally a great chunk of Asia, connecting East and West, North and South?
How deep, how permanent is the damage?
During my visit, I was offered but I refused to travel in an armored, bulletproof vehicle. My ageing “horse” became a beat-up Corolla, my driver and translator a brave, decent family man in possession of a wonderful sense of humor. Although we became good friends, I never asked him to what ethnic group he belonged. He never told me. I simply didn’t want to know, and he didn’t find it important to address the topic. Everyone knows that Afghanistan is deeply divided ‘along its ethnic lines’. As an internationalist, I refuse to pay attention to anything related to ‘blood’, finding all such divisions, anywhere in the world, unnatural and thoroughly unfortunate. Call it my little stubbornness; both my driver and me were stubbornly refusing to acknowledge ethnic divisions in Afghanistan, at least inside the car, while driving through this marvelous but scarred, stunning but endlessly sad land.
KABUL
One day you and your driver, who is by then your dear friend, are driving slowly over the bridge. Your car stops. You get out in the middle of the bridge, and begin photographing the clogged river below, with garbage floating and covering its banks. Children are begging, and you soon notice that they are operating in a compact pack, almost resembling some small military unit. In Kabul, as in so many places on earth, there is a rigid structure to begging.
After a while, you continue driving on, towards the Softa Bridge, which is located in District 6.
Where you are appears to be all messed up, endlessly fucked up.
You were told to come to this neighborhood, to witness a warzone inside the city, to see ‘what the West has done to the country’. There are no bullets flying here, and no loud explosions. In fact, you hear almost nothing. You actually don’t see any war near the Softa Bridge; you only see Death, her horrid gangrenous face, her scythe cutting all that is still standing around her, cutting and cutting, working in extremely slow motion.
Again, as so many times before, you are scared. You were scared like this several times before: in Haiti, in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Kashmir, Sri Lanka, Timor Leste, Iraq, and Peru, to name just a few countries. In those places, as well as here in Kabul, you are not frightened because you could easily lose your life any moment, or because your safety might be in danger. What dismays you, what you really cannot stomach, are the images of despair, those of ‘no way out’, of absolute hopelessness. Lack of hope is killing you, it horrifies you; everything else can always be dealt with.
People you see all around can hardly stand on their feet. Many cannot stand at all. Most of them are stoned, laying around in rags, sitting in embryonic positions, or moving aimlessly back and forth, staring emptily into the distance. Some are urinating publicly. Syringes are everywhere.
Drug dealers living in holes
There are holes, deep and wide, filled with motionless human bodies.
First you drive around, photographing through the cracked glass, then you roll down the window, and at the end, you get out and begin working, totally exposed. You have no idea what may happen in the next few seconds. Someone begins shouting at you, others are throwing stones, but they are too weak and the stones just hit your shoulder and legs, softly, without causing any harm.
Then a bomb goes off, not far from where you are. There is an explosion in the 6th District, right in front of a police station. You cannot see it, but you can clearly hear the blast. It is a muffled yet powerful bang. You look at your phone.
Explosion in District 6
It is March 1st, 2017, Kabul. Later you learn that several people died just a few hundred meters from where you were working, while several others perished in the 12th District, another few kilometers away.
The smoke begins rising towards the sky. Sirens are howling and several ambulances are rushing towards the site. Then countless military Humvees begin shooting one after another in the same direction, followed by heavier and much clumsier armored vehicles. You are taking all this in, slowly; photographing the scene, and then snapping from some distance a monumental but still semi-destroyed Darul Aman Palace.
And so it goes.
*
Tall concrete walls are scarring, fragmenting the city. In Kabul, almost anything worth protecting is now fenced. Some partitions and barriers are simply enormous, almost unreal. There are walls sheltering all foreign embassies and government buildings, palaces, military bases, police stations and banks, as well as the United Nations compounds, even most of the private schools and hotels. The Hamid Karzai international airport is encompassed by perimeters that could put to shame most of the Cold War lines: from the parking area one has to walk almost one kilometer to the entrance of the international terminal, with luggage and through the countless security checks.
Of course Western institutions and organizations have the most impressive fences, as well as the Afghan military and military bases and government offices.
Enormous surveillance drone-zeppelins are levitating above the city.
It could all be seen as thoroughly grotesque, even laughable, but no one is amused. It is all very serious, damn serious here.
Afghanistan has been gradually overtaken by something absolutely foreign: by the Western-style security apparatus. Tens of thousands of highly paid North American and European ‘experts’ have been getting extremely busy, fulfilling their secret wet dream: fencing everything in sight, monitoring each and every movement in the capital city, building taller and taller barriers, while installing the latest hi-tech cameras at almost every intersection, and above each gate.
*
Not far from the Embassy of the United States of America (or more precisely, not far from the Great Chinese Wall-size fence encompassing it), I noticed a familiar complex of buildings, reminding me of those that used to be constructed in all corners of Eastern Europe and Cuba. I asked my friend to drive into one of the compounds.
This is how I entered “Makroyan”.  We killed the engine, and everything around us was suddenly quiet, almost dormant. Time stopped here. There was a certain mild decay detectable all around the area, but upon a closer look, those old apartment buildings were still looking decent and strong, with very impressive public spaces in between them. Here I felt that I was allowed a rare glimpse of an old, socialist Afghanistan.
I stopped in between two entrances of Block 21: No.2 and No.3. I looked up to the 4th floor. Who is living there now? Who used to live here before, some 25, even 30 years ago?
Makroyan Block 21
A destroyed office chair was standing aimlessly in the middle of a parking lot, and an old, disabled man was crawling desolately on all fours, moving away from the block. There was a Soviet-built school right next to Block 21. It used to be known as Dosti primary school, and I was told that during the war, it was bombed a couple of times and lots of kids died inside it. Now the school is private and it has a new name – it is ‘Alfath’, a high school.
Apart from a few loose, rusty wires and fences, everything looks decent and semi-neat. This is where many members of the diminishing Kabul middle class still prefer to live. Blocks of Makroyan are reassuring; they radiate safety and permanency, while being surrounded by a volatile and frightening universe.
All of a sudden, I imagined a boy and a girl, who perhaps used to live here, so many years ago. As children in all other parts of the world do at that age, they were just slowly beginning to discover life, starting to formulate their dreams and expectations. In those days, the new leafy neighborhood would have been like a promise of a brighter future, of a much better country.
Then suddenly, full stop.
A war. A sudden end to all that the future was promising. Collapse of optimism, or enthusiasm, of confidence. Only death and destruction, and shattered dreams, remained. For those who were at least somehow lucky: a bitterness and then a hasty flight, instead of ultimate misery and death. Full stop. Total reset. Everything collapsed. But life never stops, it goes on, it always does. Things re-composed, somehow, not idyllically, but they did.
For a long time, I kept staring at Block 21. Memories kept coming, as if I used to live there myself, many years ago, when I was a child. I hardly noticed that it was getting very cold. I began to shiver. I didn’t want to leave, but I had to. Fresh pomegranate juice at a local street stall brought me back to reality, it woke me, but it didn’t managed to warm me up.
GREAT HISTORY, CHANGING CULTURE, AN ON-GOING OCCUPATION AND FEAR
A renowned Afghan intellectual, Dr. Omara Khan Masoudi, who used to be, among many other things, the former head of the National Museum, is now bitter about the changes invading the culture of his country:
In the past, we had also many ethnic groups living in this country, but they used to coexist in harmony. Then, our culture got influenced by conflicts and violence.
Before the war, it was the culture that used to represent us in the world. However, during and after the war, our cultures were used to justify the conflict.
Dr. Masoudi told me that he thinks it is wrong when culture falls into the hands of divisive politicians. “If culture is politicized, it loses its essence”, he declared.
I asked him whether he thinks it also applies to Latin America, to the former Soviet Union and China, where (at least to a great extent) ‘politicized culture’ has been playing an extremely important role, determining the course of development. He smiled, replying:
To be precise, politicizing cultures is not always such a bad thing… When it’s done, for instance, in order to achieve social progress or equality, I have nothing against it. But I am outraged when people like some religious leaders; Shia, Sunni or even some extremists, do it… Culture is very broad, and religions are only a part of it. But in Afghanistan, religious leaders have been using the culture for their narrow-minded interests.
In a coffee shop, which is lost somewhere inside the wilderness of an international and United Nations compound called ‘The Green Village’, my Japanese friend and Head of the Culture Unit of UNESCO, Mr. Masanori Nagaoka, explained:
Afghanistan or Ancient Ariana, as many ancient Greek and Roman authors referred to the region in antiquity, can be acknowledged as the multi-cultural cradle of Central Asia, linking East and West via historically significant trade conduits that also conveyed ideas, concepts and languages as a cultural by-product of fledgling international commerce. As a result, contemporary Afghanistan is a multi-ethnic, multi-lingual society with a complex history stretching back many millennia. The numerous civilizations are attested to in the archaeological record, both indigenous and foreign….
However, he is well aware of the complexities faced by the country and the culture torn apart by lethal conflicts of the last decades and centuries.
Afghanistan is unfortunately also a nation fragmented by a history of protracted conflict, exacerbated by geographic isolation for many communities and limited or unequal access to infrastructure and resources, both regionally and demographically. As a nominal starting point, the ongoing rehabilitation process in Afghanistan needs to address these issues if the nation is to unify under a common objective, fostering a veracious society free from conflict and where ethnic diversity is recognized for its social, cultural and economic benefits rather than, as is often the case, seen as a hindrance to particular developmental objectives. Part of the solution to this problem lies in the campaign of a positive public discussion to promote inter-cultural understanding and to raise awareness of the potential that such discourse has to contribute to the broader goals of rapprochement, peace-building and economic development in Afghanistan.
I flew to the city of Herat, where I witnessed tremendous masterpieces of architecture, from the marvelous and recently restored Citadel (as valuable as the citadels of Aleppo and Erbil), to the Friday Mosque and amazing, unique minarets rising proudly towards the sky.
How familiar all those architectural treasures appeared! On several occasions I approached Nasir, my local friend who was always eager to share the impressive history of his region: “Look, this could be in Delhi… and this in Samarkand!”
Sure enough, the most visited world heritage site in India, Qutub Minar, situated right outside New Delhi, is perhaps the greatest symbol of the Indo-Islamic Afghan architecture, while both Herat and Samarkand were connected by the Silk Road and historically kept influencing each other.
In Afghanistan, the history, the occupation and the on-going conflict: everything seems to be thoroughly intertwined.
Italian troops took over ancient Citadel in Herat City
During my work there, the Citadel of Herat was literally taken over by Italian troops. I was told that some high-ranking NATO officer was visiting the site, and with no shame, a fully armed Italian commando was roaming around, “securing” every corner of the vast courtyard. As if Afghans had lost control of their own country! 
De-mining work in Herat
On closer examination, the madrassa of Hussein Baiqara is, in reality, still a minefield. In between four stunning minarets, a de-mining team from local “Halo Trust” was manually searching for unexploded ordinances. I was allowed to enter, but only as a war correspondent and at my own risk, definitely not as a ‘tourist’.
“On this site, we already found two mines and 10 unexploded ordinances”, I was told by one of the Halo Trust experts. “Now this entire area is off-limits to the public. Not long ago, one child was badly injured here; he lost his leg.”
Nothing is peaceful in Afghanistan, not even ancient historic sites.
*
Not much is questioned here.
Positive talk about the ancient history and culture is generally encouraged, but to discuss dramatic changes in modern Afghan culture, those that occurred as a result of the US/UK invasion and the present on-going NATO occupation of the country, is almost entirely off-limits. In fact, even the word itself – ‘occupation’ – could hardly be heard. Instead, such jargons as ‘protection’, ‘defense’ and ‘international help’ have been implanted deeply and systematically into the psyche of most Afghan people.
The culture that was known for long centuries for its passion for freedom and independence seems broken. While Afghans resisted heroically against all past British invasions, while some of them fought the Soviet incursion, there is presently no organized and united (national, not religious) opposition against the Western occupation of the country.
I met academic Jawid Amin, from the Academy of Social Sciences of Afghanistan, in a small guardroom in front of the Museum of Modern Arts in Kabul.
I asked him, whether there is any art, or any group of intellectuals openly critical of the United States, and of the occupation. He replied, sincerely:
We don’t have anyone openly critical of the US or the West here, because it is simply not allowed by the government. I personally don’t like the Americans, but I can’t say more… Even I work for the government. My brother and sister are living in the United States. And about critical arts: nothing could be exhibited here without permission from the government and since Karzai, the government is controlled by the West…
A prominent Afghan intellectual, Omaid Sharifi, explained over the phone: “In the provinces, you can still see paintings depicting killing of civilians by the US drones… but not in Kabul.”
I’m trying to work as fast as possible, meeting people who are helping to shed light on the situation. Eventually, a dire picture begins to form.
I met a Japanese reporter who has been living in Afghanistan for almost a quarter of a century. Her assessment of the situation was to a large extent pessimistic:
Afghans had very little choice… It is 100% true that behind Karzai’s government was the US… Afghans didn’t want to accept foreign intervention, but soon they learned how money plays an important role.  The entire Afghan culture is now changing, even some essential elements of it like hospitality: people don’t want to spend money on it, or they don’t have any that they can spare…
I asked Dr. Masoudi why Afghan culture did not accept Soviets and their egalitarian, socially oriented ideals, while it seems to be tolerating the Western invasion, which is spreading inequality, desperation and subservience. He replied, passionately:
The biggest mistake the Soviet Union made here was to attack religion out rightly. If they’d first stick to equal rights, and slowly work it up towards the contradictions of religion, it could perhaps work… But they began blaming religion for our backwardness, in fact for everything. Or at least this is how it was interpreted by the coalition of their enemies, and of course by the West.
Now, why is the Western invasion ‘successful’? Look at the Karzai regime… During his rule, the US convinced people that Western intervention was ‘positive’, ‘respectful of their religion and cultures’. They kept repeating ‘under this and that UN convention’, and again ‘as decided by the UN’… They used NATO, a huge group of countries, as an umbrella. There was a ‘brilliantly effective’ protocol that they developed… According to them, they never did anything unilaterally, always by ‘international consensus’ and in order to ‘help Afghan people’. On the other hand, the Soviet Union had never slightest chance to explain itself. It was attacked immediately, and on all fronts.
“Opposition to Western occupation? Anti-Western art?” A Russian cultural expert in Kabul was clearly surprised by my question.
First of all, the Taliban destroyed most artistic traditions of this country. But also, the economic and social situation in this country is so desperate, that hardly anyone has time to think about some larger picture. More than 60% of Afghans are jobless. One thing you also should remember: Afghan people are very proud and very freedom loving, as the history illustrated, but they are also extremely patient. Go and see The British Cemetery. It was built in 1879 to hold the dead of the second Anglo-Afghan War, but despite all that the UK did to this country, and despite all recent wars and conflicts, it was never attacked, never damaged.
It is true. I never heard anyone discussing this topic. All horrid British crimes committed on the territory of Afghanistan seem to be forgotten, at least for now.
But that’s not all: nobody here seems to have any appetite for recalling those horrors of the last decades, triggered by Western imperialism. Not once I observed any discussion addressing the main topic of modern Afghan history: how the West managed to trick the Soviets into invading Afghanistan in 1979, and how it created and then armed the vilest bunch of religious fanatics – the Mujahedeen. And how, subsequently, both countries – Afghanistan and the Soviet Union – were thoroughly destroyed in the process.
All was done, of course, with “great respect” for the Afghan nation, for its culture and traditions, as well as (how else) religion.
I’d love to be an invisible witness in a modern history class at the American University of Afghanistan, a ‘famed’ institution that is literally regurgitating thousands of collaborators, manufacturing a new breed of obedient pro-Western ‘elites’.

As we drive past Jamhuriat Hospital (Republic Hospital), which had a new 10- story building, with capacity for 350 patients, constructed by China in 2004, my driver, Mr. Tahir, sighs: “This was really a great gift from China to us… the Chinese really work hard, don’t they?”
“They have plenty of zeal and enthusiasm”, I uttered carefully. “Socialist fervor, you know. They sincerely believe in building, improving their country and the world. It is quite contrary to Western nihilism and extreme individualism…”
“They must love their country…”
“They do.”
“Afghanistan is poor”, Mr. Tahir’s face became suddenly sad. “Our people don’t love their country, anymore. They don’t work to improve it. They only work for themselves now, for their families…”
“Was it different before? You know…” I made an abstract gesture with my hand. “Before all this…”
“Of course it used to be very different”, he replied, grinning again.
NOTHING SOCIAL LEFT, NOTHING SOCIALIST WANTED
I stopped several people who were just walking down the street, in various parts of Kabul. I wanted to understand some basics: was there anything social left in Afghanistan? Did Western ‘liberation’ bring at least some progress, social development and improved standards of living?
Most answers were thoroughly gloomy. Only those people who were working or moonlighting for the Western military, for the embassies, the NGOs or other ‘international contractors’, were to some extent optimistic.
I was explained that almost everyone in the countryside and provincial cities were out off work. Unemployment among university graduates stood at over 80%.
In Herat, a city of almost half a million inhabitants, a long and depressing line was winding in front of the Iranian embassy. I was told that tens of thousands have already migrated to the other side of the border. Now Afghans who were attempting to visit their relatives living in Iran were told to leave a 300-euro deposit, in case they decide not to return.
I asked what Herat is producing, and was told, without any irony: “mainly just some washing powder and biscuits”. Tourism from Iran stood at only about 150 people a year! The area between the city and the border has been dangerous, and there are frequent kidnappings.
In most provincial cities, a regular family has to get by on 2.300 – 2.500 Afghanis per month, which is not much more than US$30.
Government supplies run water mainly to the government housing projects. People living elsewhere have to dig their own wells.
Electricity is expensive, and an average family in Kabul is now expected to pay around US$35 per month. Even in the capital, many people have to get by without electricity. Indian ‘investors’ are in partnership with the government. Electricity supplies, and even water, are perceived as ‘business ventures’, not as basic social services.
Counting on a decent public transportation in the past, Kabul is now forced to rely on private vehicles, and on those few ‘city buses’ that are ‘pro-profit’ and mainly privately owned and operated.
There are government schools in Afghanistan, and in theory they are free, but books, pencils, uniforms and other basics are not.
In fact, perhaps the most impressive modern structure in Kabul, is actually the 10-story building to Jamhuriat Hospital, a gift from the People’s Republic of China, not from the West.
One wonders where is that fabled great ‘assistance’ from the United States and Europe really going? Perhaps to the millions of tons of concrete, used for construction of the massive fences? Perhaps money sponsors’ purchases of high-tech cameras and surveillance systems, as well as the high-life of thousands of Western ‘contractors’ and ‘security experts’?
I spoke to more than hundreds of Afghan people. Almost no one was ready to mention socialism. As if this wonderful word disappeared, was erased from the local lexicon.
“They actually remember socialism very fondly”, my Japanese acquaintance based in Kabul once told me. “However, talking about it is not encouraged. It may cause all sorts of problems.”
WESTERN (TEMPORARY) VICTORY
While in Kabul, I was told by one of the local experts working for an international organization:
The National Education Strategic Plan (NESP) for Afghanistan was just drafted… The funding came from the West. Many meetings were held directly at the US embassy and at the offices of the World Bank. The Afghan Ministry of Education had very little say about the curriculum, which was basically dictated by the Western countries…
I cannot quote the source of this information, as she would most probably lose her position for expressing such views.
She later clarified further:
The policy decisions on education are proposed by donor parties, which are mostly Western countries. The Ministry of Education, with limited capacity, has a lesser role in drafting the NESP III policy. Instead of building the capacity of the government, donor countries are taking the leading role in changing the education system and this does not ensure a sustainable education for Afghanistan whatsoever.
As in all client states of the West, education in Afghanistan is manipulated and geared to serve the interests of the West. It is expected to produce obedient and unquestioning masses. Instead of determined and productive patriots, it is regurgitating butlers of the regime, which is in turn serving predominately foreign interests.
Almost all information flows through the channels that are at least to some extent influenced from abroad: social media, television networks as well as the printed media.
The fabled Afghan spirit of resistance and courage has been (hopefully only temporarily) brutally broken, under the supervision of highly professional foreign indoctrinators and propagandists.
Those who are willing to collaborate with the occupation forces are suddenly not even hiding it, carrying their condition proudly as if a coat of arms, not as a shame. Many are now delighted to be associated with the West and its institutions.
In fact, the occupation is not even called occupation, anymore, at least not by the elites who are well rewarded by the system for their linguistic and intellectual somersaults and pirouettes.
And Afghan people keep leaving.
Afghanistan is shedding its most talented sons and daughters, every day, every month, irreversibly.
Ms. Yukiko Matsuyoshi, a former Japanese diplomat, presently a UN education expert, is worried about the current trends in Afghanistan, a country where she spent several years:
Now the social classes have been re-created after the fall of Taliban, but the country seems to have no ideology. People just follow trends that are thrown their way. There is corruption, there is that huge poppy business, and there are palaces. And there is misery in the countryside, hardly any access to information. Afghans are leaving their country. Whoever can, goes: good people, government people…it seems like everyone tries to escape.
All of a sudden, the West is perceived like some Promised Land. Those who make it there are bragging about their new ‘home’, sending colorful images through social media: Disneyland, Hollywood, German castles…
I have seen the other side of the coin, in terrible refugee camps in Greece, in the French Calais camps; people drowning while attempting to cross the sea from Turkey to the European Union.
There is no discussion whether Afghanistan should be capitalist or socialist, anymore. Debate has stopped. The decision has been made, somewhere else, obviously.
The faces of Northern Alliance leaders are ‘decorating’ (or some would say, ‘scarring’) all major roads on which I drove. Ahmad Shah Massoud became a national hero, during the Karzai regime.
I travelled more than 100 kilometers north, to see Massoud’s grave, or a thumb, or whatever that monstrosity they erected above the splendid Panjshir Valley really is. Hordes of people drive there on weekends, some all the way from Kabul, and there are even those who pray to the ‘leader’.
The former “anti-Soviet” and anti-Communist fighter, he is certainly a perfect ‘hero’, whose memory is groomed by the pro-Western regime.
Driving through the Panjshir Valley, I saw several Soviet tanks and armored vehicles, rotting by the side of the road. I also saw a destroyed village, an eerie reminder of the war. It is called Dashtak. Clay houses look like a cemetery, like a horrid monument.
Village in the North destroyed during the war
I took photos and sent them to Kabul, to my friends, for identification. I want to know, I felt that I had to know, who razed this town by the river, surrounded by such stunning mountains.
The answer came in a just few minutes: “I think it was in 1984, by the Soviet Union”. What followed was a link leading to a book published in the West, quoting some former Ukrainian, Soviet adviser to an Afghan battalion commander. The name of the book was “The Bear Went Over the Mountain”.
The quote did not sound too convincing. “Let’s go back”, I asked my driver and translator. “Let’s talk to people on the other side of the river’.
We found three inhabitants, in three different parts of the village; three people old enough to remember what took place here, some 30 years ago. All three testimonies coincided: Massoud’s forces brought refugees from several other parts of the valley. Before the battle began, all of them left. During the combat, clay houses were destroyed, but no civilians died inside.
There are always many different interpretations of the historic events. However, the analyses of modern Afghan history disseminated by the West and the Afghan regime among the Afghan people, are suspiciously unanimous and frighteningly one-sided. I am definitely planning to revisit this point during my next trip to the country. I see it as essential. The future of Afghanistan certainly depends on understanding the past.
*
There are huge zeppelin-drones, vile-looking airborne surveillance stuff, hovering over the US air force base near Bagram. The same drones could be seen levitating over Kabul, but in the Bagram area, with the dramatic backdrop of the mountains, they look particularly dreadful.
The air force base is huge. It appears even bigger than Incerlik near Adana in Turkey. It is an absolute masterpiece of military vulgarity, with watch towers everywhere, with barbed wire, several layers of concrete walls, surveillance cameras and powerful lights. If this is not an occupation, then what really is?
Again, my driver is totally cool. I want to photograph this monstrosity, and he drives me around, so we can identify a truly good spot. I’m ‘calculating light’, looking for the correct angle, so during the sunset, those who would be observing us from inside the ‘castle’, would be blinded, and we could get at least a few decent images.
I’m aware of the fact that in Afghanistan, the Empire often kills anything that moves, at the slightest suspicion or without any suspicion at all, as for them human lives of the local people count for almost nothing.
Once the sun goes down, I begin working fast.
Somehow I feel that my visit to Afghanistan would be incomplete, without getting at least some images of the base – one of the most expressive symbols of the occupation.
So this is what Afghanistan became under the Western ‘liberating’ boots! Barbed wires, foreign jet fighters, concrete walls everywhere, battles with the religious fundamentalist elements (invented and manufactured by the West), grotesque savage capitalism, ignorant or shameless collaboration, and guns, guns and guns, as well as misery in almost every corner, and one of the lowest life expectancies and standards of living on Earth! And of course, people escaping, leaving this beautiful country behind – a country, which is suddenly unloved, humiliated, abandoned by so many!
This is all happening only roughly four decades after the heroic attempts to build some great social housing projects, after the implementation of a well-functioning public transportation network, public education and medical care, as well as an attempt to introduce secularism, while building a decent, egalitarian society.
The glorious victory of Western imperialism over one of the oldest and greatest cultures seems to be complete. The Brits tried, on several occasions; they murdered and tortured, but were defeated. They never forgave. They waited for decades, and then returned with their muscular and aggressive offspring. And here they are, all of them, now!
Afghanistan appears to be exhausted and defeated. It is badly injured, and it has been dragged through unimaginable dirt.
But I don’t think it is crushed, by the West or by the religious fundamentalists, or by these two historical allies.
Deep inside, Afghanistan knows better. It already experienced many years of hope; it knows the taste of it. During long centuries and millennia of its existence, it survived several dreadful moments, but it always stood up again, undefeated and proud. I’m certain that it will rise again.
Flying, driving or walking through its magnificent mountains, I often felt that Afghanistan is like a living organism, it was winking at me, letting me know that it is alive, that it sees everything that goes on, that it is not futile at all to struggle for its future.
*
I watched the stubs of the electric contacts that used to hold, some decades ago, those long wires used by the legendary Kabul trolley bus network.
“Those beautiful vehicles came from former Czechoslovakia”, a man, an office worker, whom I stopped in the center of the city, told me. “They were beautiful, and do you know who used to drive them? Some young girls; optimistic women who were for some reason always in a good mood.”
Apparently Kabul had three trolleybus lines, one of them originating (or ending) at the ‘Cinema Pamir’. What color were Kabul trolleybuses? I saw some photos, but those I could find were black and white. When I was a child, growing up in Czechoslovakia, ours were red. The ones in Leningrad, the city where I was born, were blue and green, some red as well. When they were accelerating, it was as if they’d be singing a simple song, or whining, complaining mockingly about their hard life.
I imagined a strong-minded, professional woman, boarding these trolleybuses. Perhaps eager to catch one of those old great Soviet movies at the Cinema Pamir, perhaps “the Dawns are Quiet Here”, or going to work or to visit different parts of the city.  She would snuggle into a comfortable seat in the electric vehicle. It was getting dark, but the city was safe. A woman behind the wheel was really smiling. There were flags flying all around the city. There was hope. There was a future. There was a country to build and to love.

Afghanistan can still fly
I had suspected that the Kabul trolleybuses were actually light blue. I have no idea why. It was just my intuition.
*
Suddenly I heard a loud bang, and then the squeaking of brakes.
“Roll up the window!” my driver was shouting. We were getting into a slum inhabited by IDPs. We left the road. Dust everywhere, absolute misery. Bagrani town, now Bagrani slums, just a few kilometers east from Kabul, on the Jalalabad Highway.
I grasped the heavy metal body of my professional Nikon.
My dream about Afghanistan of the 70’s, a gentle and enthusiastic country, abruptly ended. Now all around me were children suffering from malnutrition. I heard excited, accusatory voices of men and women who were forced to come from all corners of Afghanistan. We drove on a bumpy road, towards numerous half-collapsed clay structures and dirty tents.
“We escaped fighting in Shinwar, Helmand Province, from around Jalalabad and Kandahar”, several internally displaced persons living in Bagrani were shouting at me:
We have 1.000 families from Helmand and more than 1.000 families from Kandahar, living here. We lost our houses back in our villages and towns… People around Jalalabad lost their homes, too. Daesh (ISIS) is operating in several parts of the country… Taliban fighters are frequently changing sides, joining Daesh. There is fighting going on everywhere: Daesh, Taliban and the government forces confronting each other.
How involved is NATO in general and the US in particular, I ask, through my interpreter.
Americans are there, of course. Mostly they are fighting from the air, but sometimes they are on the ground, too.
Do they kill civilians?
“Yes, they do… Our sons, our husbands are regularly murdered by them”, shouts a woman clothed in a blue burqa, holding a small child in her arms.
Misery is everywhere, destroying the country, I’m told. And there is almost no help coming from the corrupt and the near bankrupt state.
Ms. Sidiqah, an elderly lady, is shouting in desperation and anger: “We have nothing left, but no one helps us! We don’t know what to do.”
As I photograph, a small cluster of people begin to rock the car. Things are getting tense, but I don’t feel that we are facing any immediate danger. I continue working. This is all becoming very personal. I don’t understand why, but it is…
Then, silently, a small group of people approaches us. Among them are a man with a very long beard, and a girl, with a beautiful and tragic face. She is wearing a t-shirt depicting several cute white mice, but the right sleeve is empty. She is missing her entire arm.
A girl without arm
Her face is striking. She stares directly into my camera, and when I lower the lens, I feel her eyes begin to pierce mine. Without one single word uttered, I sense clearly what she is trying to convey:
“What have you done to me?”
I try to hold her glance for at least a few seconds, but then I lower my eyes. Now I‘m in panic. I want to embrace her, hold her, take her away from here, somewhere, somehow; to adopt her, airlift her from here, give her a home, but I know that there is no way I would be allowed to do it. My glasses get very foggy. I mumble something incoherent. I am tough, I witnessed dozens of wars, I faced death on various occasions. I try to keep calm whenever I’m in places like this; whenever working. What is happening to me here and now happens very rarely, but it does happen.
It is March 4th 2017, Afghanistan. My flight is schedule to depart the next day, late in the afternoon. I know that I will take it. But I also realize, and I silently make my pledge to this tiny girl with the cute mice and an empty sleeve, that I will never fully leave her country.
*
What will happen later is predicable: yet another sleepless night. Everything will be back, play itself like a film inside my brain. Bagrani provisional camp, another camp that is housing evacuees from Kunduz, some active mine fields in the middle of Herat, those hundreds of living corpses vegetating in the middle of District 6 in Kabul, then several explosions, innumerable rotting carcasses of Soviet tanks, the eerie and enormous US air force base near Bagram, Massoud’s bizarre grave, white zeppelin-drones, concrete walls, watch towers, security checks, and hollow muzzles of various types of guns pointing in all directions.
Air force Bagrani base
I’ll be tired, exhausted, but I’ll be well aware that I have no right to rest, not now, not anytime soon.
I’ll keep thinking about Cinema Pamir, about Kabul trolleybuses, and Block 21 in the socialist-style neighborhood of Makroyan … 4th floor, entrance 2 or perhaps 3… I’ll keep imagining what could have taken place there, if life had not been so abruptly and so brutally interrupted.
Afghanistan, a stunning but terribly scarred and injured land has been suffering from a concussion. It has been dizzy and disoriented. It can hardly walk. Still it being Afghanistan, it has been walking anyway, against all odds!
Later that night, I’ll recall what one great Cuban poet and singer Silvio Rodriquez once wrote about Nicaragua. And at one point, only a few moments before the dawn would begin returning bright colors to the world, I’ll replace Nicaragua with Afghanistan, and suddenly realize that it is exactly what I feel towards this beautiful and shattered nation: “Afghanistan hurts, as only love does.”
It hurts like love…
It hurts… terribly. Therefor, it is love.
All that would happen later, hours later. At the end I’ll stop fighting it, and simply accept.
But now, the old Toyota climbs back on the paved road. I can hardly keep my eyes open. The last several days I slept very little.
Mr. Tahir, my driver and now my comrade, looks surprisingly composed and unworried. After all this time working with me, he is clearly ready for any adventure, or any nightmare.
He hands me a bunch of tissues. My left wrist is bleeding, although not too badly. Most likely I hit or scratched something in the slums, without realizing it. My cameras feel increasingly heavy and my notebook looks filthy; I keep dropping it on the floor. My clothes look dirty, too. But we are going, we are moving forward, and that is good!
“It is all fucked up, Mr. Tahir”, I inform him, politely.
“Yes, Sir”, he replies, with an equal doze of respect. We are a good team.
“But we are going”, I remind him and myself.
“We are going, sir.”
Again my head drops on my chest. I open my eyes just a few minutes later. It is already very dark. Kabul all around me; Afghanistan. It feels good to be here. I’m glad I came.
“Where to now, sir?”
“Jalalabad, Mr. Tahir.”
“Sir? Jalalabad is behind… And at this hour…”
He is not saying no. He never says ‘no’ to any of my requests, during all those days. He is just informing me. If I was really crazy enough and insisted, he’d just take me. He knows we’d get fucked, perhaps even killed, but he would not refuse. He’s my comrade and I feel safe with him.
“Sorry, I fell asleep… What I mean: we’ll go to Jalalabad soon, when I return to Afghanistan.”
I am thinking for a few seconds. This drive, just being here, all of it feels right, exactly as it is supposed to be. I’m not certain where exactly I want to go right now, but one thing I know for sure: I have to keep going.
“Please, just drive, Mr. Tahir.”
“Forward?” He asks, intuitively. I know that he knows. We both know, but it doesn’t hurt to ask.
“Yes, please. Drive forward. Always forward!”

Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He has covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. Three of his latest books are revolutionary novel “Aurora” and two bestselling works of political non-fiction: “Exposing Lies Of The Empire” and “Fighting Against Western ImperialismView his other books here. Andre is making films for teleSUR and Al-Mayadeen. Watch Rwanda Gambit, his groundbreaking documentary about Rwanda and DRCongo. After having lived in Latin America, Africa and Oceania, Vltchek presently resides in East Asia and the Middle East, and continues to work around the world. He can be reached through his website and his Twitter.
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/46638.htm

SYRIA. MORE U.S. TERROR?

$
0
0

Syria - Preparing For The Big Move On Idlib

During the last week significant moves in Syria have taken place east of Aleppo. But the situation there will likely soon calm down. The next intense phase of the war may well be a Syrian army attack on al-Qaeda's position in Idlib governate in the north-west of the country.
One objective of the Syrian Arab Army move east of Aleppo city was to block the invading Turkish forces from reaching further south. This had been achieved as of last week. The main objective though was to reach the pumping stations at the Euphrates which supply Aleppo city with drinking water. This aim was achieved yesterday. The SAA managed to evict the Islamic State from the shut-down station before it could blow it up. The generators and pumps were booby trapped but seem otherwise operational. After 40 days of strictly rationed water Aleppo city and its nearly 2 million people will soon be back on a normal water supply.

I expect that the SAA contingent in east-Aleppo will now move further south and then east along the Euphrates towards Raqqa. This move though will no longer have a high priority. There is no longer an urgent need to continue in the area. Should the Islamic State stop its retreat in the area and show significant resistance the SAA is likely to stop and only hold its line.
The Turkish government still insists on taking Manbij currently held by the Kurdish YPK (under the label "Syrian Democratic Forces" (SDF)) which is now a U.S. proxy force under U.S. military command. Russia moved to insert Syrian army forces between the Turkish forces west of Manbij and the city. Thereby a buffer has been created between the Turkish (proxy) forces of "moderate rebels" and U.S. proxy forces of the Kurdish SDF. A few Russian special forces entered the area. As no SAA soldiers were readily available some local Arabs and Kurds were asked to put up a Syrian flag and to call themselves "Syrian border guard". They happily agreed to do so.

map via WaPo bigger

Parallel to the Russian move a U.S. sub-unit of the 75th Ranger Regiment made a show of force by driving five 8-wheeler Stryker vehicles with U.S. flags through some towns around Manbij. The signal to Turkey is clear. There are Russian and U.S. forces here. Do not dare to proceed into the area and to attack their Kurdish friends. A meeting was held in Ankara between the Turkish military command and the U.S. and Russian chiefs of staff. It is not yet known what the outcome was.
Despite the clear signals some proxy units under Turkish command opened fire on the "Syrian border guard" in the area. The Syrian government says that a a few of them were killed and it again raised the issue of the Turkish invasion with the United Nations. I expect the situation around Manbij to calm down. It would be very dangerous for Turkey to continue attacking in the area against the clear position of Russia and the U.S. military.
Further to the east the SDF continued to move towards Raqqa which is last bigger city in Syria held by the Islamic State. It is likely that ISIS will defend the city when it gets attacked.  Turkey would like to take part in the attack on the city but the U.S. military has blocked that idea. It prefers to continue with its Kurdish partners. As these do not have heavy weapons the U.S. is introducing new forces into the area.
Already some 500 U.S. special forces (Green Berets) are training and leading the 10,000+ strong SDF proxy force. A small army unit is with them and provides artillery support with two long range MLRS missile systems. Added to these were the Ranger elements seen around Manbij. 400 U.S. Marines (11th MEU) were announced to soon enter the area. They will mostly provide 155mm artillery support and will take care of resupplies. 2,500 soldiers of the 2nd Brigade, 82nd Airborne are currently staging in Kuwait. It is not yet known what their task might be. The U.S. now has four military air fields in the Syrian Kurdish area north-east of the Euphrates. Two are for helicopters and two will soon be able to also service larger fixed-wing transport planes.
All this build up is taking place without a definite decision by the White House on how to proceed in Syria. The Wall Street Journal reports of discussions about a model where the U.S. and its proxies take Raqqa from the Islamic State and then concede it to the Syrian government. This would make a lot of sense but will surely be opposed by the Israeli/Saudi lobby in Washington as well as by some U.S. military. No final decision is expected before mid April when Turkey will hold a referendum about a presidential constitution. Other reports cite the U.S. commander in the area talking about a bigger "U.S. stabilization force" that will take over the area when the Islamic State is defeated.
Such a force would clearly be consider a U.S. occupation hostile to the Syrian government. It would be met with intense guerilla operations aimed at evicting the occupiers.
East of Homs the Syrian army has retaken Palmyra and the surrounding mountain and oil-field areas. Russian special forces were involved in this operation. I do not expect further large moves from there for the time being.
In the Damascus area the Syrian army continues to squeeze a few "rebel" held enclaves. These are binding many Syrian soldiers. When they are eliminated a sizable reserve will be available to be used in further battles.
There have recently been no significant movements in the southern areas around Daraa and near the Jordanian border. Jordan is involved in talks with Russia. Other talks have been held in Moscow between Putin and Netanyahoo. Some plans are obviously made to evict the Islamic State and al-Qaeda from the Jordan-Israel-Lebanon borderline but especially the Israeli position is difficult to manage. It prefers to keep al-Qaeda in the area as a pressure group against the Syrian state. No results from the recent talks have been announced.
West of Aleppo city around Idlib city al-Qaeda has continued fighting with other Islamist groups like Ahrar al Sham. The al-Qaeda led "rebel" alliance in Idlib is some 10,000 strong and the biggest force in the area. It will be difficult to defeat or evict. Retaking Idlib governate and city requires a large operation by the Syrian army. But currently al-Qaeda is losing support with the population and is involved in infighting. Its support from the outside has diminished. But outside support for al-Qaeda, by Turkey, the U.S., Saudi Arabia or Qatar, could come back when the Syrian army attacks the area.
Main operations by the Syrian army in east-Aleppo and east-Homs have achieved their immediate aims. The units involved in these could now be moved to other areas. When the "rebel" pockets around Damascus are eliminated, hopefully soon, more forces become available. The large force and reserve the Syrian army needs to attack Idlib will soon be available.
Curiously the NY Times just published a somewhat sympathetic portrait of a U.S. born al-Qaeda propagandist who operates as al-Qaeda's English language media channel in the area. Are we back to the "cuddly, moderate al-Qaeda" caricature that was earlier used to justify U.S. support for Takfiri terrorists? Will the U.S. again support al-Qaeda should the Syrian army finally move to retake Idlib?

Posted by b on March 10, 2017 at 02:33 PM | Permalink

MH17 Mystery and Australia

$
0
0
By John Helmer, Moscow
The Australian Government refuses to declare the destruction of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 a terrorist act, and is withholding state payments of $75,000 to each of the families of the 38 Australian nationals or residents killed when the plane was shot down in eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014.
The Australian Attorney-General, George Brandis, has written to advise Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull (lead image, left; right image, Ukraine President Petro Poroshenko) there is insufficient evidence of what and who caused the MH17 crash to meet the Australian statutory test of a terrorist act.  Because the Attorney-General’s legal opinion flatly contradicts Turnbull’s public opinions, Brandis’s advice is top-secret; he refuses to answer questions about the analysis of the MH17 incident which he and his subordinates, along with Australian intelligence agencies and the Australian Federal Police,  have been conducting for more than two years.
In public Turnbull said on Monday:  “Vladimir Putin’s Russia is subject to international sanctions, to which Australia is a part, because of his conduct in shooting down the MH17 airliner in which 38 Australians were killed. Let’s not forget that. That was a shocking international crime.”
On Wednesday Turnbull was asked to explain why, after so long, the Prime Minister, on the advice of the Attorney-General, refuses to designate the MH17 incident as criminal terrorism according to the provisions of the Supporting Australian Victims of Terrorism Overseas Act. Turnbull replied through a spokesman that he is still investigating. “The criminal investigation of MH17 is ongoing. The outcomes of this investigation could be relevant in determining whether this incident should be declared for the purposes of the Australian Victims of Terrorism Overseas Payment scheme.”
Brandis (right) was asked to explain the reason for the legal opinion Canberra sources confirm he has sent to the prime ministry denying the MH17 incident was terrorism.  That he has provided the advice on AVTOP  is confirmed by a source in Turnbull’s office.
AVTOP is the Canberra acronym for Australian Victims of Terrorism Overseas Payment. This is how the AVTOP scheme operates, and how eligibility is decided, according to the Australian social security  ministry. It records that the last terrorism incident for which Australians qualify for AVTOP compensation was the Westgate shopping mall killings in Nairobi on September 21, 2013. There were 67 fatal casualties in that incident, and more than double that number of wounded. One Australian was killed.  On October 6, 2013, two weeks after the incident, the Australian prime minister issued a formal designation of the terrorist incident for AVTOP compensation.  That commenced on October 21, one month after the incident, according to the statutory filing in the Australian parliament.
The prime minister then was Tony Abbott; his attorney-general was Eric Abetz.
In March 2016 Turnbull had replaced Abbott as prime minister; the attorney-general was Brandis. They agreed to designate three bombing attacks in Brussels, at the airport and at a city train station, as  terrorist incidents for AVTOP. The date of the incidents was March 22 (pictured below). The date of the Turnbull-Landis designation was May 6 – 45 days later.
There are press reports that Australians were in Brussels, and were anxious; there are no reports of Australians being killed or wounded in the attacks.  
Why were successive Australian officials so quick to designate the Nairobi and Brussels incidents as terrorism, before the local police and courts had time to investigate and prosecute,  and why have the Australian officials spent two years and eight months refusing to designate the Ukrainian incident? Canberra sources believe the answer is that there is no legal basis in the Australian Criminal Code for doing so because the evidence of terrorism in the MH17 case isn’t there.
The 2013 and 2016 designations, along with the Canberra sources, identify a terrorist incident according to the Australian Criminal Code.  Officials working under Brandis and Turnbull must satisfy the Attorney-General and Prime Minister that the incident comes under the Code’s sub-section 100.1(1).  This says a terrorist act “means an action or threat of action where: …(b)  the action is done or the threat is made with the intention of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause; and (c)  the action is done or the threat is made with the intention of:  (i)  coercing, or influencing by intimidation, the government of the Commonwealth or a State, Territory or foreign country, or of part of a State, Territory or foreign country; or (ii)  intimidating the public or a section of the public.” 
For background on the debate among government officials, police and lawyers about the impact of Australian law on the MH17 incident, read this.
Canberra sources explain that even if Brandis had told Turnbull there was enough evidence to certify the MH17 shoot-down as a terrorist incident, according to the criminal code provisions,  the prime minister still has a broad discretion in deciding whether or not to make a declaration regarding a particular incident.
That Turnbull hasn’t done so for the MH17 carnage means he doesn’t want to do so —  and not only because of his attorney-general’s advice. Turnbull was also behind press leaks that as a cabinet minister under Prime Minister Abbott in August 2014, he opposed a scheme of Abbott’s to send 3,000 Australian troops to join Dutch and other NATO forces in  a US-backed military operation in eastern Ukraine. Abbott and NATO had prepared the justification for the military operation as Russian state terrorism in downing the MH17. Turnbull arranged for his son-in-law to reveal the cabinet papers and intelligence reports from the time, and to record his assessment that Abbott was foolhardy.  For that story, click here.  
Australian sources who know Turnbull don’t agree in their interpretation of what he is now saying and doing.  Some sources believe that with his political mouth Turnbull is backing the US position against Russia and protecting himself from opposition party attacks that he is “soft” on the Kremlin.  With his legal mind Turnbull knows there is no admissible evidence and no prospect of prosecuting terrorism in the MH17 case. 
The Australians haven’t realized that their decision that the MH17 is not a terrorist act undermines this month’s proceedings in The Netherlands, where the Ukrainian government has applied to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to convict Russia of financing, arming and aiding terrorist acts, including the destruction of MH17. The lawyers engaged this week at The Hague haven’t realized either.    
The 45-page Ukrainian claim against Moscow to the ICJ is dated January 16, 2017, and can be read here.  The US law firm Covington & Burling is defending the Kiev government; the advocates for the Russian side include British and French lawyers.

Advocates for Kiev at the ICJ this week:  left US lawyer Marney Cheek; right, Olena Zerkal, Deputy Foreign Minister of Ukraine
According to the Ukrainian claim, the destruction of MH17 was an act of terrorism. “When the Russian Federation delivered this deadly surface-to-air missile system to the DPR, it knew precisely the type of organization it was aiding… The Russian government knew or should have known that their proxies would use these powerful antiaircraft weapons in a manner consistent with their previous pattern of disregard for civilian life.”
“By the early summer of 2014, the Russian Federation was well aware that its proxies operating on Ukrainian territory were engaged in a pattern and practice of terrorizing civilians. Yet rather than intervening to abate those actions, the Russian Federation’s response was to substantially increase these groups’ firepower by supplying them with powerful weapons. An early result of this decision was the attack on Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17.  In July 2014, as part of this escalation of arms supplies and other support, the Russian Federation delivered a Buk surface-to-air missile system to DPR-associated forces. Those illegal armed groups used the Buk system to commit a devastating surface-to-air attack, destroying a civilian airliner transiting Ukrainian airspace and murdering the 298 individuals on board…These perpetrators committed this terrorist attack with the direct support of the Russian government… There is no evidence that the Russian Federation has taken any responsibility before the peoples of the world for supporting this horrific terrorist act.”
“Ukraine respectfully requests the Court to adjudge and declare that the Russian Federation bears international responsibility, by virtue of its sponsorship of terrorism and failure to prevent the financing of terrorism under the Convention, for the acts of terrorism committed by its proxies in Ukraine, including: a.The shoot-down of Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17.”
The Russian presentations in open court so far can be read here. Ilya Rogachev, Director of the Department of New Challenges and Threats at the Russian Foreign Ministry, testified in front of 16 judges of the court on March 7.  Rogachev (below left) was followed for the Russian side by London Queens Counsel, Samuel Wordsworth (right).
According to Rogachev, “it should be noted that during the summer of 2014 the Ukrainian Army’s anti-aircraft missile regiment No. 156, equipped with ‘BUK-M1’ missile systems, was stationed in the zone of conflict. The regiment’s headquarters and its first division were located in Avdiivka near Donestk, its second division in Mariupol and its third in Lugansk. In total the regiment was armed with 17 BUK-M1 SAMs, identical to the one identified by the JIT.”
He went on to argue that whether the Ukrainian forces fired the BUK missile, or whether the separatists did, there is no evidence that either force intended to do so. “It is enough to note,” said Rogachev, “that neither the DSB [Dutch Safety Board]  nor the JIT [Joint Investigation Team] appear to be concluding that the civil airliner was shot down with malicious intent or, which is what matters most for today, that the equipment allegedly used was provided for that specific purpose.”
The JIT, according to Turnbull’s spokesman in Canberra this week,  includes Australia,Belgium, Malaysia, the Netherlands and Ukraine. The spokesman said they “remain committed to ensuring those responsible for the downing of MH17 are held to account.” On the other hand, the evidence so far produced by the JIT hasn’t satisfied the admissibility and prosecution tests of  the Australian Federal Police (AFP) officers on the JIT staff. The AFP’s Commissioner Andrew Colvin (right, with Turnbull and Brandis in October 2014) reports to the Australian Justice Minister and he, as well as the AFP, are part of the portfolio of Attorney- General Brandis. 
In two Australian coroners court hearings, the AFP has revealed serious reservations about the Dutch evidence and Ukrainian claims in the MH17 investigation; for details read this  and this
Turnbull adds through his spokesman an additional qualification. “The outcomes of this investigation could be relevant” in determining whether the downing of MH17 was a terrorist act. In Australian law and in the Prime Minister’s judgement, could means not now – and not at the International Court.
“For the action to fall under the Montreal Convention,” Rogachev testified this week in The Hague, referring to the principal international treaty covering compensation for aircraft incidents, “the intention must have been to shoot down a civilian aircraft…”
Wordsworth told the ICJ judges that for every act alleged in the court papers by the Kiev regime, “there is a separate requirement of specific intent. So far as concerns Ukraine’s allegations with respect to Flight MH17, Article 2.1 (a) incorporates the offences under the Montreal Convention, which comprise the unlawful and intentional destruction of a civilian aircraft. So far as concerns the other allegations of Ukraine, there is a requirement of both specific intent and purpose. Article 2 (1) (b) refers to: “(b) Any other act intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian, or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, when the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act.”
Wordsworth was repeating in open court what the Australian Attorney-General has already advised the Australian Prime Minister. Because the Australians have decided there is no case for a terrorist act to justify compensating their own citizens, the Ukrainians have already lost their 

De Corrupte Nederlandse Mainstream-Journalistiek

$
0
0

De hypocrisie van de #westersebubbelvanrealiteit van mediapolitiek Nederland, ‘Rusland-hack’ Twan Huys #DWDD


dwdd14dec
De Wereld Draait Door (DWDD) met Matthijs van Nieuwkerk, Twan Huys en Beatrice de Graaf, 14 december 2016.
16dec: verzoek tot rectificatie aan DWDD o.b.v. dit artikel, geen reactie
16dec: artikel is aangeboden aan NRC, geen reactie
17dec: artikel is aangeboden aan VillaMedia, het blog van de Nederlandse Vereniging van Journalisten, geen reactie
18dec: artikel is gepubliceerd op eigen blog, limpidus.org
UPDATE, onderaan artikel
Afgelopen dinsdagavond, 14 december, werd in koude oorlogsretoriek Twan Huys, Amerikaverslaggever, aangekondigd door Matthijs van Nieuwkerk in De Wereld Draait Door (DWDD). Matthijs is vooral presentator en presenteert dan ook uitgebreid over de ontwikkelingen bij de New York Times. Van Twan zouden we meer mogen verwachten dan enkel verslag geven. Als professioneel Amerikaverslaggever verwacht je bredere context en meer onderzoeksjournalistiek. Zijn optreden bleek echter een echo te worden van de Amerikaanse havikentaal van Clinton/Obama en de US corporate media. Tijd om de feiten langs de woorden te leggen.
Twan en ik zien de wereld verschillend. Dat kan. In de media is het altijd de keuze welk verhaal en welke feiten je vertelten vooral ook welke niet. Ik verwacht niet anders van Twan dat hij meegaat in de verhaallijn van Hillary, de Amerikaanseliberale media en het vertrekkend establishment. Echter, zodra deze verhaallijn berust op feitelijke onjuistheden schiet hij in zijn functie als journalist en Amerikaverslaggever tekort, vooral ook op ethisch vlak tegenover de kijker. Twan en de bredere Nederlandse media helpen een vals wereldbeeld creëren en in stand houden met serieuze consequenties tengevolg. Deze bubbel van realiteit wordt steeds prominenter doorbroken door een opkomende diversiteit in het medialandschap. Deze diversiteit brengt niet het scala aan argumenten dat je zou verwachten, maar een sterkere interne verwijzing naar ‘kwaliteitskranten’ en veroordeling van de wereld buiten deze westerse bubbel van realiteit. Ze beroept zich op naam, status en stijl en veroordeelt de diversiteit in alternatieve nieuwsbronnen als gevaarlijk ‘nepnieuws’. Dit voorkomt niet alleen dat er niet hoeft worden ingegaan op argumenten en tegenstrijdige feiten, ze verhoogt de drempel voor het lezen, delen of verwijzen naar niet bubbel-approved nieuws. Eenmaal die drempel voorbij zien we een internetbased medialandschap ontstaan. De ‘bubbel’ ontwikkelingen á la neo-mccarthyisme -ongefundeerde verdachtmakingen in koude oorlogsretoriek- vanuit Amerikaanse media en politiek vinden hun weerklank in onze westerse wereld. Zowel de westerse overheden als westerse gevestigde media verliezen met deze verhaallijn hun gezag. Voor diegene die nog in de westerse mediapolitieke bubbel leven valt de stem voor onvrede enkel te verklaren als ‘populistisch’ en ‘neo-fascistisch’ en dit behoeft wederom geen argumenten of zelfreflectie. De vaak onterecht aangewakkerde polarisatie -zoals bijvoorbeeld rondom Trump in de aanloop naar de verkiezingen- weerhoudt journalist, politicus en nieuwsvolger van reflectie op een falend westers hawkish neo-conservatisme, falend politiek bestuur, falende globalisering, falende gevestigde media en de groeiende binnenlandse inkomensongelijkheid (de werkelijkeinkomensongelijkheid, Rutte) die de bestaanszekerheid in basisbehoeften steeds verder doen afnemen. Een nieuw wereldbeeld en het open staan voor argumenten zonder veroordeling komt met zelfreflectie op het eigen wereldbeeld.
Twan begint in DWDD met het benadrukken van ‘kwaliteitsjournalistiek’ en refereert daarmee aan de New York Times. Laten we kijken naar de kwaliteitsjournalistiek van o.a. Twan Huys en de New York Times (NYT).
Hij begint met een verwijzing naar het artikel van de NYT dat ‘waanzinnig in de details’ is, aldus Twan. De acht pagina’s tonen ondanks dit ‘detail’ nog steeds géén bewijs dat Rusland achter de hacks zit, tonen géén bewijs dat de genoemde Russische hackers (er is mogelijk vele malen ingebroken of gelekt) ook diegene zijn die aan Wikileaks gelekt hebben, noch bij de DNC-hack, noch bij de Podesta-hack. Er wordt in detail ingegaan hóe de hack bij Podesta heeft plaatsgevonden. Er wordt in detail ingegaan op de Dukes, ‘widely believed to be a Russian government operation’. En daarmee is Poetin persoonlijk een paar alinea’s verder het onderwerp van gevaar. Verder vult het artikel zich in detail over de knulligheid van het contact tussen de FBI en de Democratic Nationcal Convention (DNC) en de geschiedenis van vroegere Russische operaties.
Het verhaal begint overigens vrijdag al (…) Vrijdag heeft The Washington Post het verhaal dat de CIA er nu wel over uit is en die zeggen: ‘Poetin heeft ingegrepen in ons democratisch proces’.”
Dit is een mooi voorbeeld van verwijzing naar ‘kwaliteitsjournalistiek’ en laat zodoende enige inspanning voor argumentatie achterwege. Het verhaal begint eigenlijk al op de donderdag een week eerder met de publicatie van ‘Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during election, experts say’. Er worden hier twee gigantische claims gedaan. En de gouden regel is: hoe groter de claim, des te meer solide het bewijs. Allereerst is Rusland schuldig aan van alles en de bronnen die dit anders zien zijn ‘fake news’, nepnieuws. Dit artikel is drie dagen lang het meest gelezen artikel van de Washington Post (WaPo) geweest en is door establishmentmedia dagenlang aangehaald -ook hier. Het gehele artikel berust op een anoniem interview met de anonieme groep PropOrNot en levert geen bewijs. Glenn Greenwald laat in reactie hierop dan ook niets heel van de koude oorlogsretoriek van dit ‘neo-Mccarthyisme’ en de geloofwaardigheid van PropOrNot leeft niet ver buiten de gevestigde media. Voormalig senator Ron Paul noemt deze aanval op nepnieuws dan ook een aanval op vrijheid van meningsuiting. Een paar dagen later verschijnt een armoedig editorial, niet op de voorpagina, maar boven het artikel. Geen van de US corporate media is daar verder op ingegaan. De week erop wordt op de vrijdag een nieuw artikel gepost en deze keer wordt niet PropOrNot aangehaald, maar iemand die bij de CIA werkt. Wederom anoniem. Wederom zonder bewijs. ‘The Washington Post late Friday night published an explosive story that, in many ways, is classic American journalism of the worst sort: The key claims are based exclusively on the unverified assertions of anonymous officials, who in turn are disseminating their own claims about what the CIA purportedly believes, all based on evidence that remains completely secret.’, schrijft Glenn Greenwald. Twee dagen ná de DWDD-uitzending heeft de WaPo een nieuwe nummer 1 hit op hun website met als titel,  ‘FBI in agreement with CIA that Russia aimed to help Trump win White House‘. Deze baldadige titel is gebaseerd op een interne mail van binnen -wederom- de CIA waarin CIA directeur John Brennon zegt, “Earlier this week, I met separately with FBI [Director] James Comey and DNI Jim Clapper, and there is strong consensus among us on the scope, nature, and intent of Russian interference in our presidential election,”.
De andere inlichtingendiensten daar hebben we nog niet zoveel van gehoord, maar achter de schermen horen we dat die daar aan mee hebben gedaan. Dat die dat ook vinden, dat er directe invloed is geweest van het Kremlin.”
Waar hebben we wél wat van gehoord? We hebben gehoord van enkele anonieme bronnen die tegenover de Washington Post claimen namens de CIA van een ‘high level of confidence te spreken van hun bevindingen. Ik wacht nog even op het onderzoeksrapport, mét bewijzen. De FBI daar hebben we wel wat van gehoord. Er is een onderzoek geweest naar Ruslands invloed op Trump en de FBI heeft officieel en namens de FBI deze banden ontkracht. Sterker nog, de FBI heeft tijdens een Senate Intelligence Committee de nieuwe aantijgingen van de CIA ‘fuzzy’ en ‘ambigious’ genoemd. ‘CIA officials often use past behavior and analysis based on gathered intelligence to advise leaders, whereas the FBI comes from a more legalistic background which relies on hard evidence to make a case.’, verduidelijkt BizPacReview. Op The Intercept roepen Jeremy Scahill en Jon Schwarz dan ook de bluf waar te maken en met bewijzen te komen en vergelijkt de hardheid van bewijzen met de tijd van de achteraf niet aanwezige massavernietigingswapens in Irak waar Bush toen aan mee deed, net als Obama nu. Als laatste kunnen we deze anonieme bronnen vanuit de CIA nog plaatsen tegenover de anonieme bronnen vanuit de Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), de overkoepelende veiligheidsorganisatie van de 17 Amerikaanse inlichtingendiensten. In een artikel van Reuters dat een dag voor de uitzending van DWDD verscheen worden deze bronnen aangehaald, ODNI is not arguing that the agency (CIA) is wrong, only that they can’t prove intent,“, “(It was) a thin reed upon which to base an analytical judgment,” en “judgment (was) based on the fact that Russian entities hacked both Democrats and Republicans and only the Democratic information was leaked,”. Er gaan zelfs verhalen rond dat het een lek, geen hack, was vanuit de inlichtingendiensten zelf, zonder bewijs nog net zo realistisch als ‘de Russen’. Overigens loopt het onderzoek van de FBI naar de Clinton Foundation nog wel.

Obama should submit any Putin documents to WikiLeaks to be authenticated to our standards if he wants them to be seen as credible.
Nu legt de New York Times vandaag ontzettend goed uit wat dat voor betekenis heeft.”

Ze leggen inderdaad heel goed uit wat de gevolgen zijn van iets dat nog steeds enkel in hun bubbel van realiteit plaatsvindt.
Fox News, dat is toch een beetje het station waar hij zich graag laat interviewen. Nou, daar is wel woede hoor bij journalisten. Het zal toch niet waar zijn. Dat onze verkiezingen gekaapt zijn door Poetin.”
Twan maakt hiermee van Fox News nu de stem van Trump, maar dit station is de stem geweest van vooral de republikeinse partij en de neoconservatieven. Diezelfde neoconservatieven die Trump met hun globalisering en natiestaatondermijnende handelsverdragen de geschiedenisboekjes probeert in te krijgen. In een land waar 90% van de landelijke en regionale bladen en zenders in handen is van zes grote bedrijven is Fox nog altijd vele malen dichter bij de verhaallijn van gevestigde belangen en zoekt nu naar een balans. Ook de banen bij Fox News staan op de tocht bij verlies aan gezag van corporate media.
Echter, er is met net zoveel kracht te claimen dat de woede juist gericht is op deze onbewezen berichtgeving. Zie hier democratisch senator Peter Schiff die geïnterviewd wordt door Fox over de CIA en de rol van Rusland in het onderuithalen van de verkiezingen in de VS. Ja, Fox is inderdaad boos. Tegen het einde zie je ook, a la neo-Mccarthyisme, het onderuit halen van de integriteit van andere bronnen/personen, beter bekend als ‘nep’ nieuws puppet van Rusland.
De New York Times (NYT) claimt dat zowel de Republican National Convention (RNC) als de DNC is gehackt, maar ‘de Russen’ er voor gekozen hebben enkel de informatie van de DNC aan Wikileaks te lekken. Daar is wél woede over. De Republikeinse Partij ontkent dit, evenals de FBI die hier officieel onderzoek naar hebben gedaan en geen hacks bij de RNC hebben kunnen vinden. Toch is dit de verhaallijn in de gevestigde media. Zowel de Republikeinse Partij als het Trump-team hebben het FBI onderzoek van te voren voorgelegd aan de NYT, die deze vervolgens naast zich neer heeft gelegd. Zie hier hoe CNN of ABC omgaan met deze informatie. DWDD toont ondertussen andere beelden.
We weten al een heleboel natuurlijk. Al tijdens de verkiezingen is er al heel veel over gezegd. Ze zijn via doodsimpele manieren binnengekomen bij de DNC, de Democratische Partij. Dat was een fluitje van een cent beschreef de New York Times ook heel precies.”
We hebben in de aanloop naar de verkiezingen al veel van Trump gehoord, maar wát hebben we geleerd? Hoeveel van het beleid van Trump ken je -en ja, die was en is er. Ik nodig u graag uit voorbij de sociaal-liberale polarisering vanuit het westers mediapolitieke landschap op zoek te gaan naar de vraag ‘wat heeft de Trumpstemmer gemotiveerd?’Het is belangrijk de verklaring te verleggen van de ‘ontevredenen’ of ‘kleingeestigen’ naar de sociaaleconomische ontwikkelingen die ze brachten tot deze stem. Zo brengt ze ons bij beleid. Ten opzichte van de vorige verkiezingen is de latino-stem zelfs iets gegroeid onder Trump van 27% naar 29%, 18% werd voorspeld. Ook vrouwen kwamen massaal opdagen voor Trump en de ‘Women for Trump’-borden bleken niet zonder backing. ‘A majority of white women voted for Trump. And while Clinton did carry the female vote overall, her advantage among women was a percentage point less than Obama had enjoyed over Romney in 2012.‘, aldus The Guardian. Ook de LGBTQ-gemeenschap kent Trump-supporters en verwijst naar zijn steun tijdens de campagne waarbij Trump prominent de regenboogvlag met ‘LGBT’s for Trump’ hoog houdt. Zo zei hij in 2000 al “Amending the Civil Rights Act would grant the same protection to gay people that we give to other Americans – it’s only fair.” en sprak hij zijn steun uit voor de homogemeenschap tegenover de Republikeinse Partij in Ohio tijdens zijn nominatiespeech afgelopen juli.
Ze zijn ontzettend slecht beveiligd, zoals overigens alle politiek partijen. Niet alleen in Amerika, maar ook in Nederland, ook in Duitsland, Frankrijk”
Met als nummer één gevaar ongetwijfeld Rusland in het achterhoofd. De NOS heeft ook al quotes her en der kunnen vinden bij onze eigen kamerleden en loopt gretig met dit verhaal weg. “Ik maak me meer zorgen dan ooit dat de Nederlandse verkiezingen worden beïnvloed door buitenlandse mogendheden, in het bijzonder Rusland.”, aldus Sjoerd Sjoerdsma van D66. De overige aangehaalde kamerleden houden zich wijs af van opmerkingen over het gevaar uit Rusland. Ach, één quote is voldoende voor een verhaallijn.
Vervolgens gaat het in DWDD verder over hoe makkelijk de phishing hack was waarmee het wachtwoord achterhaald was. Wederom hoe, niet wie. Het wachtwoord werd overigens ‘p@ssw0rd’.
Met als gevolg dat er 60.000 van zijn mails -en waarschijnlijk meer- naar de Russische geheime dienst zijn gegaan. Althans, naar een hacker.”
Nu de toon gezet is en die nog eens herhaald wordt in de eerste zin, bekend Twan met zijn tweede regel kleur. Al mag ik aannemen dat een beetje veiligheidsdienst ze ondertussen toch wel in bezit heeft.
En dat zijn de mails waarmee (…) de Russische geheime diensten de afgelopen maanden steeds die campagne hebben doen laten ontsporen van Hillary Clinton. Die zijn heel belangrijk geweest.”
Op basis van voorgaande aangetoonde onjuistheden toont dit wederom de feiteloosheid in het statement dat de Russische geheime diensten de verkiezingen hebben doen laten ontsporen. Als iemand iets heeft doen laten ontsporen is het WikiLeaks. Een tussenstap die handig wordt overgeslagen. Wikileaks zelf claimt overigens dat de emails niet van Russische afkomst zijn. Wikileaks heeft een clean track record in hun publicaties. Bij het afwegen van betrouwbaarheid tussen een anonieme fractie van de CIA of Wikileaks, ligt mijn vertrouwen niet bij het track record van de CIA. Overigens denkt 60%van de Amerikanen zelf dat de hacks geen echte invloed hebben gehad op de verkiezingsuitslag.
En de FBI wist het ook, ze hebben de democratische partij gewaarschuwd.’ Er begint woede te ontstaan bij Obama, of in ieder geval, de Democratische kant. (…) Hij heeft heel veel informatie achtergehouden. (…) Waarom heeft hij niets vóór de verkiezingen verteld, want hij wist al heel veel.”
Wederom, de FBI weet dat er gehackt is en heeft gezegd dat er geen bewijs is dat Rusland als dader kan aanwijzen. Waarom nu? Ik weet wél dat ‘nepnieuws’ dat Hillary haar campagne kennelijk heeft gekost geen issue was vóór de verkiezing van president-elect Trump en dat Hillary zelf deze verhaallijn actief de wereld in heeft geholpen. Ondertussenzijn een paar goede quotes van bekende (of anonieme) mensen en instanties voldoende om een verhaallijn gaande te houden die nog steeds geen bewijslast heeft gezien. Ook kan ik me nog herinneren hoe fel de discussie was rondom Trump en het wel of niet accepteren van de uitslag. Ik weet dat de eerste golf van deels professioneel georganiseerde demonstraties ‘mislukt’ is. Evenals de hertellingen van Jill Steins groene partij (zonder veel steun van haar stemmers) die ondersteund werden door Hillary en ‘mislukt’ zijn. Of althans, in de staat Michigan dat naar Trump ging zijn in 60% van de stemgebieden in de stad Detroit onregelmatigheden gevonden en bij tweederde daarvan meer stemmen digitaal geregistreerd als er stembiljetten zijn om na te tellen. Allen in Detroit, een van de weinige -maar zwaartellende- districten die naar Hillary gingen. ‘Wayne County precinct reported 306 votes, but had only 50 ballots.’bericht The Detriot News (video). Bij zulke onregelmatigheden blijft de oorspronkelijke telling overigens staan. Hele stemboeken zijn zelfs verdwenen, meldt ZeroHedge. Toen kwam de Washington Post (WaPo) met hun PropOrNot-lijst, ‘mislukt’. Vervolgens kwam er het anonieme interview met de CIA, zonder bewijs. En nu heeft Obama een onderzoek laten doen naar de Russischeconnectie met de verkiezingen. Misschien dat er genoeg indirect bewijs is een deel van het Electoral College of het huidige parlement van gedachte te veranderen en er zo in feite een ‘soft coup’ plaatsvindt. Hoe groots dit verhaal in de mediapolitieke wereld ook lijkt te zijn, er is nu i.i.g. nog geen serieuze steun voor het niet respecteren van het electoral system. De bewijslast ligt altijd bij diegene die de bewering maakt. Zolang we de feiten niet hebben, heeft Twan mogelijk gelijk met Hij was bang beticht te worden voor inmenging in het politieke proces”.
Matthijs van Nieuwkerk schakelt naar Beatrice de Graaf.
Dit is wel weer een van de koudere fases van de Koude Oorlog waarbij de Russsen willens en wetens heel gericht het instrument van psychologische oorlogsvoering inzetten.”
The wilder the claim, the bigger the proof? Men zou met extrapoleren ook het tegenovergestelde met hetzelfde gemak kunnen zeggen.
De reden dat ze zo succesvol zijn, is omdat er zo veel zwakke plekken zitten in het westerse bondgenootschap. Verdeeldheid, angst, verwarring.”
Ik denk dat de extrapolatie van deze verhaallijn het falen van een neoconservatief en supranationaal westers tijdperk miskent evenals de polarisatie die deze met zich meebrengt. Decennialang falend neoconservatief beleid dat door zowel links als rechts werd gedragen wordt nu gereduceerd tot ‘Blame the russians‘.
De eerste slachtoffers van dit systeem zijn de Russen zelf. Alle oppositie, de dissidenten, beroemde bloggers, bekende bloggers worden op deze manier allemaal monddood gemaakt. En nu gebeurt het ook in het buitenland.”
Vervang ‘Rusland’ met ‘Amerika’ en plaats deze zin in de context van neo- Mccarthyisme.
Poetin is vervolgens ineens gekoppeld aan Lenin, want hij groeide daar immers in op. Ook laat ze nog even horen dat Poetin bij de KGB werkte. De legitimiteit van de verkiezingsuitslag van de Duma in Rusland wordt in twijfel genomen, Duitsland wordt aangehaald en zelfs kinderporno komt nog over de tafel. Ook interessant om allemaal in te duiken, maar we blijven nu even bij de Amerikaanse verkiezingen.
Thank god dat Mathijs het weer terugbrengt naar de verkiezingshack zelf en ook netjes refereert aan een bron, al is het de NYT. “Zonder zijn ingrijpen was het misschien gewoon Hillary Clinton geworden.
Deze uitspraak veronderstelt echter wederom de eerdere aannames en trekt de lijn zelfs door naar Poetin persoonlijk. Al is er een net zo goed argument te maken voor Clinton die de democratie niet respecteert. Eens of oneens met het Electoral College, deze dient gewijzigd te worden via democratisch besluit. Er zijn overigens vele democratische systemen die niet enkel de popular vote tellen, maar ook de geografie van het land meenemen zoals de Nieuw Zeelands electoral vote en de party vote om eenzelfde balans tussen o.a. stad en land te vertegenwoordigen.
En NÚ komt Twan’s disclaimer voor toekomstige vrijwaring en referentie. De toon is echter al gezet. “Ik moet even een disclaimer inbouwen, want we weten niet of het Poetin direct is geweest de opdracht heeft gegeven. Maar daar gaan de inlichtingendiensten in Amerika nu echt wel vanuit. (…) De NYT schijft idoe het nu even op hun gezag ‘Poetin is verbaasd door zijn eigen succes.’ Het was zijn bedoeling om diegene van wie iedereen dacht dat die president zou worden, Hilllary Clinton, om háár te verzwakken als ze de president was geworden.”
Sterker nog, we weten nog niet eens o.b.v. eerder aangetoond gebrek aan bewijslast of zelfs de Russische regering überhaupt erachter zit, laat staan Poetin. Alles kán, maar het bewijs en vertrouwen ontbreekt. Dit weerhoudt Twan er echter niet van om deze verhaallijn als basis te gebruiken, wederom op gezag van de NYT.
In retrospect voldoet het niet voor Twan om straks te zeggen “Ik refereerde enkel aan de NYTWaPo en CIA als deze uitspraken ongefundeerd zijn in bewijsvoering en dit met minimale inspanning aan te tonen is. Het is juist de journalistiek die traditioneel kritische vragen hoort te stellen om geen echo van gevestigde interesses te wordenZodoende is dit een oproep aan de journalist Twan Huys zijn maatschappelijke rol en geenszins aan de persoon Twan die hier hopelijk ook mee worstelt. Wellicht is het tijd het warme onthaal in Washington los te laten en weer een journalist te worden die ook kritisch leert te kijken naar de status quo en niet enkel meer haar spreekbuis is. Laten we stoppen met refereren aan instanties en personen van status en weer waarde te hechten aan argumenten en een breder geïnformeerd burger. In de tussentijd, zoek ik mijn nieuws elders.
Ik ben nu vijf á tien minuten in de spreektijd en al vele pagina’s verder met onderzoek vanuit mijn bureau thuis. De rest is aan als burger, u als journalist en u als politiciWant, in all ernst en nederigheid; Mediapolitiek Nederland, wellicht is het ook tijd jullie warme onthaal van institutioneel Amerika los te laten en weer een journalist en volksvertegenwoordiger te worden die ook kritisch kijkt naar de westerse status quo en niet enkel meer haar spreekbuis is. Laten we stoppen met de hautaine veroordeling van de stem van onvrede als ‘populistisch’ of ‘neo-fascistisch’ en verantwoordelijkheid dragen voor een falende internationale orde en een falend neoconservatief beleid dat ons hier bracht.
Twan studeerde tussen 1983 en 1986 aan de Academie voor Journalistiek in Tilburg. Daarna werkte hij bij de Regionale Omroep Zuid in Limburg. Vervolgens werkte hij voor STAD Radio Amsterdam en de VARA. Van 1992 tot september 2010 was hij werkzaam voor het actualiteitenprogramma NOVA, en vanaf die maand voor Nieuwsuur, de opvolger van NOVA. In 1999 werd hij voor NOVA correspondent in de Verenigde Staten met als standplaats New York. 



Een oproep aan de journalist , naar aanleiding van optreden bij van afgelopen dinsdag.18 dec 2016: Correctie: neoliberaal->neoconservatief
08 jan 2017: Obama’s rapport van de inlichtingendiensten is ondertussen binnen en kent nog steeds geen bewijs en blijft wederom hangen op ‘high level of confidence’. De NSA spreekt trouwens over een ‘moderate level of confidence’. Wederom ligt de focus -zeven van de 25 pagina’s- op fake news in social media, fake news in algemeen, maar in specifiek RT. Same story, different day. Ik zou zeggen… somebody is doing a good job. Take the compliment. Lees hier het originele rapport.
09 jan 2017: Een artikel in de NRC van gisteren, deel één van een vierluik, gebruikt de Algemene Inlichtingen en Veiligheidsdienst (AIVD) van Nederland om een verhaallijn te ontwikkelen in lijn met de Amerikaanse mediaverhaallijnen eerder beschreven . Het oncontroleerbare online medialandschap met kritische geluiden wordt nu ook in Nederland gereduceerd tot termen als ‘cybersoldaat voor Putin’, ‘Russische trollen’ en ‘desinformerende Russische beïnvloeding’. In het kort is het artikel van de NRC te reduceren tot ‘framing dissent’, al zijn de woorden van Jos van der Veen eronder een start. Vanaf vandaag weet u me te plaatsen of i.i.g. welke stigma U mogelijk eerst dient te bevechten bij vrienden en collega´s. Mijn artikel toont het falen van de westerse verhaallijnen en heeft enkel westerse onderliggende links. We zullen eerst tot zelfreflectie moeten komen op onze ongefundeerde en feitelijk onjuiste verhaallijnen alvorens ogen te kunnen openen naar alternatieve verhaallijnen over de westerse establishment, Syrië of juist de vreedzame integratie in Eurasië zoals de EEU, CIS, AIIB of OBOR. Allen bewegen buiten de macht van de Amerikaanse petrodollar en Washington-based internationale orde. Deze nieuwe integratie kenmerkt zich JUIST in haar op gelijke voet plaatsen van natiestaten, waar de Washington-based instanties een hautaine politiek van ‘with or against us-coalities’, inmenging in binnenlands beleid of zelfs ‘regime change’ beoogt.
Reposts toegestaan zonder toestemming te vragen, mits deze terugverwijst naar dit originele artikel.
Viewing all 33541 articles
Browse latest View live