Aletho News


New US Military Base to be Built in Poland

Sputnik – 07.08.2015

A US armored forces base is slated to be built in the center of Poland, the Polish newspaper Rzeczpospolita reports.

According to the media outlet, the base is planned to be stationed in Mazovia Province, in the city of Ciechanow.

The newspaper acquired a letter written by the country’s Deputy Defense Minister, Beata Oczkowicz, to City Mayor Krzysztof Kosinski. The document explains that the base will be used for the needs of the Polish and US Armed Forces.

On July 15, a deal between Poland and the US on the agreed facilities and zones came into force, according to the letter. The document was aimed at bolstering military cooperation between the two countries, including the joint use of property.

In June, the US confirmed it planned to deploy heavy weapons in several Eastern European countries.

August 7, 2015 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

Gorbachev calls US military might ‘insurmountable obstacle to a nuclear-free world’

RT | August 6, 2015

Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev warns that when one state has immense military might and greater defense budget that anyone else, this creates is “an insurmountable obstacle” on the road to a world without nuclear weapons.

“Can we really imagine a world without nuclear weapons if a single country amasses so many conventional weapons that its military budget nearly tops that of all other countries combined?” the former Soviet leader told Spiegel Online in an apparent – but not explicit – reference to the US.

“This country would enjoy total military supremacy if nuclear weapons were abolished,” he added.

The 84-year-old political veteran called nuclear weapons “unacceptable” and “inhumane” in our modern society as they can easily “wipe out the entirety of civilization”.

“Weapons like this have never existed before in history and they cannot be allowed to exist. If we do not get rid of them, sooner or later they will be used.”

Demilitarization should be put “back on the agenda of international politics,” believes Gorbachev. “This includes a reduction of military budgets, a moratorium on the development of new types of weapons and a prohibition on militarizing space.”

If these actions are not performed, then the talks on any nuclear demilitarization will be just “little more than empty words,” he added. “The world would then become less safe, more unstable and unpredictable. Everyone will lose, including those now seeking to dominate the world.”

‘Militarization of space is a real danger’

Gorbachev said that he is “very worried” about the possibility of a nuclear war, adding that the “current state of things is scar.”

“The nuclear powers still have thousands of nuclear warheads. Nuclear weapons are still stationed in Europe. The pace of reducing stockpiles has slowed considerably.”

According to the 1990 Nobel Peace Prize winner, the world is currently witnessing the start of a new arms race.

“The militarization of space is a real danger. The danger of nuclear proliferation is greater than ever before.”

Russia & US have reached ‘crossroads in relations’

Moscow and Washington have already reached a “crossroads” in their relations, believes the former Soviet leader.

“Many are already talking about a new cold war. Talks between both powers over important global problems have practically been put on ice. That includes the question of nuclear disarmament. Trust, the very capital we worked so hard to build, has been destroyed.”

World’s mutual destruction of warhead back in 1980s should be a lesson for Obama, Putin, Merkel

The former Soviet leader believes that no matter how critical the current situation in the world arena is, no one should be struck by panic.

He reminded that back in the mid-1980s, there was “no shortage of people who thought the train to atomic hell was unstoppable,” but the world managed to “achieve a lot” in very short period of time.

“Thousands of nuclear warheads were destroyed and several types of nuclear weapons, such as intermediate-range missiles, were disposed of. We can be proud of that. We accomplished all that together. It should be a lesson for today’s leaders: for Obama, Putin and Merkel,” Gorbachev added.

READ MORE: Gorbachev: Russia, US, EU should hold summits to ‘defrost’ relations

August 7, 2015 Posted by | Militarism, Timeless or most popular | | 2 Comments

The Great Ukrainian Wall: Profanity the West Paid For

Sputnik – 07.08.2015

The ongoing construction by Ukraine of a separation wall on its border with Russia is sheer profanity, the head of the Russian parliament’s foreign affairs committee said on Thursday.

“The impenetrable wall [Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy] Yatsenyuk is building to “defend Europe against Russia” has always been a profanation and the West agreed to finance this ditch,” Alexei Pushkov wrote on his Twitter account.

The Ukrainian government had earlier approved a major new program to isolate the country from Russia by constructing an enormous barrier, equipped with anti-tank ditches and remote- controlled weapons stations.

The plan includes a project initially called ‘The Wall’ or ‘European bulwark’.

It’s estimated to be worth 4 billion hryvnias (about $200 million) and involves the construction of a barbed-wire fence with 17-meter high steelwork turrets.

There will also be four-meter wide, two-meter deep antitank ditches, a lateral route and a drag road, remote combat modules, fortified sectors, observation posts, CCTV cameras, communication towers and alarm systems.

Meanwhile, Kiev remains in negotiations over USD 19 billion in external debt, and is demanding that its creditors write off 40 percent of the principal value as well as freeze interest payments for 4-5 years.

Ukraine’s creditors have offered to write off 5 percent of Ukraine’s debt, according to Reuters, although this offer was rejected.

August 7, 2015 Posted by | Militarism | , | 1 Comment

Behind Israel’s Hysterical Opposition to the Iran Nuclear Deal

By Ismael Hossein-Zadeh | CounterPunch | August 7, 2015

In light of the fact that Israel is in possession of at least 200 (surreptitiously-built) nuclear warheads, and considering the reality that, according to both US and Israeli intelligence sources, Iran neither possesses nor pursues nuclear weapons, the relentless hysterical campaign by Israel and its lobby against the Iran nuclear deal can safely be characterized as the mother of all ironies—a clear case of chutzpah.

As I pointed out in a recent essay on the nuclear agreement, the deal effectively establishes US control (through IAEA) over the entire production chain of Iran’s nuclear and related industries. Or, as President Obama put it (on the day of the conclusion of the agreement), “Inspectors will have access to Iran’s entire nuclear supply chain—its uranium mines and mills, its conversion facility and its centrifuge manufacturing and storage facilities. . . . Some of these transparency measures will be in place for 25 years. Because of this deal inspectors will also be able to access any suspicious location.”

Even a cursory reading of the text of the agreement shows that, if ratified by the US congress, the deal would essentially freeze Iran’s nuclear program at a negligible, ineffectual level of value—at only 3.67% uranium enrichment. Israel and its lobby must certainly be aware of this, of the fact that Iran poses no “existential threat to Israel,” as frequently claimed by Benjamin Netanyahu and his co-thinkers.

So, the question is: why all the screaming and breast beating?

There is a widespread perception that because the nuclear agreement was reached despite the lobby’s vehement opposition, it must therefore signify a win for Iran, or a loss for Israel and its allies. This is a sheer misjudgment of what the deal represents: it signifies a win not for Iran but for Israel and its allies. And here is why: under the deal Iran is obligated to (a) downgrade its uranium enrichment capabilities from 20% of purity to 3.67%, (b) freeze this minimal level of 3.67% enrichment for 15 years, (c) reduce its current capacity of 19000 centrifuges to 6104 (a reduction of 68%), (d) reduce its stockpile of low grade enriched uranium from the current level of 7500 kg to 300kg (a reduction of 96%), and (e) accept strict limits on its research and development activities. While some restrictions on research and development are promised to be relaxed after 10 years, others will remain for up to 25 years.

In addition, Iran would have to accept an extensive monitoring and inspection regime not only of declared nuclear sites but also of military and other non-declared sites where the monitors may presume or imagine incidences of “suspicious” activity. The elaborate system of monitoring and inspection was succinctly described by President Obama on the day of the conclusion of the agreement in Vienna (July 14, 2015): “Put simply, the organization responsible for the inspections, the IAEA, will have access where necessary, when necessary. That arrangement is permanent.”

These are obviously major concessions that not only render Iran’s hard-won (but peaceful) nuclear technology ineffectual, but also weaken its defense capabilities and undermine its national sovereignty.

So, the lobby’s frantic objection to the nuclear agreement cannot be because the deal represents a win for Iran, or a loss for Israel. Quite to the contrary the agreement signifies a historic success for Israel as it tends to remove, or drastically undermine, a major challenge to its expansionist schemes in the Middle East—the challenge of independent, revolutionary Iran that consistently opposed such colonial schemes of expansion and occupation.

Thus, the reasons for the lobby’s panicky, or more likely feigned, protestations must be sought elsewhere. Two major reasons can be identified for the lobby’s vehement opposition to the nuclear deal.

The first is to keep pressure on negotiators in pursuit further concessions from Iran. Indeed, the lobby has been very successful in quest of this objective. A look back at the process of negotiations indicates that, under pressure, Iran’s negotiators have continuously made additional concessions over the course of the 20-month long negotiations. For example, when negotiations began in Geneva in November 2013, discussion of Iran’s defense industries or inspection of its military sites were considered off the limits of negotiations. Whereas in the final agreement, reached 20 months later in Vienna, Iran’s negotiators have regrettably agreed to such highly intrusive, once-taboo measures of national sovereignty.

The lobby is of course aware of the fact that the 159-page long nuclear deal is fraught with ambiguities and loopholes, which leaves plenty of room for haggling and maneuvering over the many contestable aspects of the deal during its 25-year long implementation period. This means that, even if ratified by the US congress, the deal does not mean the end of negotiations but their continuation for a long time to come.

The shrill, obstructionist voices of the lobby’s operatives are, therefore, designed to continue the pressure on Iran during the long period of implementation in order to extract additional concessions beyond the agreement.

The second reason for the lobby’s relentless campaign to sabotage the nuclear agreement is that, while the agreement obviously represents a fantastic victory for Israel, it nonetheless falls short of what the lobby projected and fought for, that is, devastating regime change by military means, similar to what was done to Iraq and Libya.

This is no conspiracy theory or idle speculation. There is well-documented, undeniable evidence that the lobby, as a major pillar of the neoconservative forces in the US and elsewhere, set out as early as the late 1980s and early as 1990s to “deconstruct” and reshape the Middle East in the image of radical Zionist champions of building “greater Israel” in the region, extending from Jordan River to Mediterranean coasts.

Indeed, radical Zionists’ plans to balkanize and re-mold the Middle East are as old as the state of Israel itself. Those plans were actually among the essential designs of Israel’s founding fathers to build a Jewish state in Palestine. David Ben Gurien, one of the Key founders of the state of Israel, for example, stated unabashedly that land grabbing, expulsion of non-Jewish natives from their land/homes and territorial expansion is best achieved through launching wars of choice and creating social chaos, which he called “revolutionary” times or circumstances. “What is inconceivable in normal times is possible in revolutionary times; and if at this time the opportunity is missed and what is possible in such great hours is not carried out—a whole world is lost” [1].

While the plans to foment war and create social convulsion in pursuit of “greater Israel” thus began with the very creation of the state of Israel, systematic implementation of such plans, and the concomitant agenda of changing “unfriendly” regimes in the region, began in earnest in the early 1990s—that is, in the immediate aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union.

As long as the Soviet Union existed as a balancing superpower vis-à-vis the United States, US policy makers in the Middle East were somewhat constrained in their accommodations of territorial ambitions of hardline Zionism. That restraint was largely due to the fact that at the time the regimes that ruled Iraq, Syria and Libya were allies of the Soviet Union. That alliance, and indeed the broader counter-balancing power of Soviet bloc countries, served as a leash on the expansionist designs of Israel and the US accommodations of those designs. The demise of the Soviet Union removed that countervailing force.

The demise of the Soviet Union also served as a boon for Israel for yet another reason: it created an opportunity for a closer alliance between Israel and the militaristic faction of the US ruling elites—elites whose interests are vested largely in the military-industrial-security-intelligence complex, that is, in military capital, or war dividends.

Since the rationale for the large and growing military apparatus during the Cold War years was the “threat of communism,” US citizens celebrated the collapse of the Berlin Wall as the end of militarism and the dawn of “peace dividends.”

But while the majority of the US citizens celebrated the prospects of what appeared to be imminent “peace dividends,” the powerful interests vested in the expansion of military-industrial-security-intelligence spending felt threatened. Not surprisingly, these influential forces moved swiftly to safeguard their interests in the face of the “threat of peace.”

To stifle the voices that demanded peace dividends, beneficiaries of war and militarism began to methodically redefine the post-Cold War “sources of threat” in the broader framework of the new multi-polar world, which purportedly goes way beyond the traditional “Soviet threat” of the bipolar world of the Cold War era. Instead of the “communist threat” of the Soviet era, the “menace” of “rogue states,” of radical Islam and of “global terrorism” would have to do as new enemies.

Just as the beneficiaries of war dividends view international peace and stability inimical to their interests, so too the militant Zionist proponents of “greater Israel” perceive peace between Israel and its Palestinian/Arab neighbors perilous to their goal of gaining control over the “promised land.” The reason for this fear of peace is that, according to a number of the United Nations’ resolutions, peace would mean Israel’s return to its pre-1967 borders. But because proponents of “greater Israel” are unwilling to withdraw from the occupied territories, they are therefore afraid of peace—hence, their continued attempts at sabotaging peace efforts and/or negotiations.

Because the interests of the beneficiaries of war dividends and those of radical Zionism tend to converge over fomenting war and political convulsion in the Middle East, an ominously potent alliance has been forged between them—ominous, because the mighty US war machine is now supplemented by the almost unrivaled public relations capabilities of the hardline pro-Israel lobby in the United States.

The alliance between these two militaristic forces is largely unofficial and de facto; it is subtly forged through an elaborate network of powerful neoconservative think tanks such as The American Enterprise Institute, Project for the New American Century, America Israel Public Affairs Committee, Middle East Media Research Institute, Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Middle East Forum, National Institute for Public Policy, Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, and Center for Security Policy.

In the immediate aftermath of the Cold War, these militaristic think tanks and their hawkish neoconservative operatives published a number of policy papers that clearly and forcefully advocated plans for border change, demographic change and regime change in the Middle East. Although the plan to change “unfriendly” regimes and balkanize the region was to begin with the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime, as the “weakest link,” the ultimate goal was (and still is) regime change in Iran.

For example, in 1996 an influential Israeli think tank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, sponsored and published a policy document, titled “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,” which argued that the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu should “make a clean break” with the Oslo peace process and reassert Israel’s claim to the West Bank and Gaza. It presented a plan whereby Israel would “shape its strategic environment,” beginning with the removal of Saddam Hussein and the installation of a Hashemite monarchy in Baghdad, to serve as a first step toward eliminating the anti-Israeli governments of Syria and Iran.

The influential Jewish Institute for the National Security Affairs (JINSA) also occasionally issued statements and policy papers that strongly advocated “regime changes” in the Middle East. One of its hardline advisors Michael Ladeen, who also unofficially advised the George W. Bush administration on Middle Eastern issues, openly talked about the coming era of “total war,” indicating that the United States should expand its policy of “regime change” in Iraq to other countries in the region such as Iran and Syria. “In its fervent support for the hardline, pro-settlement, anti-Palestinian Likud-style policies in Israel, JINSA has essentially recommended that ‘regime change’ in Iraq should be just the beginning of a cascade of toppling dominoes in the Middle East [2].

It follows from this brief sketch of the lobby’s long-standing plans of regime change in Iran that, as mentioned earlier, its opposition to the nuclear deal is not because the deal does not represent a win for Israel, or a loss for Iran, but because Iran’s loss is not as big as the lobby would have liked it to be, that is, a devastating regime change through bombing and military aggression, as was done in Iraq or Libya.

What the lobby seems to overlook, or more likely, is unwilling to acknowledge or accept, is that regime change in Iran is currently taking place from within, and the nuclear deal is playing a major role in that change. The lobby also seems to overlook or deny the fact that the Obama administration opted for regime change from within—first through the so-called “green revolution” and now through nuclear deal—because various US-Israeli led attempts at regime change from without failed. Indeed, such futile attempts at regime change prompted Iran to methodically build robust defense capabilities and geopolitical alliances, thereby establishing a military and geopolitical counterweight to US-Israeli plans in the region.

Furthermore, The Obama administration’s plan of “peaceful” regime change seems to be more like an experimental or tactical change of approach to Iran than a genuine commitment to peace, as it does not rule out the military option in the future. If Iran carries out all its 25-year long obligations under the deal, regime change from within would be complete and military option unnecessary—in essence, it would be a gradual, systematic retrogression to the days of the Shah. But if at any time in the long course of the implementation of the deal Iran resists or fails to carry out some of the highly draconian of those obligations, the US and its allies would again resort to military muscle, and more confidently too because success chances of military operations at that time would be much higher, since Iran would have by then greatly downgraded its military/defense capabilities.


[1] Quoted in Norman Finkelstein, Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict, Introduction to German edition (10 July 2002).

[2] William D. Hartung, How Much Are You Making on the War, Daddy? New York: Nation Books

Ismael Hossein-zadeh is Professor Emeritus of Economics (Drake University). He is the author of Beyond Mainstream Explanations of the Financial Crisis (Routledge 2014), The Political Economy of U.S. Militarism (Palgrave–Macmillan 2007), and the Soviet Non-capitalist Development: The Case of Nasser’s Egypt (Praeger Publishers 1989). He is also a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion.

August 7, 2015 Posted by | Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Timeless or most popular, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

‘War is Peace’: US Neocons Urge Washington to Flood Ukraine With Weapons

Sputnik – 06.08.2015

American hawks are calling upon the US government to “flood” Ukraine with weapons because they are more concerned about their own wallets than about European security, US journalist Lee Fang points out.

Although the United States Institute of Peace and its chairman Stephen Hadley profess that they promote international peace through nonviolent conflict resolution, it is not what they are actually doing, US journalist and writer Lee Fang underscores.

“Stephen Hadley is a relentless hawk whose advocacy for greater military intervention often dovetails closely with the interests of Raytheon, a major defense contractor that pays him handsomely as a member of its board of directors,” the journalist revealed.

In June, during his speech at Poland’s Wroclaw Global Forum, the Institute of Peace chairman insisted that Washington should provide weapons to Kiev in order to “raise the cost for what Russia is doing in Ukraine.”

“[E]ven President Putin is sensitive to body bags — it sounds coarse to say, but it’s true — but body bags of Russian soldiers who have been killed,” Hadley stressed, not bothering to present any evidence to confirm his statement about Russia’s “invasion” of Ukraine.

“The call to flood Ukraine with weapons not only contrasts sharply with the stated mission of the Institute of Peace, but many scholars believe doing so would provoke more conflict,” Fang remarked, adding that Hadley also urged European governments to boost their military spending substantially.

Although Hadley’s statement sounds downright Orwellian, there is an obvious explanation for his illogical behavior: Stephen Hadley also serves as a highly paid board member of Raytheon, a major American defense contractor.

“Hadley has been a Raytheon board member since 2009 and was paid cash and stock awards worth $290,025 in 2014 alone,” the journalist highlighted, adding that for companies like Raytheon, regional strife and intervention have always been “good for business.”

The conflict in Ukraine is obviously playing into hands of Raytheon and other US defense manufacturers. Remarkably, Raytheon has recently announced that “strong international demand” for its weaponry had resulted in unexpectedly high quarterly revenues, making its shares significantly higher.

Raytheon’s Chief Executive Tom Kennedy elaborated that the international orders reached a record 44 percent of the defense contractor’s backlog at the end of the second quarter, in contrast with 38 percent a year ago.

Citing Raytheon’s chief financial officer Dave Wajsgras, Lee Fang pointed out that European states are increasing their defense spending due to the ongoing turmoil in Ukraine, facilitating the company’s revenues growth.

Curiously enough, it is not the first time the US Institute of Peace has joined the chorus of American hawks and warmongers. Fang pointed out that in the 1980s the institute’s first president, Robert Turner, expressed his active support for the Contras, right-wing insurgents in Nicaragua. The Contras were infamous for using terrorist tactics in their war against the Nicaraguan government, but nevertheless they received financial and military support from Washington.

Today the institute’s neoconservative board members call for the invasion of Middle Eastern countries, particularly Iran, as well as for the deployment of nuclear weapons in Eastern European NATO members — former Warsaw Pact states — in order to confront Russia.

However, arming Ukraine is a very bad idea the journalist noted, citing Stephen Walt, Professor of International Affairs at Harvard University.

“The core problem is that Ukraine’s political alignment is a vital interest for Russia, which is why it intervened in the first place. It is right next door to Russia, which means Moscow both cares more about the outcome and can escalate there much more easily than we can. Doubling down now will intensify and prolong the fighting and get more Ukrainians killed,” Walt stressed, as cited by Lee Fang.

August 7, 2015 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Militarism | , , , | 1 Comment

IAEA Director General’s Appearance Before U.S. Senate a Major Error in Judgment

By William O. Beeman | Dissident Voice | August 6, 2015

This decision by Director General Yukia Amano to appear before the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations to testify on Iran’s nuclear program is regrettable, but it is also not surprising. Amano has been consulting with the U.S. Government on a regular basis ever since his appointment as Director General. This is well documented.

The dramatic change in the language of IAEA reports after Amano took over from Mohammad el-Baradei (whom the U.S. tried to kick out of office until he won the Nobel Peace Prize) shows the direct influence of the United States and Israel trying to indict Iran for nuclear weapons activity. Amano’s directorship resulted in a sudden eruption of meaningless, tortured weasel-word language about “not being able to verify” that Iran was “not” engaging in technology that might lead to military activity. This language contradicted every previous report under previous directors Hans Blix and el-Baradei.

But in the end the IAEA in every report issued under Amano verified that Iran had “not diverted fissile material for any military purpose.”

Amano has simply been a tool of U.S. officials bent on making hostile accusations toward Iran, looking for “expert” evidence to support their specious claims. Specifically, the agency’s tortured language has been twisted by U.S. opponents of an accord with Iran to bolster their claims that Iran was making nuclear weapons–claims that, despite the Amano-influenced IAEA reports — remained utterly unsubstantiated by any evidence anywhere.

It is also noteworthy that Amano expressed confidence that his office could carry out the inspections activities mandated by the accords. Thus he was caught in a bit of a bind–seeming to imply that Iranian activities were suspect and “unable to be verified as peaceful” and at the same time asserting the effectiveness of his agency–and his leadership–in carrying out the inspections. So which is it? Is the IAEA capable or incapable of carrying out its duties under his leadership? Honestly, I think Amano needs to step down. He appears to have lost all credibility as an independent administrator of his agency.

I have no doubt that Amano’s testimony continued the mealy-mouthed, but not-quite-definitive support for attacking the Vienna accords favored by President Obama’s detractors, and those who still want to bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran.

William O. Beeman is a Professor, Department of Anthropology at the University of Minnesota. Visit William’s website.

August 7, 2015 Posted by | Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , , | Leave a comment

Key Jewish Democrats to vote against Iran nuclear agreement


Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer (left) and Representative Eliot Engel
Press TV – August 7, 2015

Two Jewish lawmakers from US President Barack Obama’s Democratic Party have announced their intention to vote against the Iran nuclear agreement, betraying the Obama administration which is fighting hard to save the accord in the Republican-dominated Congress.

Senator Chuck Schumer said on Thursday he would vote against the conclusion of nuclear talks that was reached last month in Vienna between Iran and the P5+1 group — the US, Britain, France, Russia, China, and Germany.

Moments later, Eliot Engel, the ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, also declared to join Obama’s rivals in opposing the nuclear accord.

The US Congress is reviewing the Iran nuclear agreement and is likely to vote on it in September.

“Advocates on both sides have strong cases for their point of view that cannot simply be dismissed,” Schumer said in a statement.

“This has made evaluating the agreement a difficult and deliberate endeavor,” he noted. “I have decided I must oppose the agreement and will vote yes on a motion of disapproval.”

Meanwhile, Engel claimed that Iranians would not uphold their end of the agreement. “I still believe that a negotiated solution is the best course of action. That’s the path I believe we should pursue. But … I regret that I cannot support this deal.”

According to the text of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), Iran will be recognized by the United Nations as a nuclear power and will continue its uranium enrichment program. But some restrictions will be placed on Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for the removal of sanctions against the Islamic Republic.

Most Republicans oppose the nuclear agreement with Iran, but they need a two-thirds vote in both chambers of Congress to override a possible presidential veto, and to reach that threshold, Republicans need Democratic support.

The White House has launched a sales pitch to Congress, which remains skeptical of the nuclear accord with Iran, and has 60 days to vote to either approve or disapprove of it.

The announcements by Schumer and Engel were a blow to Obama, who is striving to save the Iran nuclear agreement in Congress, which is expected to pass a resolution opposing the measure.

August 7, 2015 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, Wars for Israel | , | 2 Comments

School ‘banishes’ 7yo student for saying he doesn’t believe in God – lawsuit

RT | August 5, 2015

A seven-year-old Indiana student was “banished” from sitting with his classmates at lunch after stating that he did not believe in God, according to a lawsuit which claims the school violated the child’s First Amendment rights.

The suit – filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Indiana and obtained by the Washington Post – claims the punishment occurred after the student, named only as AB, told a classmate on the playground that he didn’t go to church and didn’t believe in God.

That child then started to cry, stating that AB had hurt her feelings by saying that he didn’t believe in God.

The girl’s visible distress prompted a playground supervisor to report the incident to AB’s teacher, identified in the suit as Michelle Myer.

In response, Myer told AB that she was “very concerned” about what he had done, and said she was going to contact his mother.

Myer forced the child to sit by himself at lunch for three days, and told him that he shouldn’t talk to the other students because he had offended them.

The lawsuit states that this was distressing to AB, as it implied that he had done something wrong by expressing his personal opinion.

However, according to the suit, the hurt did not end there.

The matter was then sent to “another adult” employed at Forest Park Elementary School. Upon hearing the story, the adult reportedly told AB’s classmate that she should be “happy she has faith” and that she “should not listen to AB’s bad ideas.” She then patted the girl’s hand.

Despite Myer’s claim that she would contact AB’s parent, that phone call never took place. Instead, AB’s mother found out about the incident from her son, who came home from school upset and stating that he was hated by teachers and students at the school.

This prompted his mother to call the assistant principal of the school, demanding that her child not be punished for expressing his religious views. The teacher was also included in the call, during which she confirmed her involvement in the matter.

After the phone call, AB was apparently told by Myer and other teachers that he could believe what he wants to believe.

Following his three days of punishment, AB was allowed to sit with his fellow classmates at lunch. However, the lawsuit stresses that lasting damage has been inflicted on the student.

That damage includes the fact that some students refuse to talk to the child, and that AB is now “anxious and fearful” about school.

In response to the incident, the school district released a statement: “It is clear that it is not the province of a public school to advance or inhibit religious beliefs or practices. Under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, this remains the inviolate province of the individual and the church of his/her choice. The rights of any minority, no matter how small, must be protected.”

Citing the violation of First Amendment rights, the suit is seeking damages and attorneys’ fees. The child’s mother has been allowed to proceed with the lawsuit anonymously, in order to protect her child’s identity.

August 7, 2015 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | 2 Comments

Ex-Argentine President’s Trial Begins for Bombing Cover-Up

teleSUR | August 6, 2015

Victims of the 1994 bombing hope the trial will bring truth and justice, after 21 years of no one being held accountable for the crime.

The trial begins Thursday of former Argentine President Carlos Menem and 12 other state officials for alleged cover-up and involvement in a 1994 attack on a Jewish community center that left 85 people dead.

On July 18, 1994 a bomb ripped through the Argentine Israelite Mutual Association in Buenos Aires, the largest Jewish cultural center in the country.

Despite the gravity of the bombing that shook the nation, and the resulting deaths, the investigation was continuously hindered and no one was ever convicted of the crime.

​Menem and the 12 other officials – who include two former prosecutors, a former top intelligence official, former police officers, a Jewish community leader and a mechanic who owned the truck carrying the explosives – are now facing trial for allegedly derailing the investigation.

If convicted, the sentences will range between three and 15 years.

“After 21 years of no justice, deception and defrauding the families [of victims], we hope that the truth will emerge about everyone who plotted to cover up and derail the investigation,” said Olga Degtiar, whose son was killed in the blast.

The trial is expected to last for months, while prosecutors will try to prove why the former president and the other officials may have wanted to bury the investigation.

The case exploded back into the centre of Argentine political life earlier this year when the prosecutor investigating the case was killed just hours before he was due to present a report to Congress where he was set to accuse the Argentine government of being involved in a cover up.

However the accusations were later definitively thrown out by a high level court and the government has said the allegations are politically motivated.

August 7, 2015 Posted by | Deception, False Flag Terrorism | , | Leave a comment