Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

FARC says killed 8 Colombia soldiers in ‘defensive response’

626c5194-df59-409c-b7fb-35b3ed673ffd

File photo shows militants belonging to the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC).
Press TV – January 14, 2015

The FARC rebel group says it has killed eight army soldiers in a “defensive response” to the recent attacks carried out by the Colombian army.

“As a result of the defensive response, we lament that eight military personnel lost their lives, unnecessarily,” read the statement issued by the guerrilla group on Wednesday, adding, “These are all casualties that could have been avoided if the government had been less small-minded.”

According to the statement, the FARC forces killed the soldiers in retaliation for the Colombian army’s mortar attacks on rebels’ positions in the central province of Meta earlier this week.

The rebel group called on the government to put an end to its “senseless” offensives, “because they could provoke the end of the unilateral ceasefire and disturb the climate of confidence that should prevail at the negotiating table.”

Back on December 20, 2014, the FARC declared a unilateral ceasefire in an alleged attempt to boost the peace talks that have been held in Cuba since two years ago. However, Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos rejected the move, saying the guerrillas’ condition for an international verification of the ceasefire cannot be accepted.

Earlier in the month, the Colombian government and the FARC resumed the latest round of peace talks, suspended in November 2014, over the abduction of an army general.

The peace talks were launched in the Cuban capital of Havana in 2012, aimed at ending a half-a-century-old conflict between the rebels and the US-backed government.

Bogota estimates that 600,000 people have been killed and more than 4.5 million displaced due to the fighting.

The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) is Latin America’s oldest insurgent group and has been fighting the Colombian government since 1964.

January 15, 2015 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Poroshenko the “Civilized”

By HALYNA MOKRUSHYNA | CounterPunch | January 14, 2015

President Petro Poroshenko of Ukraine stated in Paris on January 11 that the Charlie Hebdo tragedy has united all civilized countries. He marched proudly at the front line of the huge crowd of “civilized people” who were expressing their solidarity with freedom of speech against terrorism. Poroshenko’s participation in the march presumably qualifies Ukraine as one of the “civilized countries”. He is outraged by the terrible attack on Western values, in whose name the Ukrainian army is bombing and shelling its own citizens in the Donbas region in the east of the country.

Over 4,800 civilians have died since the Ukrainian government launched an “anti-terroristic operation” against Donbas in April 2014. Donbas did not want a nationalist parliament and nationalist ideology which refuse to Russian-speaking citizens the right to have their language recognized as the second official language of Ukraine. Donbas rejects the anti-Russian and anti-Soviet interpretation of history which the extremist parties making up the majority of the Parliament are imposing on Ukraine. Donbas takes pride in its Soviet past. Donbas is different from the rest of Ukraine first of all in these two features.

It is an industrial region in which 75% of the population considers Russian to be its mother tongue–even though over half of the residents of the region (57%) are ethnic Ukrainians, according to the Ukrainian census of 2001. In Donetsk city, the dominance of Russian language is even higher – 88% versus 11% of people for whom Ukrainian is a mother tongue. The ethnicity of Donetsk’s residents is split roughly evenly – 47% Ukrainian versus 48% Russian.

One of the first steps of the new, right-wing government that seized power in Kyiv in late February of last year largely thanks to nationalistic, paramilitary units of the ‘Euromaidan’ movement, was an attempt to abolish Ukraine’s law on languages. This law, adopted in 2012 in an effort to quell tensions being created by right-wing nationalists, granted the right to use Russian and other minority languages in regions where this minority constitutes at least 10% of the local population. Minority language services would be provided and used in public administration, education and cultural activities. This attempt to abolish the law on languages sent a clear signal to Donbas: the new Ukrainian regime will continue to implement their nationalist agenda. Donbas rebelled.

A series of pro-Russian demonstrations took place in major cities of South- Eastern Ukraine – Odessa, Kharkiv, Mariupol, Donetsk. It was a response to the nationalist discourse coming out of Kyiv. A discourse in which Soviet Union was portrayed as an “occupant” which suppressed the Ukrainian language, Ukrainian culture and a Ukrainian quest for independence. In this discourse, the Soviet Union was an empire, a direct heir of the Russian tsarist imperialism. How were people for whom being Soviet is a significant part of their identity to react to such a discourse?

Donbas people have a strong regional identity, built on the Cossack freemen spirit, proletarian pride, and internationalism. According to a recent poll conducted by the Institute of Sociology of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, residents of Donbas identify themselves as citizens of Ukraine (34%), people of Donbas (27%), residents of a town/city (19%), and former Soviet citizens (14%). To compare, in the rest of the country the national component of self-identification (citizen of Ukraine) is much stronger than in Donbas (60% in the South, 67% in Eastern Ukraine, 70% in the West and 76% in Central Ukraine).

Donbas has been asking for regional autonomy and the recognition of Russian as a second official language of Ukraine since 1994. On March 27, 1994, concomitantly with the elections to the Verkhovna Rada (‘Supreme Council’, or Parliament), a local referendum was held,in Donetsk and Luhansk regions in which the vast majority of people voted in favor of the federalization of Ukraine (decentralization of central government powers), the use of Russian language as a second official language, and Ukraine joining the Commonwealth of Independent States (an association of former Soviet republics led by Russia).

Kyiv has consistently refused to hold a national referendum on these vital issues for Ukraine. According to the Constitution of Ukraine, even the holding of such regional referendums is illegal. All of this supposedly because Ukraine’s political elites were afraid of the “imperialistic” ambitions of Ukraine’s big brother – Russia. Ukraine’s elites preferred to ignore voices coming from Eastern Ukraine.

In 2013, the Communist Party of Ukraine proposed to hold a referendum on the political future of Ukraine—whether to seek closer relations with the European Union or retain close ties to Russia. The party collected more than three million signatures in favor of such a referendum. Then-President Viktor Yanukovych declared such a referendum illegal.

From Kyiv’s perspective, any request by a region to have more administrative and financial autonomy is an encroachment on Ukrainian sovereignty. The word “federalization” provokes panic and fear. Kyiv prefers killing its own citizens instead of negotiating and accommodating.

Kyiv claims that the rebellion in Donbas (Donetsk and Luhansk regions) is purely a product of Russian support. It is said that Russia encouraged anti-Maidan protests, Russian troops are fighting against the Ukrainian army and Russians are destroying the Donbas infrastructure, while at the same time, in some kind of a twisted logic, Russia is acknowledged and condemned for sending one humanitarian convoy after another to help Donbas residents.

It is true that Russia is involved in Donbas. The majority of the population of Donbas has consistently expressed its desire to have closer ties with Russia, not with the European Union. The overwhelming majority of Donbas residents saw in the Euromaidan movement a coup d’état–orchestrated either by the West (51%) or by the opposition (21,5%), according to a poll conducted in October 2014 by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology and the Ilko Kucheriv Democratic Initiative Fund. This perception coincides with the interpretation of the Euromaidan revolution by the majority of citizens of Russia, including President Vladimir Putin.

Russia could not remain indifferent to events, particularly to Kyiv’s decision to seek close military ties with NATO, if not eventual membership of the aggressive military alliance. And volunteers from Russia went to Donbas to defend the people they perceive as their brothers and sisters. As for the regular Russian military fighting in Donbas, no convincing evidence has been presented so far in Ukrainian or Western media. If Russia really decided to send troops, any resulting war would be over in a couple of weeks and the Donbas insurgency would not be complaining about lack of military support from Russia.

As for political and financial support, how is Russia’s defending the rights of Russian-speaking Ukrainians any different from the NATO governments’ involvement in Ukraine? The West spends huge amounts of money supporting NGOs which promote so-called European values. Ukrainian parties, such as UDAR, have direct financial support from the German government and the Conrad Adenauer Foundation. How about the famous visits to Maidan Square of Victoria Nuland, John McCain and other Western politicians declaring openly their support for the political goals of protesters? Is this not interference in a country’s internal affairs? Ah yes, we know the answer–they were supporting Ukrainians in their fight for democracy and human dignity, against the corrupt, kleptomaniac regime of the dictator Yanukovych.

Today, after the “bloody dictator” fled and democracy reigns, why is the new regime in Kyiv fighting a war against its own citizens instead of sitting down at the table of negotiations in a truly democratic spirit? Why is Kyiv still refusing to hear a different opinion? Why is national history being rewritten to suit one nationalist narrative instead of offering a plurality of perspectives? Why is the Ukrainian government imposing a war tax of one and a half per cent on impoverished Ukrainians and waging a nationalist, propaganda war in national and international media, trying to convince Ukrainians they are fighting a war against Russia?

This war has already killed thousands of Ukrainians. Many more thousands of Ukrainian families have been split over the issue of relations with Russia. The economy and infrastructure of Donbas are ruined. Is it better to kill and destroy or take a chance and negotiate? Ukraine is not a mono-ethnic, mono-cultural country. It will never fit into this mold, no matter how hard the current Kyiv regime tries to squeeze Ukraine into it by suppressing dissenting opinions.

Democracy, which Kyiv so much adores and venerates together with the “civilized countries”, as President Poroshenko puts it, is about learning to live with differences, by respecting and accommodating it. I do not see any sign of if coming from Kyiv. Joining a march to commemorate the writers of Charlie Hebdo is not enough to make of Ukraine a democratic country. What Ukraine really needs is a President and a government that listens to all Ukrainians and respects their right to be different. Yes, the majority of Ukrainians want to be part of Europe. But there is also the other Ukraine that wants to keep close ties with Russia. Any political project of state-building in Ukraine will succeed only if this other Ukraine is heard and accommodated.

Halyna Mokrushyna is currently enrolled in the PhD program in Sociology at the University of Ottawa and a part-time professor. She holds a doctorate in linguistics and MA degree in communication. Her academic interests include: transitional justice; collective memory; ethnic studies; dissent movement in Ukraine; history of Ukraine; sociological thought.  Her doctoral project deals with the memory of Stalinist purges in Ukraine. In the summer of 2013 she travelled to Lviv, Kyiv, Kharkiv and Donetsk to conduct her field research. She is currently working on completing her thesis. She can be reached at halouwins@gmail.com.

January 15, 2015 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

N. Korea’s proposal to suspend nuclear tests ‘meaningful and significant’

RT | January 14, 2015

Pyongyang is ready to suspend nuclear tests if the US cancels annual military drills with South Korea, according to North Korea’s deputy ambassador to the UN, who once again reiterated the North’s offer.

“We the government of the DPRK propose to the US to temporarily suspend the joint military exercises which it conducts every year in South Korea. And if this is the case, we will respond by temporarily suspending nuclear tests which the US is concerned about,”An Myong Hun said in New York, as quoted by Inner City Press.

The deputy ambassador was also quick to blame Washington for the “division of the nation,” calling US foreign policy “hostile” towards the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), as every year the US conducts “dangerous military exercises” near the North Korean border.

“For this, the largest scale war exercises undertaken every year in South Korea, jointly by the US and South Korea, must stop immediately,” he said.

The North Korean envoy said it is “very important” to avoid the “danger of war,” as the US continues to permanently station 30,000 troops in South Korea.

Meanwhile, a two-day joint naval drill on South Korea’s east coast started on Tuesday and includes two US destroyers and several South Korean vessels. The USS Mustin and the USS John McCain, each with around 280 sailors on board, are leading the anti-submarine warfare drill. The drill also includes the South Korean destroyer Gwanggaeto, a submarine, anti-submarine aircraft, and two helicopters. The maritime exercise is reportedly aimed at boosting the allies’ readiness to fend off any potential threats from the North, which is believed to have some 70 submarines.

Last Friday, the communist North offered to suspend nuclear tests if Washington agreed to halt this year’s drills.

“The DPRK is ready to take such a responsive step as temporarily suspending the nuclear test over which the US is concerned,” KCNA said.

The US rejected the proposal with State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki replying on Saturday that nuke tests and US-led drills are two separate issues.

“The DPRK statement that inappropriately links routine US-ROK [South Korea] exercises to the possibility of a nuclear test by North Korea is an implicit threat,” Psaki told reporters, calling on the North to “immediately cease all threats, reduce tensions, and take the necessary steps toward denuclearization needed to resume credible negotiations.”

North Korea insisted on Tuesday that the official proposal was made through “appropriate channels” and was “meaningful and significant.”

“By refusing to accept our proposal … the United States has shown once again that they will continue to increase attack military capabilities in South Korea while requesting us not to have our own national defence capabilities,” the envoy said.

Since 2006, North Korea has conducted three separate nuclear tests, the latest in February 2013. It has threatened to hold more tests in response to a United Nations resolution condemning human rights in the country.

January 14, 2015 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

Britain scraps Sellafield nuclear deal

Press TV – January 13, 2015

Britain said on Tuesday that it had scrapped a deal worth $30.2 billion with an international consortium to clean up the Sellafield nuclear facility in Cumbria in the northwest of the country.

The contractors of the project were Amec of Britain, Areva of France and URS, an American company. They have been fired from the job that was delegated to them six years ago after their leader was accused by the government of “delays and exceeding budgets”.

Meanwhile, there are reports that while rising costs have been a major motivation for the decision, among the problems encountered was the accidental shipping of radioactive waste to a landfill, which resulted in a fine of more than $1 million.

Despite the problems, members of parliament hesitated to tear up the contract last year in part because of concerns about the government’s ability to get the decommissioning job done, the Telegraph said.

The government’s Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) will now take ownership of the clean-up.

Energy and Climate Change Secretary Ed Davey described Sellafield as “the biggest and most complex nuclear site in Europe” and said “it’s right that we keep the way it’s being managed under constant review”.

He added that a “strategic partner” would be found from the private sector.

January 13, 2015 Posted by | Corruption, Economics, Environmentalism, Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

Pentagon Refuses to Release Unclassified 1987 Report about Israel’s Nuclear Program and Super Computers

By Noel Brinkerhoff and Danny Biederman | AllGov | January 13, 2105

A think tank researcher has been fighting with the Pentagon to get a 1987 report on Israel’s nuclear program and supercomputers released despite the fact that the document in question is not classified.

Grant Smith, founder of the Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy, Inc., first asked the Department of Defense (DoD) to release the report (“Critical Technology Issues in Israel and NATO Countries”) three years ago through a Freedom of Information Act request.

Last fall, after numerous delays by the DoD, Smith went to court to force the report’s disclosure.

Defense lawyers contend it was necessary for officials to ask Israel to review the report before complying with Smith’s request—an unusual move on the part of a U.S. agency involving an American FOIA issue.

Meanwhile, the judge hearing the FOIA case, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, has wondered why it has taken three years without a decision by the Pentagon.

“I’d like to know what is taking so long for a 386-page document. The document was located some time ago,” Chutkan said in November, according to Courthouse News Service. “I’ve reviewed my share of documents in my career. It should not take that long to review that document and decide what needs to be redacted.”

The report may contain details about an internal debate nearly 30 years ago among U.S. officials about whether Washington should authorize the sale of a Cray supercomputer to a coalition of Israeli universities.

“The United States approved the sale of powerful computers that could boost Israel’s well-known but officially secret A-bomb and missile programs,” wrote the author of a 1995 Risk Report article about the Cray controversy that cited the Pentagon document. “A 1987 Pentagon-sponsored study found that Technion University, one of the schools in the network, was helping design Israel’s nuclear re-entry vehicle. U.S. officials say Technion’s physicists also worked in Israel’s secret weapon complex at Dimona.”

Smith’s effort “to get hold of the Pentagon report is set against the backdrop of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty,” wrote Janet McMahon at Courthouse News Service. “Israel has not signed the treaty. Iran, on the other hand, has signed the treaty.”

The current negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program is part of that backdrop. “The reason this would be seen as controversial is you have this real concerted push for Iran to come clean on its nuclear program and to relinquish its infrastructure,” Foundation for Defense of Democracies VP Jonathan Schanzer told the Washington Examiner. He said he saw “no reason” why the U.S. government would authorize the report’s release, but adding that if it was released, it would probably not affect the Pentagon’s publicly ambiguous stance regarding Israeli nuclear capabilities.

Smith has grown frustrated over the government’s stalling on the issue, saying: “So what we’ve seen most recently is that the government is now coming up with novel ways to try and delay this by talking about mandatory disclosure reviews. We don’t think it’s meaningful that their captive think tank may have signed NDAs. Perhaps they even have a sock puppet in the Pentagon that signs NDAs on their behalf. It would be the same from our perspective.”

To Learn More:

DOD Fights Researcher Over Access to Report on Israel’s Nuclear Needs (by Janet McMahon, Courthouse News Service )

Legal Battle To Publish Unclassified DOD Report On Israeli Nukes Nears End (by Sarah Westwood, Washington Examiner )

January 13, 2015 Posted by | Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Ukraine to participate in 11 NATO war games in 2015

RT | January 12, 2015

The Ukrainian army will take part in 11 international military drills this year to bolster NATO standards in troops. Despite economic crisis, Kiev will still use 5.2 percent of its 2015 budget on the army.

Ukrainian servicemen will appear at seven military drills in Europe, while four maneuvers will be hosted in Ukraine, the Ukrainian defense minister assistant, Viktoria Kushnir, said on Monday.

“These exercises are going to finalize a stage of combat training to boost NATO standards in our troops,” Kushnir said.

The largest drills will be the Ukrainian-US Rapid Trident maneuvers for ground troops and Sea Breeze, a naval exercise in Ukraine. This exercise was held as recently as last September, when NATO dispatched 700 weapons units and 50 vehicles. The US sent 200 servicemen.

Naval Trident Juncture exercises will happen outside Ukraine, said Kushnir.

The Ukrainian Navy will also take part in a number of other drills, with American warships in the Black Sea.

The Ukrainian parliament has to give permission for maneuvers in the country. President Petro Poroshenko is expected to submit a draft to the parliament to get formal approval for this.

Since September, there have been a number of reports saying NATO member states had started supplying non-lethal military aid to Kiev.

There have also been unconfirmed reports of lethal aid being supplied to Ukrainian troops conducting operations against anti-Kiev militia in the east of the country.

In December 2014, President Petro Poroshenko signed a law cancelling the country’s non-bloc status and promised to hold a national referendum on NATO accession in the next 5 to 6 years.

The latest news about NATO supplies to Ukraine came last weekend when a cargo ship with 42 containers, loaded with allegedly non-lethal military supplies, docked at the Ukrainian port of Odessa in the Black Sea.

Also last December, Canada sent a small contingent of its military police to Ukraine to help the Ukrainian government and security forces protect territorial integrity.

READ MORE:

NATO to give Ukraine 15mn euros, lethal and non-lethal military supplies from members

NATO members start supplying weapons to Kiev – Ukrainian Defense Minister

January 12, 2015 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

North Korea suspends nuclear tests if US cancels maneuvers with South

Press TV – January 10, 2015

North Korea says it is ready to suspend its future nuclear tests if the United States calls off its annual joint military drills with South Korea this year.

Pyongyang has called on Washington to contribute to easing tension on the Korean peninsula by scrapping all of this year’s joint military exercises in South Korea “and its vicinity,” North Korea’s KCNA news agency reported on Saturday.

The news agency said the message had been passed to US authorities through “a relevant channel” on Friday.

Pyongyang “is ready to take such a responsive step as temporarily suspending the nuclear test over which the US is concerned,” KCNA said.

North Korea conducted a series of rocket and missile tests last year in response to large-scale military drills South Korean and US forces conduct every year. Pyongyang has repeatedly renounced the exercises as “rehearsals for invasion.”

Last week, South Korea’s Defense Ministry claimed that Pyongyang had probably achieved a “significant” level of technology to miniaturize a nuclear warhead for mounting on a ballistic missile.

Earlier in 2013, North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un, said, “Our nuclear strength is a reliable war deterrent and a guarantee to protect our sovereignty.”

North and South Korea remain technically at war because the 1950-53 Korean War ended in an armistice, not a peace deal.

January 10, 2015 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

France, Islam and Violence: Who Planted the Seeds?

By Robert Fantina | Aletho News | January 8, 2015

This week, France experienced a horrific incident when twelve people, staff members and visitors of a magazine were shot and killed. The world naturally condemns this violent act, mourns the loss of the dead and offers condolences to their loved ones.

That said, it is necessary to put this situation in its proper perspective. The targeted magazine, Charlie Hebdo, has a record of publishing satirical pieces about Islam that Muslims find extremely offensive. This does not, of course, mean that any magazine shouldn’t publish articles that someone might find offensive; doing so would put all magazines out of business. Yet those offended can take legal action against such occurrences. For example, in 2006 the Union of French Islamic Organizations sued Charlie Hebdo, charging racism. Although the executive editor was acquitted of the charge, the lawsuit itself was a reasonable response by the Islamic community.

In 2012, another series of derogatory cartoons appeared in the magazine, shortly after a company in the United States produced an anti-Islam film called ‘Innocence of Muslims’. This movie was met with several protest demonstrations in France, another viable, legal and peaceful response by the Muslim community. Such demonstrations against a variety of movies and issues are commonplace, but France took an unusual turn in response to these; it banned them. “I have issued instructions so that this does not happen again. These protests are forbidden.” So said French Interior Minister Manuel Valls in an interview with France 2 television network.

So Muslims who only want their religion and lifestyle to be accurately portrayed in the media, and who want to protest the twisted lies that are sometimes presented in books, magazines or movies, are denied any public way of doing so. Oh, they can still write letters to the editors of magazines and newspapers, but in any real democracy, they would be able to protest in a manner that would at least begin to approach the level of publicity that the offending item had garnered. Letters to the editor are not the same as movies in theaters.

Let us look a little deeper at the most recent unspeakable act of violence. By all accounts, the men who invaded the offices of Charlie Hebdo were well-trained and well-armed. This was, apparently, not some ragtag group that stole a few guns and shot their way into the office. Evidence suggests that the three men responsible for the shooting recently returned from Syria, where they were fighting with rebel groups there. So where might they have been trained, and who might have financed their training?

It has been widely reported that Syrian rebels have been trained by the United States, the United Kingdom, and France. This is not without historical precedent, and one need look no farther than the U.S. for some examples. During the Russian war against Afghanistan, the U.S. armed and trained the Taliban, looking for some group that could successfully oppose the Soviets. Fast forward two decades, the Taliban is in power in Afghanistan, and this resulted in the longest war in U.S. history, as the U.S. moved to remove the Taliban from power.

Has France been guilty of the same thing? By arming and training fighters, then preventing Muslims from exercising their democratic right to protest, France, perhaps, paved the way for the recent attack on Charlie Hebdo. It provided known radicals with the skills required to kill, and the tools to do so. It fanned the flame of anger by condoning the criticism and mocking of Islam, certainly allowed in any democratic nation, but then prevented Muslims from exercising their democratic right to protest.
None of this justifies the violence that was perpetrated on January 7. But for anyone to imply that this represents Islam, or to consider that France was an innocent bystander, minding its own business when terrorists suddenly invaded, is simply so shortsighted as to be ridiculous.

During the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign, Representative Ron Paul (R- Texas) said that terrorism resulted at least in part from U.S. policies in the Middle East. Former New York City mayor and Republican presidential candidate wannabe Rudy Giuliani was greatly angered by this statement, and said, in response: “They hate us for our freedoms”. According to Mr. Giuliani, repeated bombing of cities, support for the vicious, apartheid regime of Israel, financing the unspeakable suffering of the Palestinians, invading Iraq, sanctioning Iran, etc., all do nothing to spark hatred for the U.S. No, said he, ‘they hate us for our freedoms’.

Might France now have fallen into the same self-created trap? Does France not recognize any part it might have played in this act of terrorism? Does it consider itself at all culpable? Or, in true, U.S. fashion, does it simply say that Muslims are evil people who hate all that is good and just in the world, as represented, of course, by France? So what if Muslims aren’t allowed to protest insults to their religion? What does that have to do with anything?

Terrorism anywhere in the world must be stopped, whether perpetrated by radicals in a magazine office in France, by IDF (Israel Defense Forces) terrorists in Palestine, or U.S. terrorists in Yemen. Yet when terrorism is met by terrorism, looking for any different motivation is counterproductive. When Israel says that it is merely defending itself from rocket fire from Gaza, the constant terrorism that Gazans experience on a daily basis from Israel must not be ignored. When the U.S. is the target of any attack, the indiscriminate killing of men, women and children by bombs dropped by drones must be considered in the motivation. And France, too, is not exempt; its policies may stimulate hatred and hostility, which results in acts of violence.

Goliath can only assault David for so long, before he falls to the inevitable. Any nation, France, the U.S. , Israel or any other, can only discriminate against, assault, torture and kill people for so long before their victims and their victims’ sympathizers say ‘enough’, and take action. The better course would be for these world powers to show genuine, unconditional concern for the basic human rights of everyone on the planet, and act accordingly. Until that happens, such actions as those perpetrated in Paris this week, must be expected.

January 8, 2015 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

THIS IS WHAT WAR DOES

By John Chuckman | Aletho News | January 6, 2015

A Canadian photographer named Bryan Adams (yes, the rock singer) has done something extraordinary in publishing a book of photographs of what war does to soldiers. The wounds of his subjects are not covered with gore as they would be on the battlefield. His pictures are clean studio shots. The subjects sometimes even are smiling. Their wounds are healed, at least as much as such wounds can ever be called healed, but the surrealistic sense of the pictures says something profound about our society. We’ve done these savage things to our own young, and then left them to spend the rest of their lives struggling with the results.

For an institution which quite literally dominates human history, it is remarkable that the real face of war is never seen by most people. The press goes so far in avoiding it that it creates a fantasy picture, in many respects resembling those beautifully done dioramas of lead soldiers in famous battles. It’s the same psychology at work when caskets containing the blasted remains of soldiers are draped with bright, cheery flags. And when war is over, there’s the home town parade with flags and drums and high-stepping baton twirlers in cute little sequined outfights, with no sign of death or gore to be seen.

A few times in my life a bit of the truth has leaked out. During Vietnam, the first major war in the mature television age, the public was exposed to some of it. Not a great deal, mind you, but it was enough to provide governments a harsh warning on the effects such images have upon the public’s support for war.

Fairly early, television showed us Marines dutifully torching the thatched homes of peasants, I’m sure never giving a thought to someone doing the same to Mom and Dad’s farmhouse back in Indiana. But still we never saw a hint of the wholesale slaughters of a war which extinguished three million lives. We saw the distant flashes and puffs of smoke of bombings, including the instantaneous infernos of that hellish stuff, napalm, ripping across a landscape, but never a single frame of the resulting incinerated bodies. No newsreel ever showed close-ups of a village or city after American carpet-bombing by B-52s. We did see the odd distant shot of a prisoner falling from a high-flying helicopter but never the preceding close-up scene of his being hurled out by American Special Forces or intelligence operatives unhappy with his answers to questions.

I recall an American deserter speaking at a public meeting in Toronto of his raping a young Vietnamese woman and then emptying his rifle into her, an atrocity which is reported to have been repeated many times over the years. After all, what do you think happens when young men, often from the most marginal backgrounds, are dumped in a foreign place they cannot understand and often hate, armed with powerful weapons and under no normal restraints? Young men, especially under stress, are capable of almost any savagery, and you do have a responsibility to consider that reality before sending them off to terrorize others.

Early during Vietnam I recall another young man briefly interviewed on television whose face had been turned into a molten-looking mass, perhaps from napalm, his mouth consisting of a hole into which a straw could be inserted. What purpose could possibly be worth that sacrifice? I’m not sure, but I know it wasn’t a dirty colonial war in Vietnam started by cheating and lying to the people who had to fight it.

When Britain went to war in the Falklands, the warning of Vietnam was heeded. All the British people saw were selected, cleaned-up images of another dirty colonial war, images like a stalwart Maggie Thatcher waving off the Falklands fleet, and who on this planet could better play the role of a stern and impressive god of war than Mrs. Thatcher? She gave Winston Churchill himself a run for his money.

I did read of one instance of a dead or dying invading British soldier having been photographed on the beach with bowels torn open and spilled out, but the image was suppressed.

Some very heroic cameramen from the Middle East did obtain shocking images of the savagery of America’s war in Iraq, a war in which cluster bombs were heavily used but also white phosphorus and depleted uranium shells. I recall images of horribly mangled children, burnt smudgy corpses, a woman virtually smashed into the ground, and others, but they were only a small sample of America’s destruction of a million or so souls.

The images were found on not-widely-known sites on the Internet, even Al-Jazeera itself being then not familiar to most Americans. The images never made their way onto the pages of The New York Times or the evening news on NBC where they would have been seen by the millions of ordinary Americans in whose name the atrocities were committed. The American military does appear to have made an effort to target foreign journalists trying to capture some truth, killing the messengers, as it were, in the spirit of vicious boys ripping the wings off butterflies.

There were still other images from Iraq on the Internet, and these came straight from America’s own dear “boys in harm’s way.” There was an Internet site, briefly, which provided young American soldiers with free access to raw pornographic sexual images in return for their submitting raw pornographic war images, as from cell phones and the like. There were reportedly large numbers of takers on the offer, sending in their snaps of things like bloody boots with bits of leg sticking out or of a human head half turned into beef tartar before Pentagon matrons dedicated to decency in war closed the operation down.

America’s horrors at Abu Ghraib were heavily censored. According to America’s best investigative journalist, Seymour Hersh, we saw only the most innocuous images of degrading treatment, the frat-boy pranks with naked humans, dog leashes, and shit. We did not see the hard-core stuff of torture, rape, including of children, and death, pictures which did in fact exist but were suppressed. The stuff from Guantanamo was along the same lines, images of degrading treatment, men in jump suits and chains kneeling in tiny cells – just enough for the folks back home to say “Good, it’s what they deserve,” but not enough to shock or terrify Americans about what was being done in their name.

I recall an image from Israel’s first savage assault on Gaza, one killing several hundred children and more than a thousand others, an image of a narrow street running with a small river of blood and desperate people trying to pass without stepping into it. Such images are rare because Israel allows no one access to document its filthy work. Even after the savagery is over, various organizations and officials generally are refused entry even on humanitarian missions, as is the case today after a second mass murder in Gaza killing even more children than the first.

War is such a time of fearful darkness and chaos that great horrors can be hidden easily under its cover. In Afghanistan, three thousand American prisoners were “disappeared” by one of America’s war lord allies by being taken out in sealed trucks into the desert to suffocate, their bodies then dumped into mass graves. This occurred shortly after American Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld made a shameful Nazi-like public statement that the large numbers of Al Qaeda prisoners being held in Afghanistan should either be killed or walled away for the rest of their lives. This war crime was committed right under the noses of occupying American soldiers and clearly with Mr. Rumsfeld’s secret blessing, and it has never been featured or investigated except by a British documentary film maker.

It is invariably human nature to show others our work, of any kind, when we are proud of what it is that we have done. The great irony of war is that we invariably are ashamed of what we have done, and yet we repeat, some of us, the work again and again.

Another great irony of war is that it is almost never about defending ourselves, although the propaganda never stops telling us that that is what it is about. That is why America uses the term Department of Defense, and Israel calls its army the Israeli Defense Force.

What was America defending in Vietnam, in Cambodia, in Serbia, in Afghanistan, or in Iraq? Only its right to tell others what to do, a right based solely on the concept of might makes right, the slogan of the bully. So too for its many violent and destructive interventions using hired thugs into the affairs of others, whether in Cuba, Chile, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Iran, Syria, Ukraine, or other places.

What does Israel defend in its endless assaults upon its neighbors, none of them remotely capable of seriously threatening Israel much less destroying it, and its ceaseless hectoring for even more war in the region? Again, nothing more than the right to tell others what to do, a right based only on might makes right. And what of its countless assassinations in half a dozen countries, of its interference into the affairs of Egypt, Iran, Syria, Iraq, and other countries?

I notice something in what I’ve written. While I started with war’s effect upon soldiers, almost all my words deal with civilians, and that brings us to the greatest irony of modern war: soldiers are just a tiny part of those killed and brutally injured. It cannot be otherwise with missiles, heavy bombing, and other indiscriminate weapons. Modern war is mass killing of civilians, always and everywhere, a practice which evolved in World War II and has done nothing but progress in that direction since. Even when they aren’t the actual targets, as in America’s nightmarish assassination-by-drone project, large numbers of dead or mangled civilians are the unavoidable consequence. Well, if you’re in for killing mere suspects as in the drone project, I guess extra civilians don’t mean much, do they? “In for penny, in for pound,” as they say.

We’ve even developed special language for the realities of indiscriminate killing. Israel, at the very least, always is said to be killing “militants.” I don’t know about you, but I’ve never met a “militant,” and I doubt I’d be able to recognize one walking down the street. But our clever press instantly recognizes them when they are shot full holes by Israeli soldiers. You see, Israel simply can never be wrong in our press, so if it hasn’t killed terrorists, it has to have killed “militants,” and that’s surely almost as good.

As for the tens of thousands maimed and slaughtered by America’s hideous bombings in many lands, well, they are called, right on the evening news by announcers in pancake makeup with blow-dried hair in momentarily subdued tones just before moving on to the sports scores, “collateral damage.”

January 6, 2015 Posted by | Militarism, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Puerto Rico: After Ten Years, More Cleanup Needed for Vieques

Weekly News Update on the Americas | January 5, 2015

As of Dec. 11 authorities had closed the Playa Grande beach area in the western region of a national wildlife refuge on the Puerto Rican island of Vieques following the discovery of pieces of inactive munitions there. The US Environmental Protection Agency said the US Navy had removed a projectile, a mortar tail and other objects, although officials insisted that the materials didn’t pose any danger to visitors. The munitions are left over from the Navy’s use of Vieques for testing weapons from the 1940s until May 2003, when mass civil disobedience by Vieques residents and their supporters forced the Navy to withdraw. A total of 1,640 arrests were made from 1999 to 2003 as activists carried out militant protests, including a yearlong occupation of the bombing range. Federal judges handed down jail sentences to protesters totaling 26 years, along with fines totaling $50,980 [see Update #692].

Most of the territory used by the Navy was turned over to the US Department of the Interior in 2003, although the Vieques municipal government received a portion. Cleanup operations began in 2004. Over the past 10 years the US has spent about $220 million removing 28,000 objects, including munitions, bombs, other artifacts and residue from explosives. According to Pedro Pierluisi, the US Congress’s resident commissioner in Puerto Rico, Congress members are seeking an additional $17 million for cleanup efforts next year. Puerto Rican governance secretary Víctor Suárez said a delegation of US experts would be visiting to examine the possibility that new technology could be used to accelerate the cleanup effort. (Associated Press 12/11/14; Primera Hora (Guaynabo) 1/2/15)

January 6, 2015 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Turkey, US set to train “moderate” Syria rebels as SNC rules out Moscow talks

Al-Akhbar | January 5, 2015

Turkey and the United States aim to finalize an agreement on equipping and training the so-called “moderate” Syrian rebels this month, a senior Turkish foreign ministry official said Monday.

Meanwhile, Syria’s Turkey-based opposition, the Syrian National Coalition (SNC), ruled out taking part in a Russian-led bid for new talks to end the Syrian conflict.

The training is expected to start in March, simultaneously with similar programs in Jordan and Saudi Arabia, the Turkish official said.

The aim is to train 15,000 Syrian rebels over three years.

“Around 1,500 to 2,000 people are expected to be trained in Turkey (in the first year),” the official said, adding that a “limited number” of US soldiers would come to Turkey to help carry out the training jointly with Turkish colleagues.

The training, which the US says is part of its campaign to battle the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) militants, is planned to take place at a base in the central Turkish city of Kirsehir.

In October of last year, John Allen, a senior US official, said that his country does not expect the Free Syrian Army (FSA) it trains to fight ISIS militants to also take on Syrian Arab Army forces, but sees them as a crucial part of a political solution to end the war.

“There is not going to be a military solution here,” he added.

The FSA is a term used to describe dozens of armed groups fighting the Syrian army to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad but with little or no central command. They have been widely outgunned by Islamist insurgents such as ISIS.

The plans gained momentum in November 2014 when Britain announced it would also make “a significant contribution” to equip and train the so-called “moderate” Syrian opposition to defeat the ISIS group as well as the Syrian army.

Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond said that “the UK is helping the opposition establish security and governance, and to deliver essential services. This includes life-saving search and rescue training, helping Syrians whose homes have been reduced to rubble by the regime’s bombs.

“We are providing non-lethal equipment and the UK expects to make a significant contribution to the US-led Train and Equip program,” Hammond said in the statement, adding that “Assad can play no future role in Syria.”

Meanwhile, Gulf state Qatar, with the help of the US, has already been covertly training the so-called “moderate” Syria rebels to fight the Syrian army and ISIS group as well as other extremist groups for over a year, sources claimed in November.

The camp, south of the capital between Saudi Arabia’s border and Udeid area, the largest US air base in the Middle East, is being used to train the Free Syrian Army (FSA) militants and other so-called “moderate” rebels, the sources said.

Reuters could not independently identify the participants in the program or witness activity inside the base, which lies in a military zone guarded by Qatari special forces and marked on signposts as a restricted area.

But Syrian rebel sources said training in Qatar has included rebels affiliated to the FSA from northern Syria.

The sources said the effort had been running for nearly a year, although it was too small to have a significant impact on the battlefield, and some rebels complained of not being taught advanced techniques.

The training is in line with Qatar’s constant meddling in regional affairs.

Small groups of 12 to 20 militants are identified in Syria and screened by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the sources said.

Once cleared of links with jihadist factions, they travel to Turkey and are then flown to Doha and driven to the base, though it wasn’t clear how the militants are ‘cleared’ of jihadist links.

Rebel fighters have voiced frustration with the US-led approach to fighting ISIS. They say Washington and its Arab allies are too focused on quashing the militant group at the expense of confronting Syrian army, which many rebels still see as the ultimate “enemy.”

ISIS militants have seized large swathes of territory in Syria and around one third of Iraq. They seized Mosul, Iraq’s second-largest city, in June last year.

Turkey has been a reluctant partner in the US-led coalition against the insurgents, refusing a frontline military role despite its 1,200 km (750-mile) border with Iraq and Syria.

But it agreed in principle to train and equip Syrian rebels and is already training Kurdish peshmerga fighters in northern Iraq. Ankara has signalled that it is ready to extend similar assistance to the Iraqi army and send arms.

The US decision to train and equip rebel groups in Syria was criticized by several renowned officials who warned of dire consequences.

Former US Congressman Ron Paul, an outspoken anti-interventionist, denounced in an interview with Russia Today the plans, noting that these Western-backed forces have been “helpful to ISIS.”‬‪

“The FSA turned over the weapons, that we (the US) sent them, to ISIS,” Paul said. “It is pretty well recorded that for $50,000 the FSA turned over one of the two American journalists to ISIS.”‬‪

In an article, Dennis Kucinich quoted historian Alastair Crooke who described “moderate” rebels in Syria as being “rarer than a mythical unicorn,” and warned that “funding Syrian rebels will precipitate a new and wider war in the Middle East.”

“Saudi Arabia, which, with Qatar funded the jihadists in Syria, is now offering to ‘train’ the rebels,” which means that “the sponsors of radical jihadists are going to train ‘moderate’ jihadists,” Kucinich added.

Kucinich also described the US Treasury as becoming the “piggy bank” of ISIS.

“The US has supplied weapons to the Iraqi government and to Syrian rebels which have ended up in the hands of ISIS,” he explained. “As a result, the US Air Force has been bombing Humvees and armored troop carriers purchased with US taxpayer money.”

SNC refuses to take part in Moscow talks

Khaled Khoja, who was elected early on Monday to head the SNC opposition grouping, said Moscow’s proposal was impossible.

“The dialogue with the regime that Moscow is calling for is out of the question,” he said at a news conference in Istanbul, where the Coalition is based.

“We can’t sit at the same table as the regime… except in a negotiating framework intended to achieve a peaceful transition of power and the formation of a transitional body with full powers,” he said.

Russia, a key ally of Assad, has been trying to relaunch peace talks that would include meetings between delegates of the regime and the fractured opposition.

It has invited 28 opposition figures, including members of the tolerated domestic opposition as well as individual coalition members, to Moscow later this month.

Among them are Hadi al-Bahra, whom Khoja succeeded on Monday, and two other previous Coalition chiefs, Moaz al-Khatib and Abdel Basset Sida.

It remains unclear whether the coalition will prohibit its members, who have been invited by Moscow, from attending the talks.

(AFP, Al-Akhbar)

January 5, 2015 Posted by | Militarism, War Crimes | , , , , , | Leave a comment

US plans to deploy armored brigade to Europe ‘pre-date’ Ukraine hostilities

By Robert Bridge | RT | December 31, 2014

By the end of next year, Washington plans to station about 150 tanks and armored vehicles in Europe, according to a US military commander, who said the decision was made before the Ukrainian crisis strained Russia-US relations.

Although no official announcement has been made as to where the armored tanks and vehicles will be stationed, possible locations include Poland, Romania or the Baltic States, Lieutenant-General Ben Hodges, commander of the US Army in Europe, told Reuters.

Hodges confirmed that around 150 pieces of assorted US military armor would be permanently stationed in Europe.

“By the end of … 2015, we will have gotten all the equipment for a heavy brigade, that means three battalions plus a reconnaissance squadron, the artillery headquarters, engineers, and it will stay in Europe,” Hodges said.

“You are talking about 150-ish, maybe 160 M1 tanks, M2 Bradley fighting vehicles, 24 self-propelled Howitzers.”

Hodges, who said he believes renewed hostilities will occur between pro-Kiev and rebel forces in the east of the country, said plans to send an armored brigade to Europe was first proposed two years ago, before the Ukrainian crisis erupted in January 2014.

Russia has firmly rejected Western accusations that it has sponsored military activities in Ukraine.

The move on the part of Washington will certainly provoke a reaction from Moscow, which has just agreed on a new military doctrine that lists the 28-member North Atlantic Treaty, which has been steadily encroaching on Russia’s borders since the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the United States, which has undertaken a series of military offensives deemed unconstitutional even by its own people, as “major foreign threats.”

The doctrine lists among major foreign military threats “the creation and deployment of global strategic anti-ballistic missile systems that undermines the established global stability and balance of power in nuclear missile capabilities, the implementation of the ‘prompt strike’ concept, intent to deploy weapons in space and deployment of strategic conventional precision weapons.”

Hodges said he expected the deployment of US armored vehicles to Europe to continue throughout 2015 and into 2016.

At least one-third of the armored vehicles will be stationed at US military bases in Germany, the US commander said.

The United States, despite recent breakdowns in its relations with its European allies – including a spy scandal that revealed the National Security Agency was tapping the personal mobile phone of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, as well as other high-ranking EU officials – continues to field some 30,000 Army troops on European soil, and about the same number of Air Force, Navy and Marine personnel, Hodges said.

The US commander said he hoped the number of US soldiers and military bases based in Europe – despite budgetary pressures from home – would stay at their current levels.

READ MORE: There to stay: US troops keep Poland, Baltic deployment for 2015

December 31, 2014 Posted by | Illegal Occupation, Militarism | , , , , , , | Leave a comment