Tuesday, November 17, 2015

BC Supreme Court Quashes Guatemala Tahoe Resources Suit

B.C. Supreme Court Stays Lawsuit against Tahoe Resources, Denies Justice in Canada for Guatemalan Victims

by MiningWatch Canada 


November 17, 2015

Ottawa/Oakland/Tatamagouche - Canadian and US organizations are calling a British Columbia judge’s refusal to hear a lawsuit against Tahoe Resources over violence at its Guatemala mine site wilfully blind to the gravity of the case and the obstacles faced by the victims in bringing a transnational corporation to justice.

Photo: Giles Clarke 

On Monday, November 9th, the BC Supreme Court declined jurisdiction over a civil lawsuit that seven Guatemalan men filed in June 2014 against BC-registered mining company Tahoe Resources for negligence and battery.

Six Guatemalan farmers and one student brought the suit against the company after being shot and injured by the company’s private security during a peaceful demonstration outside the Escobal silver mine in southeastern Guatemala on April 27, 2013.

Daily protests were taking place in response to the Guatemalan government’s approval of the company’s final mine permit and dismissal, without consideration, of over 250 complaints based on local concerns over water contamination and health harms.

British Columbia Supreme Court Justice Laura Gerow ruled the case should be heard in Guatemala, focusing heavily on the procedural costs and inconvenience of bringing the suit in Canada. Justice Gerow’s ruling ignored evidence presented to the court about Tahoe Resources’ quasi-military security strategy at its mine site, which was developed well before April 2013 and involved contracts with groups specialized in counterinsurgency techniques.

“Documentation submitted to the B.C. court provides evidence that Tahoe Resources contracted security companies ready for war, not communities peacefully protesting threats to their water and farms. Justice Gerow gave far too much attention in her ruling to the violence that took place in Guatemala in April 2013 and not enough to how Tahoe Resources’ decisions contributed to or failed to prevent this from occurring,” states Jen Moore for MiningWatch Canada.

In her ruling, Justice Gerow chose to ignore the power imbalances between a transnational mining company and Guatemalan farmers that are almost certain to hinder justice in the Central American country. Notably, she shrugged off the fact that senior Tahoe Resources executives ignored subpoenas earlier this year and in 2014 to appear in a Guatemala court where their mine manager had brought trumped up charges against a community leader.

Those charges were eventually dismissed.


“It is unclear what persuaded the judge to think that the victims could get a fair trial in Guatemala, where mining abuses are so prevalent and so poorly addressed. Guatemala’s impunity rate hovers above 90% for every sort of crime, and an international commission recently unearthed a series of massive corruption scandals that implicated high-level government officials, including a number of judges. Justice has never been served in Guatemala in terms of holding a foreign company to account and it is unclear why Justice Gerow thinks this case would be special,” comments Ellen Moore of the Network in Solidarity with the People of Guatemala.
“Perhaps it is a novel idea in the eyes of the B.C. judiciary to contemplate the connections between a Canadian company and its subsidiaries elsewhere. However, we urgently need B.C. courts to step up given that there are hundreds of mining companies that call Vancouver home, including many that are embroiled in conflicts abroad,” remarks Lisa Rankin from the Maritimes-Guatemala Breaking the Silence Network.

“Justice is supposed to be blind to wealth and power, not turn a blind eye to abuse and impunity,” she concluded.


Source: Maritimes-Guatemala Breaking the Silence Network - MiningWatch Canada - Network in Solidarity with the Peoples of Guatemala

Contacts:
Jen Moore, MiningWatch Canada, jen(at)miningwatch.ca
Megan Whelan, Network in Solidarity with the Peoples of Guatemala (NISGUA), megan(at)nisgua.org
Lisa Rankin, Maritimes-Guatemala Breaking the Silence Network, btscoordinator(at)gmail.com,

Monday, November 16, 2015

Of Friends and Foes: Will Obama Level?

Can Obama Level with the People?

by Robert Parry - Consortium News


November 14, 2015

The atrocities in Paris, killing more than 120 people, have brought forth the usual condemnations against terrorism and expressions of sympathy for the victims, but the larger question is whether this latest shock will finally force Western leaders to address the true root causes of the problem.


President Obama and King Salman Arabia stand 
at attention during the U.S. national anthem as 
the First Lady stands in the background 
with other officials on Jan. 27, 2015, at the 
start of Obama’s State Visit to Saudi Arabia. 
(White House Photo by Pete Souza)

Will President Barack Obama and other leaders finally level with the American people and the world about what the underlying reasons for this madness are? Will Obama explain how U.S. “allies” in the Middle East, such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar, have been fueling this Sunni extremism for years? Will he dare recognize that Israeli repression of the Palestinians is a major contributing factor, too?

On a practical level, will Obama finally release those 28 pages from the congressional 9/11 report that addressed evidence of Saudi support for the hijackers who attacked New York and Washington in 2001?

Does he have the courage to explain how this scourge of Sunni terrorism can be traced back even further to the late 1970s when President Jimmy Carter started a small-scale covert operation in Afghanistan to destabilize a Moscow-backed secular regime in Kabul and that President Ronald Reagan then vastly expanded the program with the help of the Saudis, pouring in a total of $1 billion a year and giving rise to Saudi militant Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda?

Can Obama be convinced that telling hard truths to the American people is not only vital to a democratic Republic in a philosophical way but can have the practical effect of creating crucial public support for rational policies? Will he realize that propaganda schemes or “strategic communications” may be clever short-term tricks to manipulate the American people but they are ultimately counterproductive and dangerous?

Will Obama finally take on Official Washington’s well-entrenched neoconservatives and their “liberal interventionist” junior varsity by challenging their innumerable false narratives? Will he pointedly blame the neocons and the liberal hawks, including those who run the editorial pages of The Washington Post and The New York Times, for the disastrous Iraq War? Will he take on the “deep state” dug in at the big-name think tanks, not just at neocon havens like the American Enterprise Institute but at the center-left Brookings Institution?

Can the President muster the courage to ally himself with the American people, arming them with real information, so they can act like true citizens in a Republic rather than cattle being herded toward the slaughterhouse? Can he shake his own elitism or his fear of social ostracism to somehow become a true leader in his last year in office, rather than a timid follower of the prevailing “group think”?

Just because the “important people” have fancy credentials and went to the “right” schools, doesn’t mean that they have any monopoly on wisdom. Indeed, in my nearly four decades covering Official Washington, these “smart” folks have been wrong a lot more than they have been right. A leader of historic dimensions recognizes that reality and takes on the know-it-alls. In this case, a leader who enlists the American public by giving them reliable information could change this depressing dynamic.

If Obama could muster such courage and show trust in the people, he could bend the prevailing false narratives in the direction of truth and reality. On a practical level, he could help make the current Syrian peace talks succeed by stopping his endless repeating of the neocon/liberal-hawk mantra blaming President Bashar al-Assad for the entire mess and insisting that “Assad must go.” [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Hidden Origins of Syria’s Civil War.”]

Twist Some Arms


Instead, Obama could twist the arms of his Saudi, Qatari and Turkish “friends” to get them to halt their financing and military support for Sunni jihadists associated with Al Qaeda and its various spin-offs, like the Islamic State and al-Nusra Front. And he could work cooperatively with Russian President Vladimir Putin to squeeze concessions out of both the Assad regime and the U.S.-financed “moderate” opposition so a unity government can begin to restore order in Syria and isolate the extremists.

Once some security is achieved, the Syrian people could hold elections to decide their own future and pick their own leaders. That should not be the business of either Obama or Putin.

As part of this effort, Obama could finally release the U.S. intelligence analyses on both jihadist funding and the circumstances surrounding the lethal sarin attack outside Damascus on Aug. 21, 2013, which the Obama administration hastily blamed on Assad’s regime although later evidence pointed toward a likely a provocation by Sunni extremists. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “The Collapsing Syria Sarin Case.”]

To create crucial space for cooperating with Putin, Obama also could let the American people in on the reality about the Ukraine crisis in 2014, which was used by the neocons and liberal hawks to drive a wedge between Obama and Putin. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “What Neocons Want from Ukraine Crisis.”]

U.S. intelligence analysts know a lot about key turning points in that conflict, including the Feb. 20, 2014 sniper attacks, which set the stage for ousting elected President Viktor Yanukovych two days later, and the July 17, 2014 shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, which was used to build an anti-Putin hysteria. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “MH-17: The Dog Still Not Barking.”]

I’m told that these tragedies became propaganda weapons to deploy against Assad, Yanukovych and Putin rather than horrific crimes that deserved serious investigation and accountability. But whatever the ultimate conclusion about who is to blame for these crimes, why has Obama withheld from the American people what U.S. intelligence analysts know about those three incidents?

It was Obama, after all, who talked so much about “transparency” and trusting the American people as a candidate and during his first days in office. But since then, he has conformed to the elitist Orwellian approach of managing our perceptions rather than giving us the facts.

Yet, if Obama could get his cooperation with Putin back on track – recognizing how useful it was in 2013 when Putin helped Obama get Assad to surrender all his chemical weapons and assisted in wresting important concessions from Iran about its nuclear program – then the two powers could also weigh in on securing a peace agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians, another major irritant to peace in the region.

Indeed, it appears that the possibility of Obama and Putin working together to force the Israelis to make meaningful concessions for peace was a factor in the neocon determination to turn an eminently manageable political dispute in Ukraine – over the pace of its integration into Europe without rending its ties to Russia – into the dangerous frontlines of a new Cold War.

The neocons and liberal hawks outmaneuvered Obama who fell in line with the Putin-bashing, all the better to fit within Official Washington’s in-crowd.

Thus, the Syrian crisis was left to fester with Obama acquiescing to neocon/liberal-hawk demands for arming and training “moderate” rebels although the President recognized that the idea was a “fantasy.” He also resisted some of the more extreme ideas, like an outright U.S. military invasion of Syria framed as a humanitarian “safe zone.”

But the Paris tragedy is another reminder that it is well past time for Obama to resurrect his helpful relationship with Putin and restore the teamwork that held such promise toward settling conflicts through negotiations, along the lines of the Iran nuclear deal.

If Obama were to choose that route – which could be implemented through a combination of truth-telling to the American people and pragmatic big-power diplomacy with Russia – he could at least start addressing the underlying causes of the violence tearing apart the Middle East and now spreading into Europe.

Or will Obama’s reaction to the Paris attacks be just more of the same – more tough-guy talk about “resolve,” more “targeted” killings that slaughter many innocents as “collateral damage,” more tolerance of Saudi-Turkish-Qatari support for Sunni militants in Syria and elsewhere, more acceptance of hard-line Israeli repression of the Palestinians, more giving in to neocon/liberal-hawk demands for “regime change” in the neocons’ preferred list of countries?

If the history of the past seven years is any guide, there’s little doubt which direction President Obama will choose. He will go with Official Washington’s flow; he’ll worry about what the editorialists at the Post and Times might think of him; he’ll accommodate the neocons and liberal hawks who remain influential inside his own administration. In short, he’ll continue down the road toward destruction.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com). You also can order Robert Parry’s trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America’s Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer, click here.

BCDNP's Fail on Fracking: Still Not Getting It After All These Years!

BCNDP Convention Shows They Still Don't Get It on LNG

by Rafe Mair - Common Sense Canadian


Political pundits are busy analyzing the recent NDP convention and I can tell you it’s easier to interpret the entrails of a rooster. Conventions organized to look like sunny expressions of the party’s solidarity and readiness for an election usually disguise more than they reveal.

What this NDP clambake tells me is that the party is sick to death of leadership fights and “the devil you know is better than the devil you don’t” – a highly dubious substitute for skill and character.

The good news first


Starting with the good news, the party caucus has done a decent job of exposing government malfeasance, in the health and the email scandals in particular, and demonstrating the general incompetence of the Premier and her cabinet. (Not too tough considering how willingly they do that on their own.)

Unfortunately for the NDP, history tells us that these sorts of issues don’t have “legs”. When it comes to election time, the public has different considerations; from experience they expect government misbehaviour and only want to know what will happen to their pocketbook in the next four years. Election after election has proved that.

It’s also true that parties tend to lose elections rather than win them and the Clark/Coleman government, now old and corrupt, is ready for a rest – a long one. A permanent one, in my view.

Why back LNG?


To take advantage, the Opposition must look like a government in waiting. If, however, as we have just seen in the recent federal election, voters want rid of a government badly enough, they’ll say, “they can hardly be worse than this bunch” and overlook opposition inexperience.

It’s foolish in the extreme for an Opposition to rely on this happening, yet Mr. Horgan, in his keynote speech, said nothing about the environment and showed no inclination to back off the party’s idiotic, wholehearted support for LNG. If this remains NDP policy, it will offer the atrocious Clark/Coleman bunch a lifeline because voters do care about these issues and before you write Premier Photo-op off, remember Mair’s Axiom I: “You don’t have to be a 10 in politics, you can be 3 if your opponent is a 2.”

Whether or not Mr. Horgan realizes it, LNG will be an issue in 2017, much including the proposed Woodfibre LNG plant. The Horgan-led NDP has badly let down those who expect that an Official Opposition will ask some basic questions about controversial and dangerous mega-projects like this one. WLNG is not a NIMBY issue at all but a real and substantial danger to life and limb, not to mention to the environment of this beautiful fjord.

Howe Sound belongs not to those who live near it but to all British Columbia – it’s a jewel in the provincial diadem. Thanks to a lot of volunteers particularly, Howe Sound has nearly recovered from decades of dirty industry; the herring and salmon runs are returning to what they once were, sea mammals, including several types of whales, are back, as are seals, sea lions, and even porpoise. It is incredibly beautiful and unspoiled even though next to a metropolis. I would have thought that not even the most cynical politician would place all this in jeopardy without at least asking a few simple questions of the government. I was obviously wrong.
Woodfibre gets a free ride

There’s the appalling environmental assessment pantomime which the government relied upon to approve WLNG with very significant aspects of the proposal not properly canvassed.

Before getting to the basic environmental questions, I must ask Mr.Horgan why he has never questioned the Clark/Coleman government about the integrity of Woodfibre LNG?

It’s owned, as most now know, by a crook from Indonesia best known for paying a $200+ million fine for evading taxes; for burning down jungles; and brutally evicting people who may be uncomfortably in the way of his plans. He’s not hard to investigate, Mr. Horgan, so why don’t you want to know why the Clark government is involved with this sort of man in an operation of this magnitude?

There’s the question of the plant itself, the pipelines involved, the safety of converting natural gas into LNG, the disposal of waste – especially warm water – the impact on marine life around Squamish, which is becoming increasingly important. All the normal environmental concerns and questions the citizens of Squamish and surrounding areas want answered were sloughed of or ignored by the ersatz environmenal assessment “process”.

Mr. Horgan, why won’t you, as Leader of the Official Opposition, on behalf of all British Columbians but Squamish people especially, carefully examine the Clark/Coleman bunch on these critical issues? Isn’t that your job?

Tanker danger


Then there’s the question of transportation of the LNG by tankers down Howe Sound itself. Here, in a nutshell, is the explosive (sick pun intended) issue.

The Society of International Gas Tankers and Terminal Operators (SIGTTO)* – the acknowledged world authority on LNG issues – has set standards for the LNG tanker trade. SIGTTO’s #1 and overriding criterion is that there is no acceptable probability of a catastrophic LNG release, i.e. the only acceptable probability is ZERO.

On the critical issue of separation, Sandia International Laboratories has defined for the US Department of Energy three hazard zones of 500m, 1600m, 3500m surrounding LNG tankers. The largest, a circle of 3500m radius, centred on the moving ship, represents the minimum safe separation between tanker and people. Other LNG hazard experts say at least 4800m is a more realistic minimum safe separation.

Plainly – and you need only look at the chart – Howe Sound is far too narrow. Surely that in itself must be fatal to the project!

Isn’t the safety of Howe Sound, extending to western West Vancouver, even worth a question to the Premier, Mr. Horgan?

Let’s just sum up what you evidently see as unwarranted whining, Mr. Horgan.

1. The owner of the company we must depend upon for taxes and royalties, plus caring of our delicate environment, is a big-time tax evader with an utterly appalling environmental record.

2. The people of Squamish and surroundings, facing the immediate consequences of any environmental “accidents”, are asked, and arrogantly expected, to accept a phoney environmental process, where the “fix” was in from the start, and which gave Woodfibre LNG the patented Christy Clark corporate whitewash. They would have been more honestly dealt with by a denial of process than by a process reminiscent of a Soviet Show Trial.

3. The most disastrous consequences to be feared are from a tanker mishap, which, mathematically, is not a possibility or even a probability but a certainty – merely a matter of time. This time will clearly be abridged by an utter lack of concern about internationally-recognized rules re: hazard and separation zones yet, Mr. Horgan, you haven’t uttered a peep to the government about this critical issue!
NDP ignores call for help

We’ve asked for NDP help, yet on these issues, of so much concern to so many of your fellow citizens, the Official Opposition, including you and your MLAs – because of your blanket approval of LNG – has been as scarce as a tumbler of Glenfiddich at a temperance meeting.

Is this the care you will show for British Columbians if you become premier?

Yes, the sunny simpleton and her trained seals now running the province must be replaced, but with the likes of you, sir? A man lacking the political or moral courage to help citizens threatened by crooks, environmental rapists, and tanker disasters, as our Premier? A Leader of the Official Opposition who doesn’t understand his duty? A man who imposed a catastrophic LNG policy on his party because he’s afraid of losing a couple of seats where highly destructive and dangerous fracking is prevalent?

God forbid!


BC deserves the Green Party or a new party representing the people of the province, not just cheerleaders led by a political sissy. But time is short, with just a year and a half left for serious contenders to get their asses in gear.

*WLNG claims that because they are members of SIGTTO that their plan is safe. This is corporate bullshit. Membership does not imply let alone confirm compliance and, indeed, anyone reading this can join SIGGTO as an associate member – which is all WLNG is!

Rise of the Postal Savings Bank: A Bank for America's Unbanked

For America's Unbanked: Re-establishing the Postal Savings Bank

by Ralph Nader - CounterPunch

Fact: Tens of millions of Americans do not have a bank account. As a result, many of these Americans spend a reported $89 billion annually in interest and fees by using predatory services such as payday loan and check cashing services.

It’s a perpetuating cycle of poverty in which the poor get poorer just by accessing their own money. Fortunately, there is an ideal solution staring us in the face. An important voice driving the conversation is Professor Mehrsa Baradaran of the University of Georgia Law School. Her excellent new book, How the Other Half Banks: Exclusion, Exploitation and the Threat to Democracy describes how, for decades, big banks have shed their social contract with the American public and transformed themselves into modern monstrosities which serve corporations and the wealthy and exploit or avoid the less affluent members of our society.

Setting the stage with this historical context, Professor Baradaran makes a compelling case for a postal banking system which would greatly benefit millions of struggling “unbanked” Americans.

Predatory payday loan companies and check cashing services soared like hawks in the 1980’s to take advantage of communities where community banks and credit unions were displaced by the creep of large banking institutions. The payday lending industry now has more storefronts than McDonald’s and Starbucks combined. These alternative “fringe banks” charge outrageous interest rates and fees― millions of Americans turn to fringe banks each year, which allows them to bring in $40 billion a year in high-interest loans.

Where are the so-called large conventional banks? They are increasingly closing up shop in low-income areas. According to Bloomberg, from 2008 to 2013: “Banks have shut 1,826 branches…. and 93 percent of closings were in postal codes where the household income is below the national median.” If you are living in a low-income neighborhood, just finding a bank is difficult. In 1993, we released a detailed report offering strong evidence that 49 major mortgage lenders had engaged in racial redlining in violation of federal Fair Lending laws in 16 major U.S. cities. Redlining occurs when banks and other mortgage lenders either exclude minority neighborhoods from their “effective lending territories,” or substantially under-serve such neighborhoods.

The unbanked now pay up to 10 percent of their income just to use the money they have already earned. To put it into real world terms, an American family without a bank account, earning $25,000 a year spends about $2,400 of that income on interest and fees. To put it even more bluntly―that’s more than they spend on food! (This statistic includes the chance of unpredictable financial emergencies in which those in need turn to payday lenders to bail them out at huge interest rates―50% of Americans need to borrow money for emergencies costing over $400.)

In her book, Professor Baradaran gives some real life examples: Tanya Burke, a single mother of two, racked up more than $2,000 of debt in fees and interest by taking out $600 from a payday lender to cover rent and unexpected medical costs for her son. Thelma Fleming, a mother and grandmother, took out a $300 loan to cover costs after losing one of her jobs. Forced to take out other loans to buy herself time, she ended up paying $2,500 over the course of ten months to pay back that initial $300 loan. These stories are far too common in America.

Until the 1970’s and 80’s, usury laws used to be in place to protect consumers by capping the maximum amount of interest that could be levied. Due to financial industry lobbying efforts, many states now have no usury caps (or there are ways around them.) This deregulation gave way to the enormous growth of the payday loan industry.

Another telling example from Professor Baradaran deals with a high wage earner who experiences a different borrowing outcome. “Steven” made some bad investments and could no longer afford his daily expenses. Luckily, he found a “miracle lender” who gave him very generous loans with low interest rates, saving him from financial ruin. “Steven” is, of course, America’s big banks. When the reckless banking industry was in financial duress, it received a sweetheart deal when the American taxpayers bailed it out. Millions of struggling Americans, like Tanya Burke and Thelma Fleming, are not afforded that same luxury―and the banks have not repaid the goodwill forward by respecting their needs.

This brings us to postal banking, which could help break the cycle of madness that keeps millions of Americans in financial quicksand.

From 1911 until 1967, the Postal Savings System offered simple savings accounts to Americans who preferred an alternative to a private bank. It was a successful system until the bank lobby forced its cessation. (In many foreign countries post offices still offer simple savings accounts with no fees and reasonable minimum balance requirements.)

The United States Postal Service (USPS), which unlike the banks has an obligation to serve all communities, has more than enough retail locations to serve all of these under-served consumers. Last year, the office of the USPS inspector general released a report detailing the ways in which postal banking would be beneficial to both the public and the USPS itself, which has been made to endure an unprecedented advanced payment of $103.7 billion by 2016 to cover future health benefits of postal retirees for the next 75 years. No other government or private corporation is required to meet this unreasonable prepayment burden.

While the USPS already offers some financial services such as money orders and international fund transfers, it could expand to include paycheck cashing, pre-paid debit cards, bill payments, ATMs, savings accounts and small dollar loans. The introduction of these services would offer millions of Americans a local, reliable and affordable alternative to managing their finances. With over 30,000 locations, Post Office branches are everywhere in America.

A notable supporter of postal banking is Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), who has been a leading advocate on this issue. Presidential Candidate Bernie Sanders also supports it, recently stating in an interview that “…the postal service, in fact, can play an important role in providing modest types of banking service to folks who need it.”

The time is ripe to implement postal banking. What is needed is a rising rumble from the people focused on Postmaster General Megan Brennan―who has the authority to act now on implementing surcharge free ATMS, payroll check cashing, bill-paying services and electronic money transfers ―and on Congress to allow loans and other new services. For more on the issue and to find out how easy it is to get active and involved, visit The Campaign for Postal Banking.

To listen to Ralph’s in-depth conversation with Professor Mehrsa Baradaran go to ralphnaderradiohour.com.



Ralph Nader is a consumer advocate, lawyer and author of Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us!

France Attack and Refining False Flags

Washington Refines Its False Flag Operations

by Paul Craig Roberts

Washington and its French vassal have refined how they conduct their false flag operations. With the Charlie Hebdo operation, they knew to immediately set the story in stone in order to avoid any questions from the print and TV media and in order to use the set story to take the place of an investigation.

The set story made it unnecessary to explain the mysterious “suicide” of one of the main police investigators while engaged in the investigation of the event. The set story also made it unnecessary to explain why it was necessary to kill rather than capture the alleged perpetrators, or to explain how the French authorities could be so wrong about the alleged get-away-driver but not about the two gunmen. There has been no explanation why the authorities believed there was a get-away-driver, and no such driver has been captured or killed. Indeed, there are many unanswered questions of no interest to any media except the alternative Internet media.

What the US and France learned from the Charlie Hebdo skepticism on the Internet is to keep the story flowing. Charlie Hebdo involved two scenes of violence, and the connection between the two acts of terrorism was vague. This time there were several scenes of violence, and they were better connected in the story.

More importantly, the story was followed quickly by more drama, such as the pursuit of a suspected perpetrator into Belgium, a French bombing attack on the Islamic State, a French aircraft carrier sent to the Middle East, a declaration of war by the French President against ISIL, and speculation that Hollande, pressured by Washington, will invoke NATO’s Article V, which will pull NATO into an invasion of the Islamic State. By superceding each event with a new one, the public’s attention is shifted away from the attack itself and the interests served by the attack. Already the attack itself is old news. The public’s attention has been led elsewhere. How soon will NATO have boots on the ground?

The Western media has avoided many interesting aspects of the Paris attacks. For example, what did the directors of the CIA and French intelligence discuss at their meeting a few days prior to the Paris attacks. Why were fake passports used to identify attackers? Why did the attacks occur on the same day as a multi-site simulation of a terrorist attack involving first responders, police, emergency services and medical personnel? Why has there been no media investigation of the report that French police were blinded by a sophisticated cyber attack on their mobile data tracking system? Does anyone really believe that ISIL has such capability?

The Western media serves merely as an amplifier of the government’s propaganda. Even the non-Western media follows this pattern because of the titillating effect. It is a good story for the media, and it requires no effort.

Initially even the Russian media served to trumphet the set story that rescues the Western political establishment from politial defeat at home and Russian defeat in Syria. But it wasn’t too long before some of the Russian media remembered numerous false stories about a Russian invasion of Ukraine, about Assad’s use of chemical weapons, about US ABMs being placed on Russia’s borders to protect Europe from nonexistant Iranian nuclear ICBMs. And so on.

Russian media began asking questions and received some good answers from Gearoid O Colmain

To understand the Paris attacks, it helps to begin with the question: “What is ISIL?” Apparently, ISIL is a creation of the CIA or some deep-state organization shielded by the CIA’s operations department. ISIL seems to have been used to overthrow Quadaffi in Libya and then sent to overthrow Assad in Syria. One would think that ISIL would be throughly infiltrated by the CIA, Mossad, British and French intelligence. Perhaps ISIL is discovering that it is an independent power and is substituting an agenda of its own for Washington’s, but ISIL still appears to be at least partially dependent on support, active or passive, from Washington.

ISIL is a new group that suddenly appeared. ISIL is portrayed as barbaric knife-wielding fanatics from medieval times. How did such a group so quickly acquire such extensive global capability as to blow a Russian airliner out of Egyptian skies, conduct bombings in Lebanon and Turkey, outwit French intelligence and conduct successful multi-prong attacks in Paris? How come ISIL never attacks Israel?

The next question is: “How does the Paris attack benefit ISIL?” Is it a benefit to ISIL to have Europe’s borders closed, thus halting ISIL’s ability to infiltrate Europe as refugees? Does it help ISIL to provoke French bombing of ISIL positions in the Middle East and to bring upon itself a NATO invasion?

Who does benefit? 


Clearly, the European and American political establishment in so many ways. Establishment political parties in France, Germany, and the UK are in trouble, because they enabled Washington’s Middle East wars that are bringing floods of refugees into Europe. Pegida is rising in Germany, Farage’s Independent Party in the UK, and Marine Le Pen’s National Front in France. Indeed, a recent poll showed Marine Le Pen in the lead as the next president of France.

The Paris attack takes the issue and the initiative away from these dissident political parties. Among the first words out of the mouth of the French president in response to the attack was his declaration that the borders of France are closed. Already Merkel’s political allies in Germany are pushing her government in that direction. “Paris changes everything,” they declare. It certainly saved the European political establishment from defeat and loss of power.

The same result occurred in the US. Outsiders Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders were slaughtering the establishment’s presidential candidates. Trump and Sanders had the momentum. But “Paris changes everything.” Trump and Sanders are now sidelined, out of the news. The momentum is lost. The story has changed. “Paris attacks become focus of 2016 race,” declares CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/16/politics/paris-attacks-isis-2016-reaction/index.html

Also among the early words from the French president, and without any evidence in support, was Hollande’s declaration that the Islamic State had attacked the French nation. Obviously, it is set for Hollande to invoke NATO’s Article V, which would send a NATO invasion force into Syria. This would be Washington’s way of countering the Russian initiative that has saved the Assad government from defeat by the Islamic State. The NATO invasion would overthrow Assad as part of the war against the Islamic State.

The Russian government did not immediately recognize this threat. The Russian government saw in the Paris attack the opportunity to gain Western cooperation in the fight against ISIL. The Russian line has been that we must all fight ISIL together.

The Russian presence, although highly effective, is small in Syria. What does the Russian government do when its policy in Syria is crowded by a NATO invasion?

The only benefactor of the Paris attack is the Western political establishment and Washington’s goal of unseating Assad in Syria. The Paris attack has removed the threat to the French, German, and British political establishments from the National Front, Pegida, and the UK Independence Party. The Paris attack has removed the threat to the US political establishment from Trump and Sanders. The Paris attack has advanced Washington’s goal of removing Assad from power.

The answer to the Roman question, “cui bono,” is clear.

But don’t expect to hear it from the Western media.


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 West and How America Was Lost.

Sunday, November 15, 2015

Who's Counting? Live Fire Hospital Zones in Kunduz and Saada

One Night in Kunduz, One Morning in New York: Two Versions of the U.S. Destruction of a Hospital in Afghanistan

by Laura Gottesdiener  - TomDispatch

 

When people ask me what my new job is like, I tell them that I wake up very early and count the dead.

When I say “very early,” I mean a few minutes after four a.m., as the sky is just softening to the color of faded purple corduroy. By “the dead,” I mostly mean people across the world that my government has killed or helped another nation’s government kill while I was sleeping.

Once I was a freelance reporter, spending weeks or months covering a single story. Today, I’m a news producer at Democracy Now! and, from the moment I arrive at the office, I’m scouring the wire services for the latest casualties from Washington’s war zones.

It’s a disconcerting job for someone used to reporting stories on the ground. As I cull through the headlines -- “Suspected U.S. drone strike kills 4 militants in Pakistan”; “U.S. troops dispatched to Kunduz to help Afghan forces” -- I’ve never felt so close to this country’s various combat zones. And yet I’m thousands of miles away.

Usually, I try to avoid talking about our wars once I leave the office. After all, what do I know? I wasn’t there when the American gunship began firing on that hospital Doctors Without Borders ran in Kunduz, and I didn’t get there afterwards either. Nor was I in Yemen’s Saada province a few weeks later when a Doctors Without Borders health clinic was bombed. 

Tomgram: Laura Gottesdiener, The Angel of Death

Here’s a little thought experiment: imagine that we’re in Kansas (without Toto) and a bridal party in three rented limos is heading down a highway toward a church where a wedding is about to take place. Suddenly, a small out-of-control plane plummets into those limos killing the bride, the mother of the bride, and five of the seven bridesmaids; 15 others are wounded. Bear with me here, if this particular method of wedding slaughter seems a little farfetched. After all, we don’t (yet) have drones armed with Hellfire missiles patrolling American skies that could take out such a caravan.

So all we have is a small plane and seven dead women. Tell me, though, that such a situation wouldn’t make horrified 24/7 headlines and get top TV news billing for days, that the cable news channels wouldn’t be interviewing crisis counselors and wedding planners around the clock, and that they wouldn’t stick with it through the tearful interviews with the bridegroom, who was practically at the altar when his bride-to-be died, and the similarly tearful funerals to come. Who can doubt for a moment that such a story would dominate the news -- as, for instance, happened on October 25th when a woman ploughed her car into a crowd, killing four and injuring 50 at Oklahoma State University's homecoming parade? On the second night of coverage of the story on NBC Nightly News, it still came in well ahead of a breaking news report from Afghanistan and Pakistan: that more than 200 people had just died in an earthquake, including at least 12 girls killed in a panicked flight from their school.

Now, take a moment to think about something you probably never saw on your TV screen. I’m talking about not one but at least eight wedding parties wiped out in whole or in part between December 2001 and December 2013 in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Yemen by U.S. air power, and evidently two more barely a week apart this fall by the U.S.-backed Saudi air force, also in Yemen. In the first of those, two missiles reportedly tore through wedding tents in a village on the Red Sea, killing more than 130 celebrants, including women and children; in the second, a house 60 miles south of Yemen’s capital, Sana'a, “where dozens of people were celebrating,” was hit leaving at least 28 dead. Cumulatively, over the years (by my informal count) close to 450 Iraqis, Afghans, and Yemenis have died in these disasters and many more were wounded. Each of the eviscerated weddings made the news somewhere in our world (or I wouldn’t have noticed), though with rare exceptions they never made the headlines and, of course, never did any of them get anything close to the 24/7 media spotlight we’ve grown so used to; nor, except perhaps at this website, has anyone attended to these disasters as a cumulative, repetitive set of events.

Again, try to imagine the reaction here if multiple wedding parties were being wiped out repetitively, always in more or less the same way. I hardly need tell you what a hullabaloo would result. In this country, even single acts of horror against Americans or by those we officially loathe regularly get such attention, as with the grisly beheadings of the Islamic State. And that is certainly appropriate. Even after all these years, what still seems strange to me, however, is that we -- Washington, the media, the public -- seem so cold-bloodedly unfazed by horrors repetitively committed in our name in distant lands.

All of this came to my mind once again when TomDispatch regular Laura Gottesdiener filed her latest piece and in it I could feel -- and identify with -- her frustration over the attention we regularly don’t give those we kill in our war zones. Tom


One Night in Kunduz, One Morning in New York: 
Two Versions of the U.S. Destruction of a Hospital in Afghanistan 

 

by Laura Gottesdiener


If you live here and don’t listen to Democracy Now!, odds are you didn’t even know that second strike happened. How is it possible, I think to myself, that bombing medical facilities isn’t front-page news? On that gutted clinic in Yemen, however, I can’t tell you much more. I know that the strike was carried out by U.S.-backed, Saudi-led forces, and that it happened only a few days after the Obama administration approved an $11.25 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia. But I don’t know what the air felt like that evening just before the missile hit the maternity ward.

Still, when your job is to chronicle these wars each morning, how can you not say something? How can you not start writing when our wars become all you think about, something you begin to dream about? How can you not respond when you realize, as I did recently, that the longest of them, the (second) U.S. war in Afghanistan, has stretched on for nearly half my life?

All this is my way of telling you that I need to talk to you about Kunduz.

A Calm Night in October


Like any good story, there’s what happened -- and then there’s the version you’re asked to believe. Let’s start with the first one.

On Friday, October 2nd, staff members from the trauma center in Kunduz, Afghanistan, climbed to the roof of that hospital and laid out two large flags with the name of their organization: Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders), the Nobel-Prize-winning medical-humanitarian aid organization best known by its French acronym MSF. This wasn’t something the workers could have done days earlier. The previous Monday, September 28th, Taliban fighters had unexpectedly seized control of the fifth largest city in Afghanistan, as up to 7,000 government troops and police fled. Over the next days, the Afghan government’s efforts to retake the city sparked intense fighting between the Taliban and government troops backed by U.S. Special Operations forces.

As that fighting grew closer to the hospital, stray bullets pierced the ceiling of the intensive care unit and MSF staff were instructed to sleep inside the hospital compound. If any of them left, it was feared, they might be unable to safely return to work the next day.

And there was plenty of work to be done. One hundred wounded patients arrived on Monday -- 36 of them in critical condition. The staff added 18 extra beds. Over the next four days, another 250 patients cycled through the emergency room alone. The building was so overcapacity that staff members put mattresses and pillows in corridors and administrative offices.

Fighter jets could be heard roaring overhead as the U.S. began launching airstrikes in support of the Afghan army’s haphazard efforts to retake the city. Most of the hospital’s staff refrained from even stepping outside.

By Friday, however, the fighting began to recede from the area around the hospital, and staff members felt safer climbing to the roof to spread out the flags in order to ensure that the facility would be identifiable from the air. The organization had also sent the hospital’s GPS coordinates to the U.S. Department of Defense, the Afghan Ministries of Interior and Defense, and the U.S. Army in Kabul four days earlier. The markers were just considered one more level of protection.

The hospital itself couldn’t be missed. Its lights blazed throughout Friday night and into the early hours of Saturday morning as doctors tried to tackle a “backlog of pending surgeries.” Outside the compound’s walls, the rest of the city, home to 270,000 inhabitants, was mostly dark. After a week of fighting, the hospital was one of the few buildings in the area that still had running generators and so the power to light itself. It was a relatively calm night, slightly overcast and unseasonably warm for early October. The sound of gunfire had receded, and some staff members even dared to step outside for the first time in days.

"The Single Deadliest Aircraft"


The explosions began just as staff members were putting patients under anesthesia in the operating room.

At 2:19 a.m., a representative of MSF in Kabul called the American-led NATO mission to Afghanistan to say that the hospital was being bombed. A minute later, an MSF representative called the Red Cross, then the United Nations. From New York, a member of MSF called the Pentagon.

We don’t know what was happening inside the Pentagon that night. We do know that, back in Kunduz, a U.S. AC-130 gunship was circling above the hospital’s main building.

The low-flying AC-130 is equipped with cannons and a 105-mm howitzer. It can fly at speeds of up to 300 miles per hour, but it’s designed, above all, to circle close to the ground while firing at targets below. As an article in the Washington Post explained, “The AC-130 essentially loiters over a target at around 7,000 feet, flying in a circle and firing from weapons ports mounted on the aircraft’s left side.”

The gunship is specially designed for night missions. The plane is equipped with infrared sensors, while its crew of 12 (or so) sport night-vision goggles. Manufactured by Lockheed Martin and Boeing, the older version of the plane, the AC-130H Spectre, cost $110 million apiece, while the newer AC-130U Spooky version goes for $210 million. One Special Operations Air Force captain described the gunship as “the single deadliest aircraft and flying squadron in the war on terrorism.” In 2002, this same type of gunship fired on a wedding party in Afghanistan’s Helmand province, killing more than 40 people.

Versions of the gunship have been in use by the U.S. military since the Vietnam War. An older model, which flew in Operation Desert Storm, the first Gulf War, is now on display at the National Museum of the United States Air Force at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio. It was dubbed Azrael, which in both Hebrew and Arabic means the Angel of Death.

At 2:47 a.m., a representative from MSF in Kabul texted the American-led mission to Afghanistan that one of the Kunduz hospital’s staff members had just died, that many were missing, and that the trauma center was still under repeated fire.

Five minutes later, someone from the mission texted back: “I’m sorry to hear that. I still do not know what happened.”

At this point, the U.S. gunship above had been firing on the hospital’s main building on and off for more than 45 minutes. The strikes were, according to MSF Director of Operations Bart Janssens, very precise. “[The gunship] came four or five times over the hospital, and every time extremely precisely hit with a series of impacts on the main building of the hospital,” he told Reuters.

Surviving staff members recall that the first room to be attacked was the intensive care unit, which then held a number of patients, including two children. The strikes next hit the lab, the emergency room, the X-ray room, the mental health center, and the operating theaters, where two patients were lying on the operating tables. Both were killed.

Everyone capable of fleeing tried to do so: doctors, staff, patients. One man in a wheelchair was killed by flying shrapnel. Some people were on fire as they ran. One staff member was decapitated. As people fled the building, doctors and medical staff were hit by fire from the plane. Some who survived had the impression, from the sound of the plane, that it was following them as they ran.

“A Purpose to Kill and Destroy”


MSF’s hospital had been a fixture in Kunduz since August 2011, the only medical facility in the region. A photo snapped a few months after its opening showed a large sign affixed to the front gate of the compound: “The MSF Trauma Centre will prioritize treatment for war-wounded and other seriously injured persons, without regard to their ethnicity or political affiliations, and determined solely by their medical needs. No fee charged.” Above the text was an image of an automatic rifle surrounded by a red circle with two thick lines through it, indicating the hospital’s and the organization’s strict no-weapons policy in its facilities.

Doctors Without Borders opened the facility two years after it returned to Afghanistan. In 2004, the organization had pulled out of the country after five of its workers were killed in a roadside ambush in Badghis Province. In 2009, the group returned and began supporting a hospital in Kabul. Upon its reentry, Michiel Hofman, then a director of the organization, told the German magazine Der Spiegel that he had been “shocked” to discover normal wartime rules of hospital neutrality didn’t seem to apply in the ongoing conflict. “International forces and police,” he said, “would regularly go into hospitals to harass patients. Hospitals would be attacked. There is a dire record of respecting the neutrality of health structures.”

That same year, a Swedish aid group running a hospital in Wardak Province accused the U.S. Army’s 10th Mountain Division of storming the facility and tying up hospital guards as the troops searched for members of the Taliban.

Nonetheless, the Kunduz hospital operated in relative peace until July 2015, when armed members of a U.S.-backed Afghan Special Operations team raided it, forcing the facility to close temporarily. It soon reopened. By October 2015, the site was under increasingly close surveillance by U.S. Special Operations analysts who, it was later reported, believed there might have been a Pakistani intelligence operative working out of the facility. (MSF officials insist that there were only nine international staff members, none of whom were Pakistani, no less intelligence operatives.)

In the days before the attack, those analysts had put together a cache of information about the hospital -- including maps with the facility circled.

At 2:56 a.m., on the morning of the attack, an MSF representative in Kabul again texted an official of the American-led mission, demanding an end to the strikes, which had lasted nearly an hour. By then, flames had overtaken the main building, with children still trapped inside. Abdul Manar, a caretaker at the hospital, recalled the sound of their cries. “I could hear them screaming for help inside the hospital while it was set ablaze by the bombing,” he told Al Jazeera.

“I’ll do my best,” the official responded. “Praying for you all.”

The strikes nonetheless continued. At 3:10 and 3:14, MSF again called the Pentagon. Finally, sometime around 3:15 a.m., the gunship flew off and the strikes were over.

With the operating rooms destroyed, surviving staff members turned an office desk into a makeshift operating table and attempted to treat a doctor whose leg had been blown off. Lajos Zoltan Jecs, a nurse, helped with the surgery. The doctor, he recalled, died atop that desk. “We did our best,” he wrote later, “but it wasn't enough.”

The staff were in shock. Many were crying. Jecs and others went to check on the damage in the intensive care unit only to find six patients burning in their beds.

In all, 30 people died: 13 staff members, 10 patients, and seven bodies so badly burned that, more than a month later, the remains have not yet been identified.

The hospital closed that same day. About two weeks later, a U.S. tank rammed into the shell of the charred building, possibly destroying evidence of what that AC-130 had done. All told, MSF General Director Christopher Stokes concluded: “The view from inside the hospital is that this attack was conducted with a purpose to kill and destroy. But we don’t know why.”

Another Version of the Story


That’s one version of the story, based on a Doctors Without Borders preliminary report on the destruction of their hospital, released on November 5th, as well as on articles published by Reuters, the Associated Press, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and Al Jazeera, the testimonies of medical staff published by MSF, and a Democracy Now! interview with the executive director of MSF USA.

Here’s the second version of the story, the one we in the United States are meant to believe. It’s far more confusing and lacking in details, but don't worry, it’s much shorter.

On October 3rd, an American AC-130 gunship “mistakenly struck” a hospital run by Doctors Without Borders in Kunduz. The attack was ordered by U.S. Special Operations forces, possibly at the behest of the Afghan army (or maybe not).

Earlier contradictory accounts, all issued within the span of four days, go as follows: (1) it may not have been an American air strike; (2) the U.S. launched airstrikes in the neighborhood of the hospital and the facility was hit by accident; (3) the hospital was hit because American Special Operations forces were under fire near the hospital and called in the strikes in their own defense; (4) the facility was hit because Afghan forces supported by that Special Ops unit “advised that they were taking fire from enemy positions and asked for air support from U.S. forces.”

As the story changed, culpability shifted back and forth. The Afghans, not the Americans, had called in the attack. No, the Afghans never directly called in the attack. The Americans called in the attack from within the U.S. chain of command.

In the end, the bottom line from Washington was: we’re conducting a full investigation and one of these days we’ll get back to you with the details.

This second version of the story (in its many iterations) came from commander of the U.S. mission in Afghanistan General John Campbell, White House spokesperson Josh Earnest, and Pentagon spokesperson Peter Cook. Unnamed sources added some colorful, although unsupported allegations about a Pakistani intelligence agent or armed Taliban fighters being inside the hospital -- despite all evidence to the contrary.

Campbell offered his “deepest condolences.” President Obama called the head of MSF and personally apologized for the “tragic incident.” The Pentagon promised to make “condolence payments” to the families of those killed.

Several investigations into the “incident” were launched by the Pentagon and a joint Afghan-NATO team. However, MSF’s repeated call for an independent investigation by the International Humanitarian Fact-Finding Commission, established under the additional protocols to the Geneva Convention, have been ducked or ignored.

There is, at least, one aspect both accounts agree on: the timing.

It’s undisputed that the attack occurred on October 3, 2015 -- just over nine months after President Obama officially declared the ending of the U.S. combat mission in Afghanistan. 

 

All the Unknown Deaths


In the mornings as I scan the news, I’m often overcome by the absurdity of writing about ongoing wars that have officially ended or a hospital that has been “mistakenly” struck with exceptional precision. The U.S. bombing of that trauma center in Kunduz was indisputably horrific, “one of the worst episodes of civilian casualties in the Afghan war,” as the New York Times described it. But its outrageousness comes, in part, because for once we have enough information to piece the story together since that AC-130 attacked a well-known, prize-winning, Western humanitarian organization.

To my mind, however, the truly disconcerting stories are the ones that arrive at my desk with so little information that it’s almost impossible to say or write anything with certainty. And so I can’t really tell you what happened on August 12th, when “a suspected U.S. drone strike in Yemen... killed five suspected al-Qaida militants,” as the Associated Press reported in the standard language used to obscure attacks for which we, in the United States, have essentially no real information whatsoever.

Who were these five people, I wonder, killed suddenly as they drove along a road somewhere to the east of the city of Mukalla? Statistically speaking, there’s a reasonable likelihood that they were innocent people. As the Intercept recently reported, based on leaked secret documents, 90% of those killed during one recent period in the U.S. drone campaign in Afghanistan were not the sought-after targets. Without being there, however, I can’t tell you who those five Yemeni “militants” were, or what lives they led, or how many children they had, or even whether they were children themselves -- and the odds are that neither can the Pentagon.

Nor can I tell you what happened when the U.S. launched its first drone strike in Syria on August 4th. I remember scouring different news sources over the following mornings for the most basic piece of information: how many people -- if any -- had been killed. That was, after all, what I was doing: waking up early and counting the death toll from America's endless wars.

But in the days and weeks that followed, the Pentagon's spokesman refused to offer specifics of any sort on this strike. It's possible he didn't have any. And so, to this day, even the number of deaths remains unknown.

Laura Gottesdiener is a freelance journalist and a news producer with Democracy Now! The author of A Dream Foreclosed: Black America and the Fight for a Place to Call Home, her writing has appeared in Mother Jones, Al Jazeera, Guernica, Playboy, Rolling Stone, and frequently at TomDispatch.

Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest Dispatch Book, Nick Turse’s Tomorrow’s Battlefield: U.S. Proxy Wars and Secret Ops in Africa, and Tom Engelhardt's latest book, Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World.

Copyright 2015 Laura Gottesdiener

Bald-Faced Land Grab as Soldiers and Settlers Dispossess Farmer and Family

Soldiers, Paramilitary Settlers, Attack Family Picking Olives In Their Own Orchard

by IMEMC and Agencies


November 16, 2015

On Sunday, Israeli soldiers and paramilitary guards of an illegal Israeli colony invaded a Palestinian olive orchard in Beit Ummar town, north of the southern West Bank city of Hebron, attacked the family and forcibly removed them from their own land.

Media spokesperson of the Popular Committee against the Wall and Settlements in Beit Ummar town, Mohammad Ayyad Awad, said paramilitary settlers of the Beit Ayin illegal colony, built on Palestinian lands, and Israeli soldiers, invaded an olive orchard before attacking and removing Hammad Abdul-Hamid Sleibi and his family from their land.

The orchard is located in Wad Abu ar-Reesh, north of Beit Ummar, close to the illegal colony that was built on privately-owned Palestinian lands.

The security guards attacked the Palestinians and chased them while threatening to shoot them with their automatic rifles, while the soldiers fired gas bombs and concussion grenades on the family, forcing them out of their own olive orchard.

On Sunday evening, eight Palestinians, including a cameraman working for France Press, have been injured, by Israeli army fire, after several military vehicles invaded the northern West Bank city of Qalqilia.

Also on Sunday, Palestinian medical sources reported Sunday that a 2-year-old toddler was injured after an Israeli military vehicle struck him in Bir Niabala town, in the Central West Bank district of Ramallah, and that a woman was injured in a similar incident in Ramallah.

In addition, six residents were injured by Israeli army fire after the soldiers invaded al-Baloa’ area in the al-Biereh city, leading to clashes with scores of local youths.

Candles in the Whirlwind: Terror and the Elite Agenda

A Game Worth the Candle: Terror and the Agenda of Our Elites

by Chris Floyd - Empire Burlesque


People see the carnage in Paris, and cry, “When will this end?”

The hard answer is that it is not going to end, not any time soon. We are living through the horrific consequences of decisions and actions taken long ago, as well as those of being taken right now. The currents and movements set in motion by these actions cannot be quelled in an instant — not by wishing, not by hashtags of solidarity or light shows on iconic buildings … and certainly not by more bombing, destruction, repression and lies, which are the main drivers of our present-day hell.

There will be no end to rampant terrorism soon because our leaders are not really interested in quelling terrorism. This is simply not a priority for them. For example, in the past 12 years they have utterly destroyed three largely secular governments (Iraq, Libya and Syria) and turned them into vast spawning grounds for violent sectarianism. They did this despite reports from their own intelligence services and military analysts telling them that the spread of violent extremism would almost certainly be the outcome of their interventions. But for our leaders — both the elected ones and the elites they serve — their geopolitical and macroeconomic agendas outweighed any concerns over these consequences. Put simply, to them, the game was worth the candle. They would press ahead with their agenda, knowing that it would exacerbate extremism and terrorism, but doubtless hoping that these consequences could be contained — or better yet, confined to nations seen as rivals to that agenda, or to remote places and peoples of no worth to our great and good.

Our leaders are not opposed to terrorism, neither as a concept nor as a practical tool. Over the past several decades, our leaders and their allies and puppets around the world have at times openly supported terrorist violence when it suited their aims. The prime example is in Afghanistan, where Jimmy Carter and his Saudi allies began arming and funding violent jihadis BEFORE the Soviet incursion there. In fact, as Carter’s own foreign policy guru, Zbigniew Brzezinski, has openly stated, the United States began supporting Islamist terrorism in Afghanistan precisely in order to draw the Soviet Union into the country. Despite fierce internal opposition in the Kremlin, the Soviets finally took the bait, and sent in troops to save the secular government it was backing from the fundamentalist rebellion.

Ronald Reagan continued and expanded this policy. The same type of men now in charge of ISIS and al Qaeda were welcomed to the Oval Office and praised by Reagan as “the moral equivalent of our founding fathers.” They were given arms, money and training in terrorist tactics by our military and intelligence services. They were given textbooks — prepared, financed and distributed by the US government — to indoctrinate schoolchildren in violent jihad. The creation of this worldwide network of Islamic extremists was aimed at weakening the Soviet Union. This was the overriding geopolitical concern of the time. Any other consequences that might flow from this policy — creating a global infrastructure of sectarian extremism, seeding a radical minority with arms, funds and innumerable contacts and connections with state were considered unimportant. But we are now living with those consequences.

These are not the only examples of course. For instance, the United States supported — and went to war for — the KLA in Kosovo, a group that it had earlier condemned as terrorists for years. The cultish terror group MEK —which not only carried out deadly terrorist attacks in Iran but also murdered American government officials — is now honored and supported by top politicians from both parties in Washington. The United States now calls al Qaeda associates in Syria “moderate rebels” and provides arms to their allies. The United States is deeply involved in Saudi Arabia’s horrific attack on Yemen against the Houthis, who had been bottling up al Qaeda in the country. Now, thanks to US bombs and guidance — and participation in a blockade of Yemen that is driving the country to starvation — al Qaeda is thriving there again. The violent extremists that the West knowingly and openly helped in NATO’s destruction of Libya are now exporting weapons and terrorists throughout Africa and the Middle East.

Again, in almost all of these cases, Western leaders were specifically warned by their own experts that their actions would exacerbate extremism and violence. And again, with this knowledge, they decided that their geopolitical agendas were more important than these consequences. This agenda — maintaining and expanding their political and economic dominance, and preserving the power and privileges that a militarist empire gives to those at the top — was more important than the security and welfare of their own people.

In this, they are as one with the leaders of ISIS and al Qaeda. They too know that the chief victims of their actions will not be the elites of the West but the ordinary Muslims going about their lives in Europe, the Middle East, Africa, India and elsewhere. But their own similar agenda — power, privilege, domination — outweighs any concerns for innocent human lives.

This is the abysmal, despairing tragedy of our times. Our lives, and the lives of our children and descendants, do not really matter to our leaders; certainly not more than the agendas they pursue. And so despite the horrors we’ve seen in the past few weeks — and yes, the bombing of the Russian airliner, the mass murders in Beirut and Baghdad are every bit as horrific and grievous as the attack on Paris — nothing is likely to change. Our leaders are not even beginning to take the steps necessary to even begin addressing the consequences of their morally demented agenda and at last begin the long process of reversing the current of violence and extremism that assails us. Instead, at every turn, they are adding to the flow of death and madness, despite the stark, undeniable evidence of the consequences of their actions.

They say they are at war with terrorism. It’s a lie. They use terrorism and terrorists when it suits their agenda. They say they are “at war” with ISIS, an enemy which they tell us represents an existential threat to human civilization, and whose destruction is now our “highest priority.” It’s a lie. In a real war against such a threat, you would make common cause against the common enemy, even if you find your allies distasteful. Thus the mutually loathing capitalists of the West and communists of the Soviet Union (and elsewhere) made common cause against Nazi Germany.

If we were really “at war” with ISIS, if its military defeat really was an overriding concern, then the West would form a military coalition with Iran, Russia, Turkey, the Syrian government and others to carry out this goal. It is obvious that for the West, the overthrow of the Assad government is far more important than defeating ISIS or bringing the conflict in Syria to an end by diplomatic means.

Instead, our leaders give every indication that they will continue the policies that have brought us to this dark and evil place. With the near-total ignorance and amnesia of our media class, there is little hope that public opinion can be mobilized to insist on a new course. And so, at some point soon, we will see more iconic buildings bathed in the colors of a Western nation (but never one from the Middle East, whose peoples suffer more, by several orders of magnitude, from the decades of extremism fostered by the West). And this will go on, year after year, until we decide that human life, human dignity, human freedom are more important than our leaders’ agendas of greed and domination.

Paris Attacks Blow Beirut Bombing from News Cycle

The Media's Skewed Portrayal of the Bombing in Beirut

by TRNN 

November 13, 2015

Lebanon is holding a national day of mourning following twin bombings for which ISIS has claimed responsibility. On Thursday evening 43 people were killed, and more than 200 wounded, in a southern Beirut neighborhood. This came a day after President Obama said that the U.S. strategy has “contained” the Islamic State, and news that Syrian state forces with the assistance of Hezbollah fighters made advances near the city of Aleppo, pushing out the alleged Saudi and Qatari-backed group Al-Nusra Front.

There is much going on in the region, and our two guests are here to give us more context. Joining us from Beirut, Lebanon is Rania Masri. She's an activist and professor of political ecology in Lebanon. Also joining us is Vijay Prashad. He is a professor of international studies at Trinity College in Connecticut.



Rania Masri and Vijay Prashad say western media's reporting on ISIS bombing in Lebanon deeply racist and accepts ISIS narrative by describing the southern Beirut neighborhood as "Hezbollah bastion"

Saturday, November 14, 2015

Darkness and Light: The Struggle for Peace Continues

Black September Reflections

by Mazin Qumsiyeh - Popular Resistance


And they searched his chest
But could only find his heart
And they searched his heart
And could only find his people
                                                            - Palestinian Poet Mahmud Darwish

My political awareness started out in September 1970 when I was 13 years old. That is the first time I saw my late father cry. My parents had tried t isolate us from the miseries of the world but in this case he could not help it as he watched how politics results in innocent people massacred.

The quarrel between the PLO and the Jordanian monarchy had peaked into a war. Jordanian troops with tanks entered refugee camps killing perhaps thousands (no one knows the number) of Palestinian refugees as they uprooted the PLO armed factions from Jordan. My father still would not talk much politics so I turned to my mother who gave me a brief history lesson much of it personal. For example she told me about her school friend Hayah Balbisi who was murdered with her students in Deir Yassin.

The images on TV of flattened shaggy shantytowns over dead bodies still haunts me. I began to educate myself of things they do not teach us in school about our own history: that British invasion of Palestine September 1918 was a direct result of Zionist lobbies that gave the Balfour and the Jules Cambon declarations 1917 and learned of the British imposition of apartheid through the first Zionist ruler here Herbert Samuels.

In September 1982, it was my turn to cry uncontrollably as I saw images of the massacres at the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila (Israeli paid proxy militias). By September 2001, I had been living and working at Yale University for 1.5 years and I had been in the US for 22 years. In those 1.5 years in Connecticut, we had held over 20 events for Palestine and I had published dozens of letters and opinion articles on Palestine. We were happy we succeeded in pressuring Yasser Arafat not to sign onto the humiliating agreement offered him at Camp David that abrogated the right of Palestinians to return to their homes and lands (I co-founded a group that managed to collect over 800,000 signatures for refugee rights between 1997 to 1999).

We were planning more actions and more events especially in protest of the ongoing massacres committed by the war criminal Ariel Sharon in the occupied Palestinian territories. That was what some people had called the second Intifada 2000-2005 (my book on Popular resistance actually shows it is number 14 or 15). We planned events, held rallies, organized protest and also cared for the injured. We had already brought a girl who was 8 years old who lost her eye to an Israeli rubber-coated steel bullet and gave her a prosthetic eye (Hiam was one of hundreds of children to lose eyes and limbs in 2000-2003). Another girl Marwa Alsharif was coincidentally with us in September 2001.

Marwa Al-Sharif had a bullet in her head which was just removed by neurosurgeon in Hartford and she was recovering (I acted as translator for her and her mother). On 10 September 2001 I was dealing with Zionist back lash and media distortions about the Israeli targeting of these children. On September 4, 2001, the Zionist group CAMERA posted to their members one of our media alerts and added “As you will see, pro-Palestinian activists are very focused and energetic and are using sophisticated and diverse methods to press their case. We can do no less!”

An article by Rhonda L Maacarty and me appeared in Q magazine about the growing role of international solidarity in the struggle for freedom in Palestine. The struggle was plodding along but then it came to the USA in a big way on 11 September 2001. My first message after I recovered from the shock of the news was this sent at 11:30 AM on Tuesday 11 September 2001:

Talking points on the catastrophe

Many have already been contacted by the media for commentary on the attacks in NYC and Washington. Here are possible talking points:

1) This is an awful catastrophe
2) Our first thoughts must be with the victims.
3) We condemn acts of terror in the strongest possible ways.
4) It is important not to jump to conclusions about who or how this was caused and to wait for the situation to be clear.

No need to say anything else.
Mazin Qumsiyeh

I checked on my friends in New York (an area only 40 minutes from our home in Orange, CT) and we held vigils for the victims at Yale (hundreds of victims were also Arab and/or Muslim Americans). I was interviewed at least 10 times in the next few hours. That night was sleepless, as we addressed emails and made phone calls etc. Marwa Al-Sharif and her mother were at the Friday prayers called for by all the mosques in the US after this catastrophic event to pray for the victims and pray for peace.



Marwa and her mother at the mosque after 11 Sept 2001


In the next few weeks I gave over 50 talks dealing with this issue. In these talks and in my writings (including a book I published soon after) I warned that unless the west changes its foreign policy in the Arab world (stop supporting dictatorships like “Saudi Arabia” and the apartheid colonial system in Palestine “the Jewish state of Israel”, that we will have many more black Septembers. I warned of a potential refugee flood much worse.

We even mobilized a roving bus called the “Wheels of Justice Bus Tour” which talked about Palestine and Iraq and the importance of changing policies. We spoke at in 4 years in 48 states of the USA. We protested, we marched, we did civil disobedience etc.

My contract at Yale was not renewed in September 2005 and I left the USA in September 2008 to try and make a bigger difference in Palestine. September 2015, we see more suffering, more refugees, children washing ashore in the Mediterranean. We still cry, we still mourn, but we must still act. It is not enough to tell the callous western leaders “we told you so”. They still make horrible catastrophes. Please act to stop them (e.g. the USA/Saudi collusion to attack Yemen is creating another catastrophe).

Here in Palestine in the past 7 years, I adapted methodologies and changed directions to push for change. I donated much of what I made working at Duke and Yale to Palestine. I was detained, arrested, and harassed but luckily am much better off than 95% of other Palestinians with a conscience.

Now I spend a majority of my time “lighting candle better than cursing the darkness” and “having joyful participation in the sorrows of this world”. I am blessed to be surrounded by good active people, volunteers of all backgrounds and from many countries. Our email colleagues are in the tens of thousands. A luta continua – the struggle continues.

I want to take this opportunity to thank those thousands of you who act for peace and justice. You donate of your time and money but most important you give of yourself.

As the great Kahlil Jubran once wrote:

“You give but little when you give of your possessions. It is when you give of yourself that you truly give. For what are your possessions but things you keep and guard for fear you may need them tomorrow? And tomorrow, what shall tomorrow bring to the overprudent dog burying bones in the trackless sand as he follows the pilgrims to the holy city? And what is fear of need but need itself? Is not dread of thirst when your well is full, the thirst that is unquenchable?

There are those who give little of the much which they have--and they give it for recognition and their hidden desire makes their gifts unwholesome. And there are those who have little and give it all. These are the believers in life and the bounty of life, and their coffer is never empty. There are those who give with joy, and that joy is their reward. And there are those who give with pain, and that pain is their baptism. And there are those who give and know not pain in giving, nor do they seek joy, nor give with mindfulness of virtue; They give as in yonder valley the myrtle breathes its fragrance into space. Through the hands of such as these God speaks, and from behind their eyes He smiles upon the earth.

It is well to give when asked, but it is better to give unasked, through understanding; And to the open-handed the search for one who shall receive is joy greater than giving. And is there aught you would withhold? All you have shall someday be given; Therefore give now, that the season of giving may be yours and not your inheritors'.

You often say, "I would give, but only to the deserving." The trees in your orchard say not so, nor the flocks in your pasture. They give that they may live, for to withhold is to perish. Surely he who is worthy to receive his days and his nights, is worthy of all else from you. And he who has deserved to drink from the ocean of life deserves to fill his cup from your little stream. And what desert greater shall there be, than that which lies in the courage and the confidence, nay the charity, of receiving? And who are you that men should rend their bosom and unveil their pride, that you may see their worth naked and their pride unabashed? See first that you yourself deserve to be a giver, and an instrument of giving.

For in truth it is life that gives unto life while you, who deem yourself a giver, are but a witness.

And you receivers... and you are all receivers... assume no weight of gratitude, lest you lay a yoke upon yourself and upon him who gives. Rather rise together with the giver on his gifts as on wings; For to be over mindful of your debt, is to doubt his generosity who has the freehearted earth for mother, and God for father.”