Outraged at Sean Spencer’s appearance?

If you outraged about Sean Spencers appearance this years’s Emmy Awards then understand that “there [is] nothing whatsoever surprising about any of this, as it is the logical and necessary outcome of the self-serving template of immunity which D.C. elites have erected for themselves.”

So if initiating an aggressive war (which the Nuremberg Tribunal called “the supreme international crime”), instituting an international torture regime (which Ronald Reagan called “an abhorrent practice” that no circumstance can justify), and embracing the full model of presidential lawlessness does not result in ostracization, sanction, or exclusion from polite society, why on earth would anyone expect that Sean Spicer would face any sort of actual recrimination or consequence?

Glen Greenwald, The Intercept

Read the full article here. Highly recommended!

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

The man who saved the world

‘I was just doing my job’: Soviet officer who averted nuclear war dies at age 77

https://www.rt.com/news/403625-nuclear-soviet-officer-died/

Leave a comment

Filed under politics, Quote of the day

Quote of the day

It is no longer unusual to hear leftwing activists turn FBI or CIA apologists, since these agencies became a home for a covert opposition to Trump and the source of many leaks.

Serge Halimi, https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/as-bellicose-as-ever

Leave a comment

Filed under politics, Quote of the day

Sarin lie exposed – Seymour Hersh’s new article

It should be the headlines of all major newspaper but the news is only found on usual suspects: Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporter Seymour Hersh published a new article – arguably his potentially most explosive[1]about the alleged Sarin Gas attack in Khan Sheikhoun last April and US President Donald Trump’s military air strike following it in the German newspaper Die Welt.

Must read! Die Trump’s Read Line.

Hersh convincingly explains that the incident was most likely the result of a weapons depot and storage room hit by aerial bombing as “range of symptoms [are] consistent with the release of a mixture of chemicals […] which can cause neurotoxic effects similar to those of sarin”. But the article also points out that President Trump is “risking triggering a World War III with Russia based upon his own rash decision, over the objections and to the dismay of his own military and intelligence advisers”[2].

Apart that the “Salafists and jihadists got everything they wanted out of their hyped-up Syrian nerve gas ploy”[3], the question remains if the attack – that was praised in all major newspapers – was part of a larger anti-Russian campaign as it portrayed Russian complicity: “How many more children have to die before Russia cares?”[4], asked Ambassador Nikki Haley at the UN a day after the incident and New York Times run an article headlined “White House Accuses Russia of Cover-Up in Syria Chemical Attack”[5].

If Trump was just responding to disturbing emotions ignoring fact-based intelligence reports[6]or if he was blackmailed by some power group that wanted Syria bombed for whatever reason, is one thing. Fact is that the US is acting irresponsible or with a hidden agenda – an agenda most likely not aimed at the benefit of the people in the region.

The alleged world policeman is rather an unpredictable world gangster that should not be trusted.

2 Ibid.

3 Ibid.

5 Ibid.

6 Even if you are deeply moved by dead children and feel an urge to retaliate, no sane person would ignore expert opinion about the perpetrator and just aim bombs at someone that was not responsible. If you want to punish the guilty, you don’t bomb a third-party – not even Trump. The explanation that Trump sent missiles because of some dead children is of little credibility.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

www.macron-watch.org

Of course, we have to support French presidential candidate Emmanuel Marcron against the far-right candidate Marine Le Pen but with the strongest possible emphasis of against. Emmanuel Macron is a thoroughly neo-liberal candidate, endorsed by German Federal Minister of Finance Wolfgang Schäuble, “the high priest of neo-liberal orthodoxy and austerity policy”[1].

Macron stands even more radical than Hollande for the “Third Way” of neo-liberal belief in progress, which has already led the US Democrats and the European Social Democrats to the brink of the abyss.[2]

The slogan «Macron 2017 = Le Pen 2022» contains definitely some truth: The frustrated unemployed, “the angry whites”, those who brought Trump to power, are a consequence of 40 years of neo-liberal agenda. The disenfranchisement of large parts of the population for the financial benefits of a tiny minority (0.1%) is the central reason for this frustration. Continuing on the neo-liberal path means preparing the ground for Le Pen 2022.

There is therefore an inherent danger in voting for Marcon. Meanwhile we have to endorse him against Le Pen, we have to point out at the same time that we reject any neo-liberal policy that will increase the conditions that breed right wing extremism.«Marcron against Le Pen» but with the strongest possible emphasis of against.

To express this standpoint and ensure that it will not be forgotten as soon as Macron is elected, I suggest a dedicated website that will watch every step that Macron is taking. This website, let’s call it “macron-watch.org”, will monitor all of Macron’s decisions scrupulously and immediately call out in case of danger. The site will assess the policy in relation to possible Le Pen empowerment, post articles and send out warnings (tweets). And most important, people, i.e. voters (!), can register to get immediate updates and react with a shitstorm in case Macron goes too far. The platform should be a tool for all those on the left that do oppose neo-liberal policy.

The proposed site allows for the voter to register on the site, vote for Macron and then watch out for the alerts.

Because after election is before election!

***

1 «Hohepriester der neoliberalen Orthodoxie und der Austeritätspolitik», WOZ, https://www.woz.ch/1717/frankreich-vor-der-stichwahl/das-uebel-des-kleineren-uebels

2 Serge Halimi, Le Monde Diplomatique, “Noch radikaler als Hollande steht Macron für den „Dritten Weg“ des neoliberalen Fortschrittsglaubens, der schon die US-Demokraten und die europäischen Sozialdemokraten an den Rand des Abgrunds geführt hat.”, April 2017

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Does Nikki Haley want to speed up Armageddon?

The US seems to be determined to escalate the conflict in Syria. Meanwhile the world is discussing the origin of the gas attack at best, the questions of the true motives receive little focus.

Regime change is the official goal of Nikki Haley, the United States’ ambassador to the United Nations. Fighting ISIS the alleged second. But it is a strange coincidence that the US just bombed the Shayrat Military Airport that is one of the Syrian Air Force’s most important installations in the fight against the Islamic State due to its proximity to the Palmyra and Deir Ezzor fronts.” [AMN] In other words the US is supporting ISIS in order to weaken Syrian President Assad.

Remembering the neocons in the 2006 Lebanon war that had “goosebumps” when hearing about it in Middle East, Nikki Haley might not just be aiming at regime change but at all out chaos to speed up the ‘second coming of Christ’. As Trump badly needs a distraction from his incompetence and failures, a war in the middle east comes in rather handy. As I wrote here, war might be the one thing that can change Trump’s standing in the world and hide his inexorable coming failures. The media celebrates Trump’s illegal air-strike against Syria1 and proclaims that Donald Trump has finally “become president”, even lauding this act of aggression as an emotional act by a man suddenly aware that the world’s problems were now his”2 while ignoring that the same  ‘man of heart’ keeps the borders close to the very children he pretends to care for.

True Christianity

True Christianity demands

  • a humanitarian response towards all the refugees. ALL Syrians have to be allowed to enter the US.
  • helping people – especially children – in the refugee camps in and around Syria. Instead of spending about $300 million to launch an illegal air-strike that only escalates the conflict, use this money where it will benefit children and saves lives.
  • to end arming and training ‘rebel groups’ that only prolong the war and have no prospect of ever bringing peace to region. Even if the so-called rebel groups were successful in regime change, Syria would immediately become another Libya were different fractions fighting each other. The chaos would continue endlessly.
  • respect for international law. International law and the UN is the base to solve conflicts.

 

But with the current US government, we can not expect true Christian values but rather more bloodshed for power.

***

1 The military strike was against international law – a war of aggression – and probably against US law, too.

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

Due process

In a 2002 article, respected linguist and dissident Noam Chomsky asks:

What is the proper response to the crime? Whatever the answer, it must at least satisfy a moral truism: If we propose some principle that is to be applied to antagonists, then we must agree — in fact, strenuously insist — that the principle apply to us as well.

A reaction or response to the chemical weapon incident in Syria a few days ago therefore demands due process, i.e. that international law (and domestic law) is respected. Reacting to a war crime with another war crime would would violate the above principle.

To find an appropriate response, we first have to assess the situation: The origin of the chemical weapon incident has not been proven. It might have been an accident when a stock of chemical weapons was hit. It might have been one of the many terrorist groups (euphemistically called “rebels” in the western media) or even ISIS to evoke a reaction by the US. It might even have been a false flag operationa tactic well known to be used by the US especially since Iraq 2003 but also before (Gulf of Tonkin incident). Therefore, until the origin is proven without any doubts, any military strike is unlawful and against the moral standards of the West.

A military strike against another country is only legal if the UN gives its approval or if a country is in danger and the military action can prevent more violence. In this case, there was no UN approval at all—not even a demand—and the US was in no way in any danger. The military strike against Syria by Donald Trump is therefore a war crime.[1]

Thirdly, a military action should reduce future violence. Often an attack worsen the conflict as in the case of the Balkan wars in the 1999[2]. An action that leads to an entirely predictable attack on the civilian population can not be an appropriate response to an (alleged) war crime. The strike might pressure Assad and lead to increased violence. It could even escalate into a confrontation with Russia. A highly risky action therefore—strategically and as well from the humanitarian perspective.

The way to peace

Let’s have a look at “the grand chess board” of the Middle East: The US wants a regime change in Syria to redraw the borders as John Bolton has expressed[3]. In addition, the there are plans to build a pipeline through Syria that will transport gas to Europe. This pipeline is nothing less than an economic weapon against Russia as it threatens Russia’s income from gas exports. Russia therefore will do anything to prevent a regime change by the US.[4]

The only way to peace is therefore that the US gives up its imperial strategy and stops “arming and training rebel groups” (i.e. supporting terrorism). Then a diplomatic option might have a chance and after a truce, an established peace, a transition period (with Assad in power), free and fair election could take place.

But first and foremost, the US has to give up its imperial aims in the region.

***

1 It is even a war of aggression. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_aggression

2  NATO commander Wesley Clark reported «that on March 6 he had informed Secretary of State Madleine Albright that if NATO proceeded to bomb Serbia, “almost certainly” the Serbs would “attack the civilian population” and NATO would be able to do nothing to prevent that reaction on the ground.», Noam Chomksy, Hegemony or Survival, p. 59

3 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/25/opinion/john-bolton-to-defeat-isis-create-a-sunni-state.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region&region=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region

4 If you look at Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, Russia can morally defend their action to a certain extend as leaving the ground to the US will most likely lead to chaos. Syria would just become another failed state.

2 Comments

Filed under politics