“Two centuries ago, a former European colony decided to catch up with Europe. It succeeded so well that the United States of America became a monster, in which the taints, the sickness and the inhumanity of Europe have grown to appalling dimensions.” Frantz Fanon, 1961. (1925-1961.)
Although the US’ entirely illegal attack on Syria’s Shayrat Airbase in response to an alleged chemical weapons attack by the Syrian government, showed not a thought towards Congressional debate, United Nations mandate or the rule of law, it seems that some thought might have gone in to the date.
Not alone was embarking on the action on 6th April – US time – the 100th anniversary of the United States entering World War 1, but in Europe and the Middle East, as the fifty nine Tomahawk Cruise missiles struck on the dawn of 7th April, it was the 61st anniversary of Syria’s independence from France being officially recognized – and of the 2003 fall of Baghdad to the illegal invaders, the US, UK and Poland committing Nuremberg’s “supreme international crime …”
Incidentally, April 7th was also the day Attila the Hun “the scourge of all lands”, sacked the town of Metz and widely slaughtered other cities in Gaul in 451.
A reminder: On 12th September 2013 Syria’s President al-Assad committed to surrender Syria’s chemical weapons, with the caveats that the United States must stop threatening his country and supplying weapons to the terrorists.
On 23rd June 2014 at 11.32 pm., then Secretary of State John Kerry Tweeted:
“Today the last 8% of declared chemical weapons were removed from Syria. Great work done by all involved.”
“We struck a deal where we got 100 percent of the chemical weapons out”, Kerry said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” in July 2014.
Kerry was referring to the deal between the U.S., and Russia in September 2013 in which the Russians agreed to help remove and destroy Syria’s entire chemical weapons stockpile.
“The last of the remaining chemicals identified for removal from Syria were loaded this afternoon aboard the Danish ship Ark Futura”, confirmed Ahmet Üzümcü, Director General of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in June 2014.
However, that said, the chaos that ensued in trying to find countries who would dispose of the weapons hardly augured well for the safety of their disposal or indeed the certainty that quantities were not simply be sold on to terrorist groups. For example sixty containers were:
“ … transferred from a Danish cargo ship to a US ship in the Italian port of Giola Tauro, in Calabria, with further consignments also expected to arrive.”
Amongst numerous crises, the port suffered from allegations of being a:
“major hub for cocaine shipments to Europe by the Calabria-based ‘Ndrangheta mafia.”
Not really the safest place to ship chemical components prized by some very well funded criminals. (See the full story of the mind-bending chaos surrounding the removal by the OPCW at 1.)
As ever, double standards rule. The same article reminds that when it comes to chemical weapons:
“Israel rules the Middle East supreme, its WMD capability intact. This was pointed out by Bob Rigg – former UN weapons inspector in Iraq, former senior editor for the OCPW and former Chair of the New Zealand National Consultative Committee on Disarmament:
“At present, Israel has a monopoly on nuclear weapons in the Middle East. Once the destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons is complete, Israel will enjoy a near regional monopoly over a second weapon of mass destruction – chemical weapons. In addition to Israel, Egypt is the only regional power with a chemical weapons capability.”
The “international community” now led by the Presidential “Agent Orange” in the White House is toweringly selective when it comes to accusations of weapons of mass destruction. For example, in 2009, Human Rights Watch, in a shocking, detailed seventy one page document (2) reported that:
“Israel’s repeated firing of white phosphorus shells over densely populated areas of Gaza during its recent military campaign was indiscriminate and is evidence of war crimes
“Human Rights Watch researchers in Gaza immediately after hostilities ended found spent shells, canister liners, and dozens of burnt felt wedges containing white phosphorus on city streets, apartment roofs, residential courtyards, and at a United Nations school. The report also presents ballistics evidence, photographs, and satellite imagery, as well as documents from the Israeli military and government.”
No Cruise missiles were fired at Israel, no worldwide condemnation at an apocalyptic assault on a tiny, illegally fragmented part of Palestine with no army, navy or air force. How selective the US and friends are in their murderous, righteous indignation.
Trump is shortly to embark on a State visit to Israel.
Syria, of course is one of seven countries (Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Libya, Sudan, Iran and Yemen) that General Wesley Clark was told by a Pentagon pal shortly after 9/11, “was going to be taken out.”
Trump has followed his warmongering predecessors declaring himself Judge, jury and executioner within 48 hours of the chemical release, with apparently no thought as to who might have been storing lethal substances in an area entirely controlled by the “moderate” Western backed organ eaters, head choppers and child executioners.
International law, the UN Charter, diplomacy has been damned, ditched and shredded by yet another self appointed “leader of the free world.” The attack on Syria another US illegal assault on a sovereign nation.
On the following Monday night (10th April) sabre rattling US Defence Secretary James Mattis, warned the Syrian government it would be:
“ill-advised ever again to use chemical weapons …”, still without a shred of reliable evidence that Syria was involved.
What there is evidence of is that the US indeed used both chemical and radiological weapons – fifty nine times – in their attack. Tomahawk Cruise missiles used in the attack are thought to contain Depleted Uranium (3, pdf.) “Toxicity of DU is both chemical and radiological …” states that International Atomic Energy Agency Document.
In addition to the fifty nine Tomahawks, the US has been using DU weapons in Iraq since 1991 and eventually admitted to using them in Syria in 2015, though in spite of it being the US weapon of choice no figures for use in Syria in other years have been forthcoming.
US Central Command has acknowledged that DU was fired on two dates – the 18th and 23rd November 2015 … 5,100 rounds of 30 mm DU ammunition were used by A-10 Thunderbolt II aircraft. This equates to 1,524 kg of DU. (International Commission to Ban Uranium Weapons, Oct. 21, 2016) Emphasis added.
Here again, lest forgotten, quotes from the US Army itself regarding the terrifying legacy of DU:
“No available technology can significantly change the inherent chemical and radiological toxicity of DU. These are intrinsic properties of uranium.” (US Army Environmental Policy Institute, Health and Environmental Consequences of Depleted Uranium Use in the US Army, June 1995, p.xxii.)
“DU is a … radioactive waste and therefore, must be deposited in a licensed repository.” Same source, p 154. Note: “ … a licensed depository.” Not on a school, home, street, farm, Mosque, church, university, hospital, village, town or city. “Short term effects of high doses can result in death, while long term effects of low doses have been implicated in cancer.” (Kinetic Energy Penetrator Long Term Study, Danesi, 1991.) Emphasis mine.
So let’s have no more self righteous nonsense over something entirely unproven the Syrian government are being accused of when the US itself has been using chemical and radiological weapons for twenty five years, it’s own Army manuals warning of the dangers. The soaring cancers and birth defects linked to the use of DU in Iraq and where ever else they have been used – mirrored in US servicemen, women and families are chilling proof of the voracity of the warnings. DU has a half-life of 4.5 Billion years. Its use condemns and curses the not yet even conceived – until the end of time.
In 2008 the European Parliament called for a global ban on DU weapons and a moratorium on their use. In a Resolution which:
“strongly reiterates its call on all EU Member States and NATO countries to impose a moratorium on the use of depleted uranium weapons and to redouble efforts towards a global ban.”
The resolution was adopted with 491votes in favour, 18 against and 12 abstentions. (European Parliament external link May 22, 2008)
In March 2007 the Belgium Parliament had voted unanimously to ban DU weapons in a law prohibiting:
“the manufacture, use, storage, sale, acquisition, supply and transit of inert munitions and armour that contain depleted uranium or any other industrially manufactured uranium.” (Belgian Coalition ‘Stop Uranium Weapons’, 22nd March 2007.)
In June 2009, Belgium became the first country to prevent the flow of money to producers of uranium weapons anywhere, the law requiring that:
“ … financial institutions … must bring their investment in large weapon producers such as Alliant Techsystems (US), BAE Systems (UK) and General Dynamics (US) to an end.”
Donald Trump, thus had a chance to turn a new leaf as new President, make good his promises on avoiding foreign interventions with concrete initiatives already in place to endorse and build on.
On January 26, 2017, British Prime Minister May during her visit to President Trump in Washington made the following statement:
“The days of Britain and America intervening in sovereign countries in an attempt to remake the world in our own image are over.”
Yet the UK government immediately supported the shameful radioactive and chemically toxic bombardment of Syria.
Further, it was widely reported that thirty six of the Cruise missiles are unaccounted for, where did they land, who did they kill, or are they lying at the bottom of the Mediterranean decaying, to poison it’s waters and life for all time?
“Even beautiful babies were cruelly murdered in this very barbaric attack. No child of God should ever suffer such horror”, said Trump of the alleged attack in Syria, with no proof of who was responsible, but abundant proof that the us backed terrorists had access to dangerous chemicals.
However, as Chris Ernesto writes with heart searing instances (4):
“In the first three months of his Presidency, Trump has dropped bombs – and killed children (and beautiful babies) – in Yemen, Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq.”
However, in a nauseating irony, exposed by the Palmer Report, Trump allegedly may have profited from the deaths he caused. (5):
“Tomahawk missiles are manufactured by Raytheon Inc., and according to this report from Business Insider (link), Donald Trump owned stock in Raytheon up through at least the start of the presidential election cycle. There is no record that he subsequently sold that stock.
“The Tomahawks that Trump just burned up will have to be replaced, meaning he just handed a nearly hundred million dollar payday to a company he owns stock in. Not surprisingly, shares of Raytheon spiked today (link), meaning he’s directly profiting from his Syria attack.”
The shares were, within hours, recorded as up by 2.1%.
In a further twist in integrity ditching, The Washington Post had writer Ed Rogers:
“… to push for and praise military action against Syria without disclosing that he’s a lobbyist for defense contractor Raytheon …”
‘In the piece headlined “Could it be? Is President Trump on a roll?” Rogers wrote that Trump “received bipartisan support for his military strike in Syria …” ‘
“The Post did not disclose that Rogers and his firm, BGR Group, lobbies on behalf of Raytheon … Rogers is listed as a (BGR) lobbyist. BGR is one of the country’s largest lobbying firms, taking in nearly $17 million in reported lobbying income last year.”
So much for “draining the swamp.”
President Trump: Toss Your Generals’ War Escalation Plans in the Trash
By the end of this month, Defense Secretary James Mattis and National Security Advisor HR McMaster will deliver to President Trump their plans for military escalations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. President Trump would be wise to rip the plans up and send his national security team back to the drawing board – or replace them. There is no way another “surge” in Afghanistan and Iraq (plus a new one in Syria) puts America first. There is no way doing the same thing over again will succeed any better than it did the last time.
Near the tenth anniversary of the US war on Afghanistan – seven years ago – I went to the Floor of Congress to point out that the war makes no sense. The original authorization had little to do with eliminating the Taliban. It was a resolution to retaliate against those who attacked the United States on September 11, 2001. From what we know now, the government of Saudi Arabia had far more to do with the financing and planning of 9/11 than did the Taliban. But we’re still pumping money into that lost cause. We are still killing Afghanis and in so doing creating the next generation of terrorists.
The war against ISIS will not end with its defeat in Mosul and Raqqa. We will not pack up and go home. Instead, the Pentagon and State Department have both said that US troops would remain in Iraq after ISIS is defeated. The continued presence of US troops in Iraq will provide all the recruiting needed for more ISIS or ISIS-like resistance groups to arise, which will in turn lead to a permanent US occupation of Iraq. The US “experts” have completely misdiagnosed the problem so it no surprise that their solutions will not work. They have claimed that al-Qaeda and ISIS arose in Iraq because we left, when actually they arose because we invaded in the first place.
General David Petraeus is said to have a lot of influence over HR McMaster, and in Syria he is pushing for the kind of US troop “surge” that he still believes was successful in Iraq. The two are said to favor thousands of US troops to fight ISIS in eastern Syria instead of relying on the US-sponsored and Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces to do the job. This “surge” into Syria would also lead to a lengthy US occupation of a large part of that country, as it is unlikely that the US would return the territory to the Syrian government. Would it remain an outpost of armed rebels that could be unleashed on Assad at the US President’s will? It’s hard to know from week to week whether “regime change” in Syria is a US priority or not. But we do know that a long-term US occupation of half of Syria would be illegal, dangerous, and enormously expensive.
President Trump’s Generals all seem to be pushing for a major US military escalation in the Middle East and south Asia. The President goes back and forth, one minute saying “we’re not going into Syria,” while the next seeming to favor another surge. He has given the military much decision-making latitude and may be persuaded by his Generals that the only solution is to go in big. If he follows such advice, it is likely his presidency itself will be buried in that graveyard of empires.
Rex Tillerson trivializes the US-Russia geopolitical freeze
… from Russia Today, Moscow
[ Editor’s Note: This is one of these strange smoke-blowing exercises that we get way too often in the sheep’s clothing of pretending to be filling the public in on US policy, when it is just the opposite. Tillerson starts out with the incredibly cheap shot of stating the obvious, that there is no magic reset button for US-Russian relations.
Then he moves on to what his real goal is here, framing Russia for the “level of trust” gulf that currently exists, and even used the end of the Cold War as an anchor. Dear Mr. Secretary, you bombed out big time on this attempt.
It is not Russia that reneged on the deal with NATO to not attempt to pull the new independent East European states back into the old Soviet orbit on the condition that NATO would not encircle Russia. It was the US and its NATO partners who did this, starting when Russia was financially and militarily in a wrecked condition after having been looted by a marriage of Western deep state gangsters, Jewish-Russian oligarchs, and Israel, when Russia was not a threat to anyone. I am sure you remember this all clearly.
It is not Russia that later began ringing Western Europe and the US with 700+ military bases, and putting advanced missile defense systems in Canada, Mexico and the Bahamas. It is the US that did this to Russia, or I should say once again, the deep state gangsters that run that behind-the-scenes show, who are the real threat that can clearly be seen in retrospect, if anyone wants to.
And then Tillerson saves the worst for last, a flip-flop, claiming it is conclusive that the Russians had influenced the last election, and certainly not to help Hillary win, when no one has yet to put any proof on the table. Trump himself has attacked all, including the newly fired Comey, for not having publicly stated that “no proof” position, despite the FBI not having finished its investigation. You just can’t make this stuff up.
Dear Mr. Tillerson, You desperately need some new public relations people. But just in case I am wrong, please forward along the “proof” you have of Russian interference in the election, and for comparison, send me a list of elections that the US has interfered with over the last 40 years so I can do a comparison and announce who the winner of that contest is. I will chip in and pay for a ream of copy paper for you. I think 500 sheets should be enough.
After all sir, we do want the public to know what the truth is so they can take corrective action to throw out any crooks that we might have, who have been able to infiltrate our government so they can serve some various private interests. VT will publish your proof right away. You will be famous, but I must warn you that Donald may not like that… Jim W. Dean ]
This includes research, needed field trips, Heritage TV Legacy archiving, and more – Thanks for helping out
– Published … May 15, 2017 –
Another “reset” in relations between the US and Russia is impossible as the two countries cannot just forget all their differences and move on at a time when relations are at a historic low, the US State Secretary Rex Tillerson told NBC.
The US and Russia have to take into consideration all their differences as well as all problems that exist in their bilateral relations and openly discuss them if they genuinely want to improve their relationship, Tillerson told the NBC’s Meet the Press Sunday show.
He went on to say that the political will to start another “reset” is, anyway, not enough to mend bilateral relations between Russia and the US. He said the current US administration prefers another approach.
“I think terms like having a reset are overused. You cannot reset. You cannot erase the past. You cannot start with a clean slate. And we’re not trying to start with a clean slate,” Tillerson bluntly stated.
“We’re starting with the slate we have. And all the problems that are on that slate. We don’t dismiss any of them. We don’t give anyone a free pass on any of them. They’re part of the entire nature of the discussion we’re having with the Russians,” he added.
He said the US should not focus on the problems it has in relations with Russia, but rather on the idea of improving the very same relations, because the current level of trust between the two nations is already so low that it hurts the interests of both Russia and the US.
“The relationship with Russia… is, I think, at an all-time low point since the end of the Cold War, with a very low level of trust,” the US Secretary of State said, adding, that it is “in the interest of the American people, it is in the interest of Russia [and] the rest of the world, that we do something to improve the relationship between the two greatest nuclear powers in the world.”
He went on to say that other world leaders, particularly those in Europe, also support the idea of warming relations between the US and Russia which are currently “largely viewed [as]… not healthy for the world.”
“It’s certainly not healthy for us, for the American people, our national security interest and otherwise, for this relationship to remain at this low level,” Tillerson said.
He conceded that it would “take some time” and “a lot of hard work” to “put us on a better footing in our relationship with Russia.” President Donald Trump is “committed to at least make an effort in that regard,” he said.
Tillerson then moved onto more familiar territory, saying he was absolutely sure that Russia interfered in the US elections, without providing a single piece of new evidence that could support such claims, only citing the ‘intelligence reports’ once again.
“I don’t think there’s any question that the Russians were playing around in our electoral processes,” he said, adding, that it is one of the “important issues that have to be addressed in the US-Russian relationship.”
“I think it’s been well documented, it’s pretty well understood, the nature of that interference, here and elsewhere,” Tillerson said.
He said it is “not new tactics on the part of the Russian government, directed not only at us but at others,” apparently referring to claims made earlier by some European officials, including those in France and Germany.
However, Tillerson expressed doubts about whether that alleged interference had had any real impact on the election result. He said the only real effect of this meddling was that it “yet again [undermined] trust between the United States and Russia.”
He also urged the US media and politicians not to focus solely on this issue in the US-Russian dynamic. Tillerson said “we have to look at this relationship in its broadest contours, and there are many, many important areas which require our attention if we are to bring it back to a relationship that we believe is necessary for the security of the US.”
The US Republican Senator from South Carolina, Lindsey Graham, who appeared on the same NBC’s Meet the Press Sunday show, called on his government to “punish Russia” for its alleged interference in the US elections.
“I do not believe we could go forward as a nation until we punish Russia,” he said, adding, that he personally “wants to punish the Russians.” The senator also said that he is “1,000 percent certain that the Russians interfered in our election.”
“It was the Russian Intelligence Service that hacked into Podesta’s e-mail, the DNC, to create chaos. They did try to undercut Clinton,” he added. He went on to say that he advocates imposing new sanctions on Russia over this issue.
“I have bipartisan sanctions against Russia for interfering in our election. And my goal is to put it on the President’s desk. And I hope he would embrace it,” he said. Pointedly though, he repeatedly stated that “Russia didn’t change the outcome of the election.”