“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)
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry announced that on August 21 the Assad government slaughtered 1,429 people, including 426 children, in a sarin chemical attack in Ghouta, a Damascus suburb. (Doctors Without Borders put the total at about 300.) Secretary Kerry insisted that now the United States had no choice but to launch U.S. bombing attacks against President Bashar al-Assad, devolving into another of America’s “humanitarian wars.”
You have to admit it. The Americans and British do make a formidable double-act – of deception and criminality. Where one party has the firepower, the other has the liar-power.
The diabolic duo is at it again. This time the criminal magic show is to sell the lie to the world that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons of mass destruction. Weeks of political choreography have set up the issue of chemical weapons as a convenient “red line”.
The US-led economic war on Iran has been dangerously ratcheted up with the launching of a powerful new computer virus targeting the Islamic Republic’s nuclear research facilities and other vital commercial sectors, including the oil and banking industries.
Previously, the Iranian economy and scientific research centres have been hacked with the computer malware or virus known as Stuxnet. That sabotage of Iranian facilities is widely believed to have been the work of American and Israeli military agencies.
NATO’s alleged “concerns” over Syria and its anticipated military intervention in that country seem to multiply and interchange like an alchemist’s brew. From human rights and democratic reforms, to the latest alleged concern of a takeover in Syria by Al Qaeda militants and the theft of chemical weapons of mass destruction.
The military invasion and occupation of Iraq is examined within the context of US imperialism. The dual nature of US politico-economic system is identified as an imperialism-democracy complex, with international imperialism and domestic capitalist democracy being its essential and interacting components. Some general laws of this imperialism-democracy complex are also proposed and it is shown how imperialism leads to the transformation of democracy into demonocracy, at its higher stages of development, like that of the US. The specific facts of the great conspiracy of the invasion, occupation, plunder, and robbery of the fabulous oil and other resources of Iraq, are placed and examined within that context. Continue reading
Why? “Well,” as the first political figure discussed in the Commentary, Ronald Reagan, would say, it comes down to three letters. But I’m afraid that you will have to read down to the end to see what they are.
While President, Ronald Reagan did the following:
- Firmly established racism as the center of the modern Republican electoral strategy, confirming that the Nixon “Southern Strategy” of 1968 would be permanently ensconced there;
- Firmly established anti-choice as the Republican position of choice in the matter of belief as to when life begins;
compiled by Cem Ertür
27 March 2010
excerpts from: Building a Euro-Atlantic Security Architecture
Speech by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen at the Brussels Forum conference on 27 March 2010
Crossposted at Strategic Culture Foundation, 16 December 2009
Why does the extermination of an entire culture cause not a ripple in our public discourse? The answer is obvious: we don’t have any kind of discourse with those who wield power. The Chilcott ‘Inquiry’ demonstrates this down to a tee. It’s brazen in its disregard for the reality of the crimes the British state has committed in Iraq and continues to commit in Afghanistan. And brazen in the way it scoots a lot of very guilty-looking ‘witnesses’ through the process as painlessly as possible. How has this come to pass?
Today, a President of the largest violently military empire in the world, won the Nobel Peace Prize while his nation is mired in wars in three countries where his actions have oftentimes made things worse.
Let’s also make this clear that the Nobel prizes are supposed to be awarded for work done the previous year (2008), so that means Obama was awarded the prize for campaigning for the presidency of the USA, where his “vision” (platform) was consistently pro-more war. The nominations are also due by February 1st. Ten days after the inauguration and about a week after a drone in Pakistan killed over 3 dozen innocent people.
Note: revised version Oct 1, 2009
As a sci-fi author and science consultant for films and television documentaries, I have made it my mission to seek out every alternate theory out there – no matter how crazy they may seem – to explore any possibility of new physics that might be uncovered and put to use. That is, until I came across something so perfect and convincing that I had to stop in my tracks.
I now realize, to my complete astonishment, that the true Theory of Everything may already exist, in a book published soon after the new millennium – you just haven’t heard about it yet. Who is this author, Mark McCutcheon, and what is this book, The Final Theory, that I have read? My God! This is not the usual crackpot theory used as fodder for some lame sci-fi TV series; this is it – the first truly viable new physics to have ever arisen.
As I read on and on, for the first time gaining a complete understanding of all that is currently mysterious and weird in theoretical physics, including Newton ’s gravity, Einstein’s relativity, and especially the quantum mechanics of Niels Bohr, I found myself making a complete turn around. I will never see the world the same way again.
The mainstream media is reporting that former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein told his FBI interrogators after his capture that he lied about having weapons of mass destruction (WMD) because he feared Iran. But there’s just one problem with this claim: Saddam Hussein never claimed to have WMD, but , as everybody knows, repeatedly denied that this was so.
This propaganda line had its origins early on following the U.S. invasion of Iraq. David Kay, who early on headed up the CIA’s effort to find WMD, the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), suggested at the time that Saddam had “bluffed” about having WMD in order to deter Iran.
The deception served to absolve the Bush administration of responsibility for having lied about the “threat” by making it seem as though it was reasonable to arrive at that conclusion since Saddam had claimed to possess WMD, even though he did not.
In actual fact, however, far from admitting possession, Iraq repeatedly denied having WMD in the months and years leading up to the invasion.