US gave Saddam blessing to use toxins against Iranians

From RT.com

Published time: August 26, 2013 10:32 Get short URL


As Washington ponders over whether to hammer Damascus over unidentified use of toxic agents in Syria, declassified CIA documents reveal that 25 years ago the US actually indulged ruthless Saddam Hussein to use chemical warfare gases in war with Iran.

The recently declassified documents at the National Archives in College Park, Maryland, suggest that the US was closely following the use of chemical weapons by the Saddam Hussein’s regime both against the enemy in the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988) and against Iraq’s Kurdish population, reports Foreign Policy magazine.

Despite the fact that the US establishment regarded Saddam Hussein as ‘anathema’ and his officials as ‘thugs’, the policies of President Ronald Reagan’s administration through 1980s was to ensure that Iraq would win the war with Iran, the FP stated.

Former CIA official retired Air Force Colonel Rick Francona has said exclusively to Foreign Policy that starting from 1983 the US had no doubts that Hussein’s Iraq was using prohibited chemical weapons (mustard gas) against its adversary, while Iran lacked solid proof and could not bring the case to the UN.

Experienced Arabic linguist Rick Francona, who worked for both the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), shared that the first time he had proof of Iraq using toxins against Iranians was in 1984, while he was serving as the US Air attaché in Amman, Jordan. He had solid proof that Iraqis had used Tabun nerve agent (GA) against Iranian troops advancing in southern Iraq.

It has also been revealed that Saddam Hussein’s military industrial complex could not produce shells with toxic chemical substances itself and was heavily dependent on foreign equipment, with Italy been mentioned as one of the sources for the special equipment.

But Reagan’s administration was willing Baghdad to win the war, so it turned a blind eye on Iraq using lethal nerve agents against Iran, since that could turn the tide of war into a right direction, Foreign Policy reports.

The 1925 Geneva Protocol banned chemical warfare, while the Chemical Weapons Convention banning production and use of chemical arms was introduced in 1997. Iraq never bothered to sign the document, while the US did so in 1975, and by 1980s the US had international obligations to prevent the use of chemical weapons.

During the war with its neighbor, Iran was in a state of heavy international isolation that followed the 1979 Islamic Revolution, and Iran’s military was lagging behind if compared to Iraqi Army.

Still, with the population fanatically supporting the Islamic leadership, Iran used inhumane tactics of ‘human wave’ attacks, turning its soldiers into expendables and thus nullifying Iraq’s military superiority.

In 1987, US satellite intelligence suggested that Iran was concentrating troops for a powerful offensive on Iraq’s southern Fao Peninsula in the direction of the key city of Basrah. The US believed that in spring of 1988 the Iranians might undertake a decisive attack, capitalizing on tactical mistakes by the Iraqi military which could result in Iraq’s defeat.

According to Francona, after acknowledging with the intelligence data, President Ronald Reagan wrote a margin for the US Secretary of Defense Frank C. Carlucci: “An Iranian victory is unacceptable.”

Thus, the Americans opted to share intelligence information with Baghdad, authorizing the DIA to give detailed data on exact locations of all Iranian combat units, Air Force movements, air defense systems and key logistics facilities.

Rick Francona described the satellite imagery and electronic intelligence provided as “targeting packages” enabling the Iraqi Air Force to destroy Iranian targets.

In 1988, Iraq conducted four highly successful chemical attacks on Iranian troops with sarin nerve agent, killing hundreds, if not thousands on the spot. The attacks preluded heavy artillery assaults and were disguised, being accompanied with use of smoke shells.

Official Iranian statistics of the dead in these attacks is still unavailable.

At the time Francona was serving as the US military attaché in Baghdad and he witnessed the aftermath of the attacks himself. He visited the Fao Peninsula shortly after it had been captured by the Iraqis. On the battlefield he saw hundreds of spent syringes with atropine, which Iraqi troops had been using as antidote to sarin's lethal effects. Francona took several of these injectors to Baghdad as proof of chemical weapons use.

Francona told Foreign Policy that Washington was “very pleased” with the Iranians being stricken preemptively to prevent them from launching their offensive.

Also, in March 1988, Iraq launched a nerve gas attack on separatist Kurdish village of Halabja, some 240km northeast of Baghdad, killing 5,000, while 7,000 more suffered long-lasting health problems.

A handout file picture dated March 16, 1988 and released by the Iranian official news agency IRNA shows Kurdish adults and children lying dead following an Iraqi chemical attack on the Kurdish city of Halabja in northeastern Iraq. (AFP Photo)A handout file picture dated March 16, 1988 and released by the Iranian official news agency IRNA shows Kurdish adults and children lying dead following an Iraqi chemical attack on the Kurdish city of Halabja in northeastern Iraq.

The last of the chemical attacks launched by Iraq in 1988 was dubbed the Blessed Ramadan Offensive and became the largest use of chemical weapons in modern history – probably until the recent attack launched in a suburb of the Syrian capital, Damascus, with casualty figures ranging from dozens to almost 1,300 deaths.

A handout picture dates March 16, 1988 and released by the Iranian official news agency IRNA shows two Kurdish children killed by an Iraqi chemical attack on the Kurdish city of Halabja in northeastern Iraq. (AFP Photo)A handout picture dates March 16, 1988 and released by the Iranian official news agency IRNA shows two Kurdish children killed by an Iraqi chemical attack on the Kurdish city of Halabja in northeastern Iraq.

Israel's 'white supremacists'

Aug 26, Haaretz


Kobi Niv
Opinion

Israel's 'white supremacists'
It has emerged that the black (ultra-Orthodox, Arab, Mizrahi) threat to the Ashkenazi hegemony really hadn't been eliminated as it was thought. Thus the white tribe is continuing to defend its rule as if its life depended on it.

With his TV series “The Ethnic Demon,” Amnon Levy has seemingly discovered America about 500 or so years late, and the country is roiling. Well, yes, Zionism is a European colonial movement that’s as white as the snow in the Carpathian Mountains. What else is new?

All the fathers of the Zionist movement, its founders, philosophers and poets, Herzl and Bialik and Jabotinsky and Ben-Gurion and Begin and Naomi Shemer, dreamed of building, in this remote and neglected area of the East, a Jewish state along the lines of the white-European-Christian states of the 19th century, whose concert-filled structures would have tiled roofs and other elements of classical Europe.

But when the country they dreamed of was actually founded, they suddenly realized that there weren’t enough white Jews to establish and maintain the Zionist project because white Christian Europe, the one with the tiled roofs and classical music, which they so admired and wanted to emulate, had slaughtered them. As a result, lacking any choice and driven by the demon (the ethnic one, of course), and upon realizing that a state needs not just leaders and commanders but also soldiers and laborers, they brought the “black” Mizrahi Jews here, Jews of Middle Eastern origin. But the large number of these strange new immigrants posed a real threat to the white rule of the Zionist enterprise, not to mention to the existence of the only European state in the Middle East. There was thus an urgent need to “bleach” the Mizrahim.

This was carried out in different ways. One way, for example, was through the “bourekas films,” which ridiculed Mizrahim and portrayed them as foolish, ignorant, uncultured, lazy and stealthy, but with hearts of gold, great food and fine singing ability (racist stereotypes that were imprinted forever in the Israeli consciousness).

But the most significant bleaching process, the political one, was conducted by Menachem Begin. Begin understood that to overthrow and succeed the Ashkenazi Mapai regime with its handful of token Mizrahi servants, he would have to recruit to his ranks and service the mass of Mizrahim, who were victimized by and hated Mapai. And he did so, most successfully.

Indeed, unlike the Labor Party and its derivatives - Meretz, for example - which were and remain ethnic Ashkenazi parties whose leaders and voters are strictly white, the Likud, from Begin’s era to today, is an Ashkenazi party in that its leaders are Ashkenazi, but with an absolute majority of voters who are Mizrahi. In other words, Begin managed to maintain the ruling Ashkenazi hegemony with the votes of the Mizrahim.

And to even further preserve the Ashkenazi hegemony, and also perhaps because there developed a shortage of security guards and cashiers, a massive number of immigrants from the former Soviet Union were brought here, and anyone able to prove that his grandmother’s lover sneezed twice on Sabbath eve was declared a Jew, so long as he was properly white.

However, it has emerged that the black (ultra-Orthodox, Arab, Mizrahi) threat to the Ashkenazi hegemony really hadn’t been eliminated as it was thought. Thus the white tribe, including its Mizrahi voters, is organizing to continue to defend its rule as if its life depended on it. This is the main reason, if not the only one, that the Ashkenazi alliance (Likud, Yisrael Beiteinu, Yesh Atid, Habayit Hayehudi and Hatnuah) kept the blacks (the Haredim, Arabs, and Mizrahim) out of the recently established government.

Whoever doesn’t get this ought to look at what’s developing in the run-up to the elections in Jerusalem and its satellites, such as Beit Shemesh, where once again the “Zionists,” i.e., the Ashkenazim, are forming strange alliances, from Meretz on the secular left to Habayit Hayehudi on the religious right, just to stand firm against the black threat

Fear and Loathing on the Israel-Palestine Negotiation Trail

Nightmare Theater: Where flesh eating diplo-zombies stumble out of midnight theater screenings of “Night of the Living Dead” that have been running since 1968, and materialize in the form of Martin Indyk , Tzippi Livni and John Kerry to lunge at the quivering necks of the hapless Palestine delegation who are once again participating in this new iteration of “getting down to the tough negotiations of hammering out the basis for new, serious sit-downs to talk about further talks without preconditions.” (but plenty of post-conditions: viz. Israel gets everything it wants and the Palestinian people get nothing.)

But why would the Palestinian Authority engage in such talks? Fear. Fear of losing their subsidy that keeps them in a standard of living way above the mass of Palestinian people. Fear of not being recognized by Western governments as substantial representatives of peace and reason. Fear of losing their titles and having to descend to level of Palestinian villagers (whom they fear might get tired of the PA’s lack of defense of their basic rights. Do the Palestinian villagers loathe the PA?…most likely many do.). Everyone knows the talks are a sham. Every day Israel steals the land that is supposed to be part of the Palestinian “state.”

Abbas and company also fear and loathe Hamas and hope to gain an advantage over them. Hamas loathes the PA, but they have worse trouble with the loathsome Egyptian military’s seizure of power and organized decimation of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Obama wants sham negotiations so he can palm them off as real, because he fears looking like a powerless namby-pamby. He wants to look like a statesman. Netanyahu is pretending to negotiate so the EU and the US won’t give him a hard time. While he and his minions loathe the “Arabs” who won’t just shut up and go away from Greater Israel (borders TBA). They participate in the fake talks and use them to angle for more freebies from the US. Netanyahu also assures the Zionist right that they won’t ever give up any land that they have already taken and will eventually take all of it.

And what about our new Secretary of State? John Kerry always looks like he has to take a pee really bad, but has to hold it in while he gives a platitudinous speech. He reminds me of the comedian Pat Paulson who was a regular on the Smothers Brothers Show (in the 1960s).Every presidential election they had a running gag of “Pat Paulson for president,” who’s campaign speech consisted of looking dazed and confused while raising an index finger in the air and saying: “Why Not?”


Obama and Netanyahu along with the mad dogs of Zionism (AIPAC, WZO, ADL, and the Senators and Representatives they have bought, and the “diplomats” they have placed in the State Department) loathe the fact that Palestine’s status was upgraded by the UN from “observer” to that of a “non-state member.” And they feared that the PA would take Israel to the International Court of Justice and most likely get a favorable ruling against Israel’s violation of human rights. Of course neither Israel nor the US recognize the court’s jurisdiction, but other nations do and it makes the US and Israel look worse than they already are.

So the US told the PA to participate in the fraudulent negotiations and not cause trouble with the International Court and paid them off to comply.

As for Israel? Hey! The negotiations have always worked out well for them for the last twenty years….so why not?

Radical Islam comes from mass Poverty and Overbearing Concentration of Wealth

Posted on Aug 14, 2013


By Chris Hedges

Radical Islam is the last refuge of the Muslim poor. The mandated five prayers a day give the only real structure to the lives of impoverished believers. The careful rituals of washing before prayers in the mosque, the strict moral code, along with the understanding that life has an ultimate purpose and meaning, keep hundreds of millions of destitute Muslims from despair. The fundamentalist ideology that rises from oppression is rigid and unforgiving. It radically splits the world into black and white, good and evil, apostates and believers. It is bigoted and cruel to women, Jews, Christians and secularists, along with gays and lesbians. But at the same time it offers to those on the very bottom of society a final refuge and hope. The massacres of hundreds of believers in the streets of Cairo signal not only an assault against a religious ideology, not only a return to the brutal police state of Hosni Mubarak, but the start of a holy war that will turn Egypt and other poor regions of the globe into a caldron of blood and suffering.

The only way to break the hold of radical Islam is to give its followers a stake in the wider economy, the possibility of a life where the future is not dominated by grinding poverty, repression and hopelessness. If you live in the sprawling slums of Cairo or the refugee camps in Gaza or the concrete hovels in New Delhi, every avenue of escape is closed. You cannot get an education. You cannot get a job. You do not have the resources to marry. You cannot challenge the domination of the economy by the oligarchs and the generals. The only way left for you to affirm yourself is to become a martyr, or shahid. Then you will get what you cannot get in life—a brief moment of fame and glory. And while what will take place in Egypt will be defined as a religious war, and the acts of violence by the insurgents who will rise from the bloodied squares of Cairo will be defined as terrorism, the engine for this chaos is not religion but the collapsing economy of a world where the wretched of the earth are to be subjugated and starved or shot. The lines of battle are being drawn in Egypt and across the globe. Adli Mansour, the titular president appointed by the military dictator of Egypt, Gen. Abdul-Fattah el-Sisi, has imposed a military-led government, a curfew and a state of emergency. They will not be lifted soon.

The lifeblood of radical movements is martyrdom. The Egyptian military has provided an ample supply. The faces and the names of the sanctified dead will be used by enraged clerics to call for holy vengeance. And as violence grows and the lists of martyrs expand, a war will be ignited that will tear Egypt apart. Police, Coptic Christians, secularists, Westerners, businesses, banks, the tourism industry and the military will become targets. Those radical Islamists who were persuaded by the Muslim Brotherhood that electoral politics could work and brought into the system will go back underground, and many of the rank and file of the Muslim Brotherhood will join them. Crude bombs will be set off. Random attacks and assassinations by gunmen will puncture daily life in Egypt as they did in the 1990s when I was in Cairo for The New York Times, although this time the attacks will be wider and more fierce, far harder to control or ultimately crush.

What is happening in Egypt is a precursor to a wider global war between the world’s elites and the world’s poor, a war caused by diminishing resources, chronic unemployment and underemployment, overpopulation, declining crop yields caused by climate change, and rising food prices. Thirty-three percent of Egypt’s 80 million people are 14 or younger, and millions live under or just above the poverty line, which the World Bank sets at a daily income of $2 in that nation. The poor in Egypt spend more than half their income on food—often food that has little nutritional value. An estimated 13.7 million Egyptians, or 17 percent of the population, suffered from food insecurity in 2011, compared with 14 percent in 2009, according to a report by the U.N. World Food Program and the Egyptian Central Agency for Public Mobilization and Statistics (CAPMAS). Malnutrition is endemic among poor children, with 31 percent under 5 years old stunted in growth. Illiteracy runs at more than 70 percent.

In “Les Misérables” Victor Hugo described war with the poor as one between the “egoists” and the “outcasts.” The egoists, Hugo wrote, had “the bemusement of prosperity, which blunts the sense, the fear of suffering which is some cases goes so far as to hate all sufferers, and unshakable complacency, the ego so inflated that is stifles the soul.” The outcasts, who were ignored until their persecution and deprivation morphed into violence, had “greed and envy, resentment at the happiness of others, the turmoil of the human element in search of personal fulfillment, hearts filled with fog, misery, needs, and fatalism, and simple, impure ignorance.”

Advertisement
The belief systems the oppressed embrace can be intolerant, but these belief systems are a response to the injustice, state violence and cruelty inflicted on them by the global elites. Our enemy is not radical Islam. It is global capitalism. It is a world where the wretched of the earth are forced to bow before the dictates of the marketplace, where children go hungry as global corporate elites siphon away the world’s wealth and natural resources and where our troops and U.S.-backed militaries carry out massacres on city streets. Egypt offers a window into the coming dystopia. The wars of survival will mark the final stage of human habitation of the planet. And if you want to know what they will look like, visit any city morgue in Cairo.

The US Behaves Nothing Like a Democracy

link to text of a speech given by Noam Chomsky. Very good and useful point by point description of the USA's "Really Existing Capitalist Democracy (RECD).

http://www.salon.com/2013/08/17/chomsky_the_u_s_behaves_nothing_like_a_democracy/

A useful collection of articles on recent events in Egypt

portside.org/2013-08-15-crackdown-reports-and-analysis

Israel Everyday Racism - and How American Jews Turn a Blind Eye to It

http://forward.com/articles/182171/israel-everyday-racism-and-how-american-jews-tur/
Portside Date:
August 12, 2013
Author:
Larry Derfner
Date of Source:
Monday, August 12, 2013
The Jewish Daily Forward
Refocus Anti-Semitism Outrage on Our Own Dirty Laundry

The Anti-Defamation League and the rest of the American Jewish establishment owe Jesse Jackson a big apology. They put the man through the wringer, they made him apologize in every possible forum for his "Hymie" and "Hymietown" remarks back in 1984. Yet look at the kinds of things Israeli leaders - senior government ministers, chief rabbis - get away with without ever having to apologize, without ever being punished in the slightest.

Just last week, Naftali Bennett, the fresh new face of right-wing Orthodox Judaism, said in a cabinet meeting how he didn't like these releases of Palestinian prisoners. "If you catch terrorists, you simply have to kill them," he was quoted in Yedioth Ahronoth as saying. The head of the National Security Council, Yaakov Amidor, told Bennett, "Listen, that's not legal." Bennett replied: "I have killed lots of Arabs in my life - and there is no problem with that."

The media, the left and the Arabs made a big deal out of it, nobody else. Bennett defended what he said, and so did countless talkbackers and Facebookers.

Two days later the newly-elected Ashkenazi chief rabbi of Israel, David Lau, was seen on a video telling an audience of yeshiva boys that they shouldn't watch European basketball games in public.

"What difference does it make," Lau said, "if the kushim who get paid in Tel Aviv beat the kushim who get paid in Greece?" Kushim, especially when used in a dismissive context like Lau did, is a well-understood derogatory term for blacks.

Again, the media, the left, some Ethiopian Jews and presumably some African refugees were outraged. But Lau defended his words, blaming the media, saying "they made a big deal out of a joke."

Who else defended his remarks about "kushim"? Bennett: "The media are pouncing on him for a joking, insignificant remark."

So really - what was so bad about "Hymies" and "Hymietown"? Or the thousand other anti-Semitic or even just possibly anti-Semitic remarks that the ADL and other American Jewish organizations have "pounced on" since then? Israeli public figures say the same kind of garbage, the difference is that they never, ever pay a price for it, in fact they usually manage to play the victim and get away with it, and at worst will be obliged to offer some backhanded apology.

Likud lawmaker Miri Regev is doing fine after having called Sudanese refugees "a cancer on our body" to a crowd of hopped-up south Tel Avivians in May of last year, shortly before the crowd went on a window-smashing mini-pogrom against the Africans in the neighborhood.

Legendary basketball coach Pini Gershon's career and public stature didn't suffer at all after he explained his racial theory about blacks to a class of amused army officers in 2000.

"The mocha-colored guys are smarter, but the dark colored ones are just guys off the street," Gershon said. "they're dumb like slaves, they do whatever you tell them."

Nor was there any blowback whatsoever after Bibi Netanyahu bragged in 2007 that the cuts he'd made to child subsidies had brought a "positive" result, which he identified as "the demographic effect on the non-Jewish public, where there was a dramatic drop in the birth rate."

Imagine the scandal if an American political leader boasted publicly that his cuts to child subsidies had reduced the "non-Christian" birth rate. Imagine the ADL's reaction. But in Israel, in 2007, from the mouth of a once-and-future prime minister - nothing.

These are just a few of the more appalling examples of the kind of racist remarks that Israeli politicians, rabbis and celebrities feel free to make. I haven't even mentioned Avigdor Lieberman and Rabbi Ovadia Yosef. As a rule the words are directed at Arabs, now and then against blacks: either Ethiopian Jews, African refugees or athletes.

I've lived roughly half my 61 years in the United States, the other half in Israel. There is absolutely no comparison between American tolerance for public displays of racism and Israeli tolerance for it.

I've stood in the middle of Israeli crowds chanting "Death to the Arabs." I've sat in a Tel Aviv soccer stadium watching and listening to an entire section of fans erupt in monkey sounds - "Hoo, hoo, hoo!! Hoo, hoo, hoo!! - after a black player on the visiting team scored a goal.

A few liberals and a few do-gooders and a few journalists wring their hands. But the racists in the street, the synagogues, the Knesset and the government go on doing their thing.

Does this mean all Israelis, or even most of them, are racists? No. Does it mean Israeli society, by commission and omission, encourages racism? Oh, yes. To a degree that would be unthinkable in the United States.

And the leaders of the U.S. Jewish establishment, Israel's most valued, devoted, determined friends, keep pouncing on every untoward or conceivably untoward remark about Jews or the Jewish state. Yes, the ADL will send out a press release about its "concern" over the "inappropriate" remarks made by some relatively minor Israeli figure.

But it never hits hard at the major figures. It said nothing last week about Bennett or Lau. The ADL goes after anti-Semitism with a fist, it goes after Israeli racism with a sigh.

As a matter of fact, the ADL and the entire American Jewish establishment should suspend their campaigns against anti-Semitism indefinitely and take a look at what's going on in Israel.

When the Jewish state is this riddled with racism, its advocates abroad should be a little less outraged over the offenses of gentiles. They should be a little more humble - and a lot less hypocritical.

[Larry Derfner was a columnist and feature writer for The Jerusalem Post, as well as the correspondent in Israel for the U.S. News and World Report, for many years. He wrote feature articles for the Sunday Times of London during the second intifada, and have been writing for American Jewish publications since 1990.
"Politically, I would describe myself as an ultra-liberal Zionist; as journalist Bradley Burston put it, I'm 'probably as far left as a centrist can be.' I was born in New York, grew up in Los Angeles and moved to Israel in 1985."]
- See more at: http://portside.org/print/node/3495#sthash.rVYKHmNz.dpuf

Thou Shalt Not Praise His Name: Rep. Lewis Praises Snowden . . . Then Quickly Retracts Praise

JONATHAN TURLEY

Res ipsa loquitur ("The thing itself speaks")

Blog

Published 1, August 8, 2013

The degree of pressure on reporters and politicians from the White House and Democratic leadership in the Snowden controversy was in full and embarrassing view yesterday when Rep. John Lewis walked back from an interview that he gave to the Guardian praising Snowden. He appears not to have gotten the memo: Snowden is not to be praised in the media or by members of Congress. Various reporters and new organizations have held the line in mocking Snowden or refusing to call him a “whistleblower” rather than a “leaker.” After all, the fear seems to be that Snowden has to be a traitor or Obama would look like a tyrant.

Lewis is quoted as comparing Snowden to those who engaged in civil disobedience in the the civil rights movement and said that Snowden may have felt that he had to follow a “higher law.” Many of course believe Snowden was defending the Constitution and view him as a hero.

Lewis noted that “[s]ome people say criminality or treason or whatever. He could say he was acting because he was appealing to a higher law. Many of us have some real, real, problems with how the government has been spying on people.” He is quoted as comparing Snowden to figures like Gandhi. However, such views are not supposed to be uttered, particularly by a Democrat.

Lewis seem to be frog marched back before cameras within 24 hours and denied everything short of his name, rank, and serial number: “News reports about my interview with The Guardian are misleading, and they do not reflect my complete opinion. Let me be clear. I do not agree with what Mr. Snowden did. He has damaged American international relations and compromised our national security. He leaked classified information and may have jeopardized human lives. That must be condemned.”

Whew, that was close. Snowden is back being a traitor and Lewis is back on script.



By the way, as some of our commentators have noted, Happy Whistleblower Day. While the Senate passed the resolution below, I expect that they view the day as referring to a dog whistle that only they can hear:



By a unanimous resolution the U.S. Senate declared July 30, 2013 as “National Whistleblower Appreciation Day.” The National Whistleblowers Center strongly supports the Senate’s historic action and calls on every American reflect upon the tremendous contributions whistleblowers have made to American democracy, as well as the struggles and sacrifices they have endured By a unanimous resolution the U.S. Senate declared July 30, 2013 as “National Whistleblower Appreciation Day.” The National Whistleblowers Center strongly supports the Senate’s historic action and calls on every American reflect upon the tremendous contributions whistleblowers have made to American democracy, as well as the struggles and sacrifices they have endured.

Grave New Threat to US National Security!

Hassan Rouhani, the newly elected president of Iran has called for open negotiations and peaceful relations with the US! The consequences of this are unbearable to even imagine. No war with Iran? Not even some run of the mill air attacks? An agreement between the US and Iran over nuclear power and arms?

This would rob the US/Israel entity of the chance to have WAR! Outrageous! Worst of all it could lead to a devastating PEACE! Peace! Peace would destabilize the whole region. "Stability," as the US National Security State knows, would ruin the war on terror business and lead to the horrible anarchy of other countries running their own affairs. Our concept is even dialectical (take that! you Marx-muddled eggheads); our stability depends on your turmoil and destruction. Come on! Be reasonable and responsible.

Bolivia: President Proposes to Take US to International Tribunal

from The Argentina Independent

by Chelsea Gray, 07 August 2013.


Evo Morales, President of Bolivia, announced yesterday that he will propose UNASUR to bring the US before an international tribunal for human rights violations after his plane was denied airspace in Europe in the beginning of July.
Speaking yesterday to local newspaper La Razón, Morales announced that “I’m going to propose in the next UNASUR meeting with all the other presidents to bring the United States before an international court in respect to human rights and international diplomacy treaties. This action is fundamental so that other presidents in the world will not have to go through what I went.”
The diplomatic scandal in question took place on 2nd July when Morales’ plane was re-routed on its return journey from a conference in Moscow as several European countries denied him airspace mistakenly believing that former US Intelligence Agent, Edward Snowden, was smuggled on board. The Bolivian President has since accepted the apologies from the European states involved, but has attributed the incident to Europe cow-tailing to the “repressive policies” of the US.
In addition, the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA) -an organisation that brings together South American and Caribbean countries- has “commissioned a legal and technical study to find out what legal arguments exist” in order to prosecute the US for espionage. The diplomatic violation came to light when Snowdon leaked the extent of the National Security Agency’s (NSA) surveillance of energy, military, politics, and terror, activity across Latin America.
While Morales has stated the importance of restoring US ambassadors in Bolivia, which have not been present since Ambassador Philip Goldberg and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) were expelled in 2008, he also claimed that there would always be mistrust.
He asserted that “there is a look about the US, of pride, of submission, of using geopolitics for monopolistic purposes… It is never going to change…We must re-establish ambassadors, formalities, but we are not going to be trustful.”
Speaking of his disappointment with the US President, Morales declared that “I used to have confidence in Obama, who himself comes from a discriminated sector. But I cannot understand it when one who was discriminated against then discriminates against another.”

Link to trailer of film in progress "the Resurrection of Victor Jara

http://www.resurrectionofvictorjara.com/#!__englishhome/trailer