Archives: Articles

By Andre Vltchek

When I think about North Korea, what first comes to my mind is a mist over the calm and majestic surface of the Taedong River near Pyongyang. Next I always recall two lovers, locked in a tender and almost desperate embrace, sitting side by side on the shore. I saw them every day, while taking brisk walks at dawn. Now I don’t know for sure whether they were real or just a product of my fantasy; a sad and gentle reminder of all that has been already lost, as well as of all that should have happened but never really materialized.

Currently, as Donald Trump’s “armada” is speeding towards China and DPRK, I keep recalling those moments: the cliff, the lovers and a lone fisherman with his long rod at the other side of the river. Everything in my memory connected to those dawns is now motionless, serene.

Sometimes I wonder whether words still have the power they once used to have. In the past, a beautiful poem, a confession, or a declaration of love, were capable of changing one’sentire life, and sometimes even theentire destiny of a nation. But is this still the case, in this time and age? As a writer I often feel futility, even despair. Still, as an internationalist, I refuse to succumb to pessimism, and I try to use words as my weapons, again and again.

I have already said a lot about North Korea. I have shown images. I have spoken about the unimaginable pain this country has had to endure. I have spoken broadly about its tremendous gesture – of helping to liberate and then to educate so many parts of the world, including the enormous and devastated continent of Africa.

Still the propaganda against the people of DPRK rules.

Let me try again; let me try again and again and again:

North Korea is a beautiful country, inhabited by human beings, with blood circulating through their veins. Despite what you are directly and indirectly told, these people feel pain and they are capable of experiencing great joy. Like others, they often dream, fall in love, and suffer when being insulted or betrayed or abandoned. They laugh and cry, they hold hands, get angry, even desperate. They have great hopes for a better life and they work very hard trying to build their future.

So listen well, manager, or supervisor of what you yourself call the “free world”. Or how should I call you, President? Ok, fine, President… If you shoot your Tomahawk missiles at them, at DPRK, (as you recently did at Syria), or if you drop your bloody “Mother of All Bombs” on them (as you just did on some god-forsaken hamlet in Afghanistan, just in order to demonstrate your spite and destructive force), their bodies will be torn to pieces, people will die in tremendous agony; wives will be howling in despair burying their husbands, grandparents will be forced to cover thedead bodies of their tiny grandchildrenwith white sheets, entire neighborhoods and villages will cease to exist.

Of course you people do it everywhere; you think that you are the masters of the world, so used to spreading agony and desolation all over the world, but let me remind you one more time and put it on the record: it may all look like some fun-to-play computer game or a TV show, but it is not; it is all real, when your shit hits the targets, it’s damn real! I have seen plenty of it, and I have had really enough!

I know this is not what you have been told, and this is not what you tell the others.

North Koreans are supposed to look and behave like a nation of brainless robots, lacking all basic emotions and individuality, staring forward without seeing much, unable to feel pain, compassion or love.

You don’t want to see the truth, the reality, and you want others to be blind as well.

Even if you’ll blow the entire DPRK to pieces, you’ll actually not see much anyway, you’ll see almost nothing: just your own missiles shooting from battleships and submarines, your own airplanes taking-off from aircraft carriers, as well as some computer-generated images of powerful explosions. No pain, no reality, and no agony: nothing will get to you; nothing will reach you and your citizens.

It is you who is blind; it is not they.

You actually like it, don’t you? Admit you do. Let’s have it all in the open. And many citizens in the West like it as well – new titillating experiences, free ‘entertainment’, and a welcome break from the dire and empty, grey, loveless and meaningless routine of daily life in both North America and Europe. Hundreds of millions glued to their TV screens. Your popularity is going down, lately, isn’t it? The more missiles you shoot, the more bombs you drop, and the more countries you intimidate and confront, the broader your ‘support base’ gets.

You are a businessman, after all. The trade, the deal is simple, easy to grasp: you give to the majority of your people what they desire, and they give you support and admiration. True, isn’t it, if stripped of all that ‘political correctness’.

The psychologist Jung called this culture ‘pathological’. It has already destroyed basically all continents on Earth. It is now, perhaps, attempting to finish what is left of the world.

Still, you oughtto know and understand and should be fully aware of the following: you might now get some generous endorsement from your fellow mentally ill citizens, but if you blow up the DPRK or any other country on Earth, sky-high, and if we as the planet Earth still somehow manage to survive, you and your ‘culture’ will be cursed for centuries and millennia to come! Think about it. Is it really worth it?

Perhaps you don’t give a damn. Most likely you don’t. Still, give it a try, try to think, and try to imagine: you will go down in history as a degenerate mass murderer and a bigot!

Three years ago, this is how I described the 60th anniversary of the Victory Day in the DPRK:

“The brass band begins to play yet another military tune. I zoom on an old lady, her chest decorated with medals. As I get ready to press the shutter, two large tears begin rolling down her cheeks. And suddenly I realize that I cannot photograph her. I really cannot. Her face is all wrinkled, and yet it is both youthful and endlessly tender. Here is my face, I think, the face I was looking for all those days. And yet I cannot even press the shutter of my Leica.

Then something squeezes my throat and I have to search in my equipment bag for some tissue, as my glasses get foggy, and for a short time I cannot see anything at all. I sob loudly, just once. Nobody can hear, because of the loud playing of the band.

Later I get closer to her, and I bow, and she reciprocates. We make our separate peace in the middle of the boiling-hot main square. I am suddenly happy to be here. We have both lost something. She lost more. I was certain she lost at least half of her loved-ones in the carnage of those bygone years. I lost something too, and now I also lost all respect and belonging, to the culture that is still ruling the world; the culture that was once mine, but a culture that is still robbing people of their faces, and then burns their bodies with napalm and flames.

It is the 60th Anniversary of Victory Day in the DPRK. An anniversary marked by tears, grey hair, tremendous fireworks, parades, and by the ‘memories of fire’.

That evening, after returning to the capital, I finally made it to the river. It was covered by a gentle but impenetrable fog. There were two lovers sitting by the shore, motionless, in silent embrace. The woman’s hair was gently falling on her lover’s shoulder. He was holding her hand, reverently. I was going to lift my big professional camera, but then I stopped, abruptly, all of a sudden too afraid that what my eyes were seeing or my brain imagining, would not be reflected in the viewfinder.”

This is how I still remember the event.

The West has already killed millions of North Koreans. How many more have to vanish, just for not surrendering? What is the price of not agreeing to serve the Empire? Would it be one million more, or ten million? The number, please: you are a businessman;so do define the price truthfully!

The DPRK has never attacked anybody. The United States which claims it now ‘feels threatened’, has attacked dozens and dozens of countries, robbed millions of people of life, and raped freedom, democracy and cultures all over the world.

There is one image inside my head, which I want to share with all my readers, even if I will be risking that this time my writing will be bordering on sentimentality. I don’t give a fuck, for once; this is no time for ‘polished and elegant style’. So here it is:

At one point I managed to break free from our delegation. It was in the capital, Pyongyang. I just walked and walked, along the mighty river, through an enormous park alongside ancient fortifications.

I spotted a girl, tiny, with a big ribbon in her hair. She was wearing white shoes. It was sunset. Her mother, a simple but beautiful lady, was talking to her. It was so obvious how much she loved and cherished her daughter. The two of them could not see me; I was observing them from some distance. There was so much tenderness, so much serenity between these two human beings. The mother was caressing her daughter’s face, explaining something, pointing at the trees. Their faces were totally relaxed, no fear, no tension, just love.

I walked further, and still in the park, I saw a couple surrounded by a group of people. It was a family photo session. A man and a woman were obviously getting married; he was wearing a formal suit, she was dressed in a wedding gown. Then I noticed that large black sunglasseswere hiding a large part of the man’s face. He was blind. Most likely, he was badly burned behind the dark spectacles. His future wife was younger, and she was attractive. She was happy! She kept chatting, laughing cheerfully. I was stunned. In the West, people have been betraying each other, abandoning one another over the tiniest inconveniences or doubts, for the most egotistic reasons. And here, a young attractive woman was joining, happily, her badly injured man, so they could walk together, side-by-side, for the rest of their life journey.

I saw a lot of North Korea after those few hours in the park. I was faced with the most fortified border on Earth. I met and discussed philosophy and how the West tries to de-humanize its enemies, with Yang Hyong Sob, the Vice President of the Standing Committee of the Supreme People’s Committee. I discussed philosophy and existentialism with thegreat theologian and philosopher John Cobb, on board a bus that was taking us from Pyongyang to the borderline.

There were ‘big moments’ during that trip, great celebrationsall around me. There were elaborate performances and speeches, marches and music. Yet, nothing touched me so deeply as those moments in the park. There, I observed enormous tenderness given to a child by her mother.And I witnessed that natural and beautiful, simplicity and joy of love, mixed with serenity and dignity radiating from a young woman marrying her blind and injured partner.

That is North Korea, which I have been privileged enough to have observed with my own eyes. That is North Korea which the manager wants to ‘take care of’, which means ‘to destroy’. And that is North Korea where I realized, as on so many other occasions, in so many countries, that there is still so much love that resides on this Earth, and that no barbarity, no cruelty, would ever be able to defeat it.

This essay is not my ‘usual stuff’. It is not a philosophy, or reportage. I don’t know what it is. I don’t care what it is. I just wanted to share something with my readers: something that is inside me right now, something that is breaking and shouting and rebelling against the state of things.

What I am certain of is that at this moment, I want to be there, in Pyongyang. I want to go back, although no one has invited me to return, yet.

If the supervisor, the manager, decides to attack, I want to be on my feet and alert and ready, facing his ships and missiles. Just like that, as always, without any cover or bulletproof vest, just with my cameras, and a pen and a simple notepad, as well as a tiny Asian dragon – a good luck charm – in my pocket.

I will not be afraid. I don’t think most of the people of North Korea would be afraid. Only those who are ready to commit mass murder, over and over again, in all corners of the world, are now most likely scared; at least subconsciously, at least in their own essence as well as of their own insanity.

Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He has covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. Three of his latest books are revolutionary novel “Aurora” and two bestselling works of political non-fiction: “Exposing Lies Of The Empire” and  “Fighting Against Western Imperialism”.

20 April 2017

By Tareq Haddad

A leading weapons academic has claimed that the Khan Sheikhoun nerve agent attack in Syria was staged, raising questions about who was responsible.

Theodore Postol, a professor emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), issued a series of three reports in response to the White House’s finding that Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad perpetrated the attack on 4 April.

He concluded that the US government’s report does not provide any “concrete” evidence that Assad was responsible, adding it was more likely that the attack was perpetrated by players on the ground.

Postol said: “I have reviewed the [White House’s] document carefully, and I believe it can be shown, without doubt, that the document does not provide any evidence whatsoever that the US government has concrete knowledge that the government of Syria was the source of the chemical attack in Khan Sheikhoun, Syria at roughly 6am to 7am on 4 April, 2017.

“In fact, a main piece of evidence that is cited in the document point to an attack that was executed by individuals on the ground, not from an aircraft, on the morning of 4 April.

“This conclusion is based on an assumption made by the White House when it cited the source of the sarin release and the photographs of that source. My own assessment is that the source was very likely tampered with or staged, so no serious conclusion could be made from the photographs cited by the White House.”

The image Postol refers to is that of a crater containing a shell inside, which is said to have contained the sarin gas.

His analysis of the shell suggests that it could not have been dropped from an airplane as the damage of the casing is inconsistent from an aerial explosion. Instead, Postol said it was more likely that an explosive charge was laid upon the shell containing sarin, before being detonated.

“The explosive acted on the pipe as a blunt crushing mallet,” Postol said. “It drove the pipe into the ground while at the same time creating the crater.

“Since the pipe was filled with sarin, which is an incompressible fluid, as the pipe was flattened, the sarin acted on the walls and ends of the pipe causing a crack along the length of the pipe and also the failure of the cap on the back end.”

The implication of Postol’s analysis is that it was carried out by anti-government insurgents as Khan Sheikhoun is in militant-controlled territory of Syria.

Postol, formerly a scientific advisor at the Department of Defense (DoD), has previously outlined similar inconsistencies with US intelligence reports. Following the 2013 chemical weapons attack in eastern Ghouta, Postol again said the evidence did not suggest Assad was responsible – a finding that was later corroborated by the United Nations.

In his latest reports, Postol hit out at what he says is a “politicisation” of intelligence findings.

Postol said: “No competent analyst would miss the fact that the alleged sarin canister was forcefully crushed from above, rather than exploded by a munition within it.

“All of these highly amateurish mistakes indicate that this White House report, like the earlier Obama White House Report [from Ghouta in 2013], was not properly vetted by the intelligence community as claimed.

“I have worked with the intelligence community in the past, and I have grave concerns about the politicisation of intelligence that seems to be occurring with more frequency in recent times – but I know that the intelligence community has highly capable analysts in it.

“And if those analysts were properly consulted about the claims in the White House document they would have not approved the document going forward.”

17 April 2017

By Al-Azhar

In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful

In response to the persisting needs which our Arab communities seek to fulfill,

As part of our efforts to overcome the challenges facing religion, the society, and the patriotic countries,

Being cognizant of the substantial dangers facing the unique experience of religious diversity of our societies and march of civilization,

Pursuant  to the individual and joint efforts, documents, and, initiatives launched by Al-Azhar as well as other civil and religious institutions in the Arab World over the recent years,

Out of  the Muslim-Christian common firm will to achieve peaceful coexistence, to reject extremism, and to condemn the violent acts and the crimes perpetrated in the name of religion which has nothing to do with them and as declared in the final communiqué of “Al-Azhar’s Conference  on Countering Extremism and Terrorism”  of 2014 and the subsequent conferences and joint forums,

Al-Azhar Al-Sharif and the Muslim Council of Elders (MCE) have decided to organize this conference titled, “Freedom, Citizenship, Diversity, and Integration” which has received more than 200 participants  representing the religious,  civil, cultural, and political elites  of  sixty countries, from both the Arab Nation and the whole world. A great number of Egyptian religious men, politicians, intellectuals, and journalists also attended it.

The conference lasted for two days (28 February–1st March 2017) where lectures and discussions have been held about the issues of citizenship and diversity along with a review of the experiences, challenges, initiatives, and contributions put forward in this regard.

The participants in the conference agreed to issue Al-Azhar Declaration containing the following provisions:

First, the concept of ‘Citizenship’ has its origin in Islam as it was perfectly applied in the constitutional document of Madinah and the subsequent covenants and treaties in which Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, defined the relationships between Muslim and non-Muslims. The Declaration stresses that citizenship is not just a desirable solution but rather a necessary recalling of the first Islamic application of the fairest system of governance to the first Muslim community in the state of Madinah. The prophet’s application of citizenship was totally free of any discrimination against any category of the society at that time; it featured policies based on religious, racial, and social pluralism. Such pluralism could only prosper in an environment of full citizenship and equality under the constitutional document of Madinah. The document stated clearly that all citizens of Madinah must be treated equally in terms of their rights and responsibilities, that they together constitute one nation, regardless of their different races and religions, and that non-Muslims have  the same rights given to Muslims and are required to fulfill the same obligations imposed on Muslims.

Further to this practical model, Muslim and Arab communities have a rich heritage that features the practice of peaceful coexistence within the society based on diversity and mutual recognition.

Since these principles of tolerance  and peaceful values are still facing internal and external challenges, Al-Azhar Al-Sharif, the MCE, and the figures of the leading Christian communities have met today to reaffirm the importance of equality between Muslims and Christians in terms of the rights and responsibilities defined by the state. Indeed, both Muslims and Christians are considered one nation in which both religions are freely practiced and this goes in line with the provisions stated in the Constitution of Madinah which was ratified by Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him.

Therefore, the national responsibilities must be shared by all the members of societies regardless of their religion.

Second, the adoption of citizenship and equality requires the denouncement of any practices that contradict the principle of citizenships. Such practices which the Islamic Law totally rejects are often based on discrimination against either Muslim or Christians and inevitably result in contempt behaviors, marginalization, and double standard policies, not to mention the forced displacement of civilians and the killing of innocent lives, etc. All such practices are totally rejected by Islam, the divine religions, and the international norms.

The most important factor of strengthening the national unity and the common will is the patriotic, constitutional state which is established in accordance with the principles of citizenship, equality, and the rule of law. Therefore, excluding the concept of citizenship as a sort of contract between citizens and communities will inevitably lead to the failure of the whole state, its religious institutions, and the political and cultural organizations. As a consequence, the comprehensive development and the march of progress will be impeded and the enemies will find their opportunity to destabilize our countries, steal our wealth, and control our future.

Moreover, turning our back to the concept of citizenship and its requirements will give rise to pro-minorities calls and the demands for minority rights. Based on this understanding, we hope, in this Declaration, that the intellectuals and thinkers will show awareness of the bad consequences of the excessive use of the term ‘minorities’. That is because this term has implications of discrimination and separation under the pretext of protecting minorities’ rights. Over the recent years, we have witnessed a rise in the use of the term ‘minorities’ which we thought had disappeared with the end of colonialism age. Now, it is being re-used to promote division between Muslims and Christians, even between Muslims themselves, because it leads to having loyalties and affiliations to external hostile policies.

Third,  due to the rise in the wave of extremism, violence, and terrorism, over the past decade, in the name of religion and the resulting serious repercussions on the followers of other religions in our societies in terms the pressures, intimidation, forced displacement, and kidnapping, both Muslim and Christian participants in Al-Azhar Conference declare that all divine religions have nothing to do with terrorism in any form. They further strongly denounce it.

The participants ask those who accuse Islam or any other divine religion of having any link to terrorism to immediately stop leveling such false accusations that many have taken them as true because of such deliberate and non-deliberate mistakes and false statements.

The participants, assembled at this conference, believe that holding Islam accountable for the actions of those who claim to be Muslims will open the door to accuse all the divine religions of terrorism. This will give an excuse to the pro-modernity fanatics who claim that religions must be totally eliminated to guarantee stability for human communities.

Fourth, it is the top duty of the state now to protect the citizens’ lives, freedom, properties, as well as their right to citizenship and human dignity. The state can never be absolved of such duty for the protection of its people and their rights. However, no other party whatsoever should intervene in the state’s efforts towards fulfilling such duty.  History is full of clear examples confirming the fact that the weakness of the state results in the violation of its citizens’ rights. The cultural and national elites concerned with the public interest of all the Arab nations share their states’ responsibilities towards countering mass violence regardless of its racial, cultural, or social motives.

Since we share the same destiny, we all are required to show solidarity and to work together to preserve our human, social, and religious existence. We share the same grieves and the same interests. Therefore, we have to take a joint action in order to translate our feelings into a positive practice in all the religious, social, cultural, and national aspects of our life.

Fifth, over the recent years, all of us have exerted great efforts for revision, correction, and rehabilitation at both the individual and institutional levels. Indeed, we Muslims and Christians alike are constantly in need of renewal and development of our culture and the practices of our institutions. As part of these efforts, we have enhanced the communication between the religious institutions in the Arab World and the whole globe; we established close ties with the Vatican, Canterbury Cathedral, the World Council of Churches, etc.

We also look forward to establishing more cooperation between all the religious, cultural, and, media institutions in the Arab World to work together in the areas of raising religious guidance, promoting ethical and patriotic values, and developing mutual relationships based on a common understanding between the Arab and the international religious institutions. In so doing, we can achieve the goal of establishing Muslim-Christian cross-culture dialogue.

Sixth, Al-Azhar Al-Sharif and the MCE hopes that this conference will be the start for establishing a renewable partnership or a contract between all Arab citizens, Muslims and Christians as well as those who have other religious affiliations, based on the values of common understanding, mutual recognition, citizenship, and freedom. What we aspire for is no longer an optimal choice but rather an indispensable solution to our crises and for the development of  our countries, human societies and the generations to come. Indeed, Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, set a wonderful example for such community partnership by “the people who get on a ship after casting lots. Some of them are on its lower deck and some of them in its upper (deck). Those who are in its lower (deck), when they require water, go to the occupants of the upper deck, and say to them, ‘If we make a hole in the bottom of the ship, we shall not harm you.'” Commenting on their attitude, the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “If the occupants of the upper deck leave them to carry out their plan they all will be drowned. But if they do not let them go ahead (with their plan), all of them will remain safe”.

Now, we are in the same boat since we constitute one society; we face serious dangers that threaten our lives, countries, and religions. Therefore, we want to work hard together to save our societies and countries and to correct our relationship with the whole world by virtue of our common will and the fact that we share the same destiny. Only by doing this we shall provide bright future and a better life for our children.

All Muslims and Christians, assembled at this conference, reiterate their brotherliness and their rejection of any attempts to divide them by claiming that Christians are targeted in their homelands. They further confirm that whatever terrorism does, it will never succeed in ending our joint experience of peaceful coexistence or undermining our common will for the protection of our societies as well as the promotion of citizenship, in both  theory and practice.

May God grant us success in our endeavors. Indeed, God Almighty is Sufficient for us, and He is the Best Disposer of affairs.

Peace be upon all of you!

28 March 2017

By Mir Suhail

Protests against the Pulwama raids by police have escalated to other towns outside Srinagar. While Srinagar police is battling students in SP College, reports about similar protests came from Shopian, Sopore, Pattan, Gaderbal and now from Kashmir University. Police reportedly used force at almost all places.

The students of various colleges boycotted their classes and staged protests inside their college premises, Chanting slogans against alleged high-handedness of forces against the students of Degree College Pulwama, the students assembled in the college and staged protests. The joint call was given By KUSU and AJKSU in solidarity with GDC Pulwama .

At least 17 boys, all students, were injured when police and CRPF on Saturday came to arrest some students at Government Degree College, Pulwama. The police had come to arrest the students who had objected to the entry of an armoured vehicle into the college last week. That incident had led to the closure of the college.

While protesting against the Pulwama raids by police, more than 1000 students of Degree College Sopore and State run Higher Secondary School assembled in the college premises. They later moved out of the college as well.

As the police sealed the college exits, the students started demonstrating within the premises. Since the college is just a wall away from the police headquarters, they started pelting stones on it. It triggered clashes between the two sides. Police used tear smoke shells and various students are reportedly injured. The situation is tense but is under control.

Students across Kashmir are restive over the daring police raids on the Pulwama College. More than 65 students were injured in that college on Saturday. Interestingly, no investigations have been launched in the Pulwama raids.

Reports said dozen odd students are injured in the SP College Srinagar where intense clashes are going on. Students from Women’s College have also entered the SP College and the situation is reported to be grim. The police are using tear smoke, stunt grenades and PAVA shells. Police is getting into the classes.

A magistrate on duty is reported to have told police to offer some passage to the students to move out which will pave way for some normalcy.

Reports from Shopian said the police fired projectiles into the college premises at a time when the students were assembling to protest. “We had not moved out that they started shelling us,” one students rang up and told me in a choked, coughing voice. “They are pushing us to the wall, he further added ,Pity the intellect of those who instead of challenging the state’s muscularity, violence perpetrated by the armed forces gone berserk across Kashmir and political failure are shifting the blame on the young students. Students are not mannequins,They do not act like robots. They think, feel and act on their own.

Just now, reports said students of Kashmir University have came out in a procession. It was within the premises so far. Colleges in Pattan and Khanabal are also on boil.

Mir Suhail is a Srinagar based journalist

17 April 2017

By Abdus Sattar Ghazali

The Turkish president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Sunday (April 16) achieved victory in a historic referendum on a package of constitutional amendments that will introduce presidential form of government like France and the United States.

In a press conference in Istanbul following his party’s declaration of victory, Erdoğan said that unofficial results showed there were about 25m yes votes, 1.3m more than no.

Erdoğan said foreign powers should respect the referendum’s outcome. “For the first time in the history of the Republic, we are changing our ruling system through civil politics,” Erdogan said, referring to the military coups which marred Turkish politics for decades. “That is why it is very significant.”

Under the changes, most of which will only come into effect after the next elections due in 2019, the president will appoint the cabinet and an undefined number of vice-presidents, and be able to select and remove senior civil servants without parliamentary approval.

Supreme Electoral Council President Sadi Guven also confirmed that the “yes” votes had prevailed, according to unofficial results. He said official results would arrive in about 10 days, after any objections had been considered. The yes campaign won 1.25m more votes than the no campaign, with only about 600,000 votes still to be counted, Güven told reporters in Ankara.

Results carried by the state-run Anadolu news agency showed the yes vote had about 51.3% compared with 48.7% for the no vote, with nearly 99% of the vote counted. Turnout exceeded 80%.

The country’s three largest cities – Istanbul, Ankara and Izmir – voted against the changes, and so did the vast majority of Kurdish voters and many of the coastal cities, indicating a general decline in the ruling party’s support.

Constitutional Reforms

The package of 18 amendments would abolish the office of prime minister and give the president the authority to draft the budget, declare a state of emergency and issue decrees overseeing ministries without parliamentary approval. The draft states: 1.The next presidential and parliamentary elections will be held on November 3, 2019. 2.The president would have a five-year tenure, for a maximum of two terms. 3.The president would be able to directly appoint top public officials, including ministers. 4. He would also be able to assign one or several vice-presidents 5.The office of prime minister, currently held by Binali Yildirim, would be scrapped. 6. The president would decide whether or not impose a state of emergency.

The current constitution, written by generals following a 1980 military coup.

President Erdogan says the changes are needed to address Turkey’s security challenges nine months after an attempted coup, and to avoid the fragile coalition governments of the past. The new system, he argues, will resemble those in France and the US and will bring calm in a time of turmoil marked by a Kurdish insurgency, Islamist militancy and conflict in neighboring Syria, which has led to a huge refugee influx. Speaking at one of his final rallies in Istanbul’s Tuzla district, President Erdogan told supporters the new constitution would “bring stability and trust that is needed for our country to develop and grow”.

Critics of the proposed changes fear the move would make the president’s position too powerful, arguing that it would amount to one-man rule, without the checks and balances of other presidential systems.

Opponents say it is a step towards greater authoritarianism in a country where around 40,000 people have been arrested and 120,000 sacked or suspended from their jobs in a crackdown following a failed coup last July, drawing criticism from Turkey’s Western allies and rights groups.

Cautious Western Reaction

The West offered cautious reaction to President Erdogan’s referendum victory

The European Union (EU) urged the Turkish government to seek the broadest possible national consensus. “In view of the close referendum result and the far-reaching implications of the constitutional amendments, we also call on the Turkish authorities to seek the broadest possible national consensus in their implementation,” said a statement issued by European Commission head Jean-Claude Juncker, EU foreign affairs chief Federica Mogherini and EU Enlargement Commissioner Johannes Hahn.

Thorbjorn Jagland, secretary general of the Council of Europe, said that “in view of the close result” – 51.3 per cent voted with Erdogan according to near total unofficial results – “the Turkish leadership should consider the next steps carefully”. It is of the utmost importance, said Jagland, “to secure the independence of the judiciary in line with the principle of rule of law enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights”. Turkey is a full member of the Council of Europe, which “stands ready to support the country in this process”, Jagland added.

Austrian Foreign Minister Sebastian Kurz, said on Twitter that “it shows how divided the country is; Collaboration with the EU will be even more complex”. “Strange to see democracy restrict democracy. The majority has the right to decide, but I’m quite concerned about new Turkish constitution,” Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen said Twitter. A NATO official was quoted as saying that the constitutional referendum in alliance member Turkey “is a matter for the Turkish people”.

Relations between Turkey and Europe hit a low during the referendum campaign when EU countries, including Germany and the Netherlands, barred Turkish ministers from holding rallies in support of the changes. Erdogan called the moves “Nazi acts” and said Turkey could reconsider ties with the European Union after many years of seeking EU membership. Just ahead of the final results, German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel said: “We’d be well advised to keep calm and to proceed in a level-headed way.” About 1.4m Turks living in Germany were eligible to vote.

Turkish opposition

According to CNN, The Turkish opposition took issue with the results, saying the country’s electoral authority had decided to “change the rules in the middle of the game.” The High Electoral Board announced it would not accept ballots that were missing ballot commission stamps. But the board changed course after voting was underway, saying it would accept unstamped ballots “unless they are proven to have been brought from outside.”

The opposition said this would affect the legitimacy of the vote and called for a partial recount of about 37% of the votes, said Erdal Aksunger of the Republican People’s Party, or CHP. He left the door open to challenging a higher percentage of the ballots.

“The High Electoral Board has changed the rules after the voting started. There is a clear clause in electoral law saying unstamped ballots will be invalid and the High Electoral Board issued its notice in compliance with this law,” the Republican People’s Party (CHP) deputy chairman Bulent Tezcan said.

Later, CHP leader Kemal Kılıcdaroglu said in a news conference, “On what grounds do you declare these valid? … You should not change the rules in the middle of the game. … This is not right. We will never accept this.”

Sadi Guvel, President of the Supreme Electoral Council, said the board has made similar decisions in the past. He said the board made the decision before results began coming in.

Abdus Sattar Ghazali is the Chief Editor of the Journal of America (www.journalofamerica.net) email: asghazali2011 (@) gmail.com

17 April 2017

By Thomas C Mountain

The USA, according to Defense Secretary “Mad Dog” Mattis, he who ordered the use of chemical weapons in Fallujah, Iraq, is about to take a major step towards direct intervention in support of the Saudi Arabia war on the Yemeni people.

According to Jeffrey St. Clair, Editor of Counterpunch, this war has already seen 90,000 Saudi airstrikes on Yemen, or one every 12 minutes, 123 a day for two years now. With direct US military involvement it will only get worse for the USA has been limiting its involvement to fueling, arming and target selection for the Saudi military.

The UN and the international media claim only 12,000 or so deaths in Yemen but this just doesn’t add up. If there have been 90,000 airstrikes that means that only one Yemeni is killed for every 8 strikes? They must take us for idiots, or more likely, just to ignorant and brainwashed to know better.

One airstrike is a big deal, for it involves the use of several thousand kilograms of high explosives, enough to incinerate an entire village. And then there are the cluster bombs in their thousands, and the hundreds of markets bombed…so if only 3 Yemenis have been killed per air strike then we are talking upwards of 250,000 dead Yemenis and counting.

Doesn’t this match the toll for the first two years of the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 and isn’t just going to get worse with US involvement? There is a huge crime being committed in Yemen and the UN and its cronies in the so called “human rights movement” are helping cover it up with their ridiculous death statistics.

Never mind the tens of thousands of Yemeni children already dead and buried from the US backed Saudi enforced starvation blockade of food and medicine to the Houthi homeland.

The US has to protect its national interests in controlling the Bab Al Mandab chokepoint between the Red Sea and Indian Ocean through which passes the trade of the two biggest international partners, Europe and Asia.

The US may have become a second tier trading partner but militarily “Mad Dog” Mattis is not going to sit by and lose control of the region. The US has a airbase in near by Djibouti and most likely planning permanent bases in Yemen to aid the incoming onslaught of US military might.

Already moves are underway to increase direct US military involvement in Somalia, the other key link in controlling the “Gate of Tears”. First comes Mad Dog Mattis calling for an increase in airstrikes, then on the ground coordinators, “training officers” and in the end, direct military intervention by the US, as Somalia itself continues to be rocked by insurgency and famine. What possible good can come from an aerial onslaught on the Somali people by the American Luftwaffe, whose so called “smart bombs” seem to inevitably find targets containing Somali women and children.

Famine to the left of Bad Al Mandab, famine to the right of Bad Al Mandab, it seems a famine policy is being enacted by Pax Americana and its lackeys at the UN when it comes to the Horn of Africa.

So expect no mercy when it comes to the US military directly involving itself in Yemen. Drone strikes will continue, with some most likely based directly in Yemen, though does Pax Americana really want to give ISIS and Al Qaeda an available target by putting American boots on the ground in Yemen?

And always off shore lurks the the US Navy’s Indian Ocean Fleet supported by its base at Diego Garcia, striking without warning anywhere they choose in Yemen, never mind the dead women and children by now in the hundreds of thousands. Many tens of thousands of new airstrikes, so many that the munition makers in the US are putting on 24 hour shifts. The US airbase at Camp Lemonierre in Djibouti will be ramping up operations and the US will be taking out of mothballs their bases in Saudi Arabia. It is as if the War on Iraq is being fought all over again, except this time against the poorest, hungriest of the Arab peoples, the Yemenis.

Saudi Arabia is stuck in a quagmire in Yemen, easy to get into and very difficult to get out of, just as Egypt did in the 1960’s, what President Nasser was to call “Egypts Vietnam”. The US recognizes the fact that the Saudi war is going nowhere, with out a single major objective recaptured since the start of the war. Al Qaeda and ISIS are growing in strength, taking advantage of the vacuum of power existing in the Sunni communities in Southern Yemen who are actually fighting for independence. The so called “Government” of Yemen, if you can call a government based in a foreign country any such thing, is little more that a mouthpiece, with no effective fighting forces on the ground in southern Yemen thanks to the Saudis failing to provide the salaries of its fighters. No pay, no way, their families have to eat so its back to doing whatever it takes to buy food for their wives and kids and that was the end of “Governments” army.

So its South American mercenaries guarding the UAE facilities, Saudi troops and a handful of Sudanese troops caught between the battle hardened Houthi fighters and their allies in the Yemeni army loyal to former President Saleh and Al Qaeda and ISIS with all hell to pay.

What is the US going to do, sit back and watch their strategic partner in West Asia, or asset really, the Saudi’s, stuck in a swamp of their own making with no apparent way out?

The USA seems intent on going where history has proven only catastrophe awaits, into the tribal conflict in Yemen. As a result the world should expect half a million or more dead Yemenis in this war against the Houthi tribes and their supporters as well as untold starvation deaths of Yemeni children.

But no matter the unimaginable suffering the Yemen people suffer, their tribal differences must be put aside, as in reunification in 1990, and lift themselves out of the failed state they exist in today. There are those who do not want this to happen, for crisis management is the policy of the USA when it comes to the Horn of Africa, as in help create a crisis the better to manage control of such an international critical choke point, the Bab Al Mandab. As in Somalia, the USA prefers chaos to a strong, independent Yemen able to interfere in Pax Americana’s control of the Gate of Tears.

Thomas C. Mountain is an independent journalist in Eritrea, living and reporting from here since 2006. See thomascmountain on Facebook or best contact him at thomascmountain at g mail dot com

18 April 2017

By Rt.com

In President Trump’s latest military move since striking Syria, the US’ most powerful conventional bomb was dropped on a suspected Islamic State hideout in Afghanistan. The GBU-43/B killed up to 36 presumed terrorists, the Afghan Defense Ministry said.

The 10-ton bomb, dubbed ‘mother of all bombs’, was dropped from a MC-130 aircraft in the Achin district of Afghanistan’s eastern Nangarhar province, which borders Pakistan. According to the Pentagon, it targeted a network of caves and tunnels where Islamic State (IS, Daesh, formerly ISIS/ISIL) fighters were hiding.

“No civilian has been hurt and only the base, which Daesh used to launch attacks in other parts of the province, was destroyed,” Dawlat Waziri, a spokesman for the Afghan ministry, said.

The Afghan report could not be independently verified, Reuters noted.

IS took to the internet on Friday, denying it had suffered any casualties from the giant bomb dropped by the Americans, AFP reported.

The GBU-43/B Massive Ordinance Air Blast bomb (MOAB) was deployed in combat for the first time ever as US President Donald Trump dispatches his first high-level delegation to Kabul. The visit comes amid uncertainty over the presence of some 9,000 US troops stationed in Afghanistan to guard American facilities and train local troops.

The delegation will be headed by National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster, but the exact timing of its arrival is yet to be confirmed by US or Afghan officials. The Americans are going to “find out how we can make progress alongside our Afghan partners and NATO allies,” Trump said on Wednesday.

Afghan security forces have been struggling to fend off militant groups since US troops withdrew from combat operations on the ground. The Taliban controls many of Afghanistan’s rural areas and has been targeting some larger cities, which are better guarded by Kabul troops.

The Afghan government said the oversized bomb was dropped as part of a joint operation being conducted by its army and international troops.

Former Afghan President Hamid Karzai condemned the use of the MOAB on his country’s soil.

“This is not the war on terror, but the inhuman and most brutal misuse of our country as a testing ground for new and dangerous weapons,” he said in a tweet.

Earlier this month, President Trump ordered the launch of a barrage of 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles that targeted a Syrian airbase in response to what he called a chemical weapons attack, which he claimed had been carried out by the Syrian army. He also ordered a US Navy aircraft carrier group to the Korean Peninsula in a surprise diversion apparently threatening military action against Pyongyang.

14 April 2017

By Seyed Hossein Mousavian

A week after the Trump administration made the decision to launch a cruise missile strike against Syria’s Shayrat air base, it is no surprise that the attack dangerously increased tensions in the Syrian civil war and emboldened forces that aim to maintain a state of chaos in the country. But what remains to be seen is what happens after the dust settles and the real impacts of the attack come to a head, especially in the country and surrounding region. So far, all signs point to more instability and less diplomacy in the months and years ahead, with the potential for an all-out Middle East war seeming increasingly likely.

The strike came at a sensitive time, when U.S. regional allies were pressing for greater U.S. intervention to confront perceived Iranian influence, Iranians were gearing up for a fast-approaching presidential election where centrist President Hassan Rouhani may be challenged by conservatives as he seeks a second term and continuing investigations into Trump’s alleged illicit dealings with Russia were still hanging in the air ahead of U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s visit to Moscow. Meanwhile, the Syrian war had entered its seventh year, and Syrian government and opposition representatives had sat down for face-to-face talks for the first time, spurring hope that a political resolution to the crisis was within grasp.

Trump’s strike changed the dynamic and put us on a path toward confrontation. His actions in Syria will herald the following 10 consequences and side effects, which, when taken together, could unleash an imbroglio the likes of which could be worse than what followed the Iraq War.

1. The strike destroys the hope of a U.S.-Russia reset, putting global security at risk.

U.S. President Donald Trump’s election ushered in hope that the battered U.S.-Russia relationship could be improved and with it, the crises in Syria, Afghanistan and Yemen. The bitter tensions between these two global powers have only served to exacerbate regional conflicts in recent years, so collaboration on issues such as terrorism would in all likelihood increase the prospects of bringing about more lasting and positive change. However, the domestic controversy surrounding Trump’s alleged ties to Russia has proved a significant obstacle to U.S.-Russia détente.

Viewed in this context, Trump’s Syria strike may in part have been an attempt to weaken these allegations. Trump’s son Eric has supported this theory, stating: “If there was anything that Syria did, it was to validate the fact that there is no Russia tie.” With Tillerson in Moscow now, the precise effect this one-off strike will have on U.S.-Russia relations will have to be seen, but the situation is much colder than both may have hoped. In fact, Russian President Vladimir Putin has already indicated that trust had “deteriorated” between the two powers ahead of his meeting with the secretary of state this week and Trump has added that the relationship “may be at an all-time low.” If strikes such as these continue, they will eliminate any chance for U.S.-Russia cooperation and greatly endanger regional and international stability.

2. By immediately blaming Assad, Trump sets a dangerous precedent for U.S. intervention.

Like Trump, former U.S. President Barack Obama faced stringent domestic and foreign pressure to attack Syria and overthrow Syrian President Bashar Assad after the 2013 Ghouta chemical attack. However, Obama withstood the pressures, amidst doubt of the certainty of the Syrian government’s role in the attack from Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, later also expressed by independent investigators and the United Nations. Today, similar doubt is being cast on the Syrian government’s link to the Khan Sheikhoun chemical attack, not only from Russia and Iran but also figures such as former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter, who led criticism that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction in the run-up to the Iraq War.

However, unlike Obama, Trump immediately accused Assad without extensive deliberation within the U.S. government and much less an independent investigation. If it turns out Assad was not the assailant, the real perpetrators who seek Assad’s overthrow will feel emboldened to repeat the same atrocity in order to trigger U.S. intervention. Putin has already warned that new attempts to “frame” Assad are underway. If this ends up being the case and the U.S. buys into the ploy, it will find itself fighting a war on behalf of truly nefarious actors capable of committing heinous acts and covering them up at the expense of others.

3. Trump’s strikes will lack legitimacy as long as Washington avoids an independent investigation.

In phone conversations with the foreign ministers of Russia, Algeria, European Union foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini and other world leaders, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif called for an international committee to investigate the attack, certify who the culprits were and allow them to be held responsible and punished appropriately.

Iran’s aim is to establish the details of the chemical attack and have America answer for its attack on another U.N. member state. Moscow has similarly described the missile strike as an “act of aggression” and is united with Iran in this goal. Russia has called for a thorough and unbiased investigation initiated by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. If America stands against this, it will bolster Tehran and Moscow’s position that Washington has no hard evidence linking Assad to the chemical attack and that the missile strike had no legitimate basis.

4. Trump reverting to traditional U.S. unilateralist foreign policy will fail.

Unilateral American actions in Afghanistan, Iraq and the American-spearheaded NATO attack on Libya have cost trillions in U.S. wealth, destabilized entire regions, led to deaths of thousands of U.S. troops, killed or displaced millions of civilians and strengthened terrorist groups across the world. Trump himself acknowledged this during his presidential campaign. Obama was also cognizant of these failures and favored multilateral over unilateral policies, the chief major achievement of which was the Iran nuclear deal. Trump’s strikes on Syria represent a return to a unilateral approach, which promises to have the same disastrous outcomes for the region, America and the world.

5. Advocating for regime change will only lead to more chaos as history has shown.

America has a history of carrying out interventionist policies in many countries across the globe. A major reason for the hostile U.S.-Iran relationship today is America’s long-standing regime change policy towards Iran. Obama was the first American president to announce that he was abandoning the regime change approach on Iran and even expressed regret about the Libyan intervention.

Meanwhile, Trump was fairly unique in disavowing regime change policies earlier. However, with his strike in Syria, he has ignited concerns that America is returning to regime change strategies. The track record of U.S. regime change policies ― in places like Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq ― shows they have increased instability. To continue this approach will only ensure more chaos for the region and beyond.

6. America is putting Russia in a tricky spot with no good solution for either side.

While America has many allies and military bases in the Middle East, Syria, where Moscow has an established military presence, is Russia’s main ally in the region. Turning on the Syrian government at such a crucial time will thus damage the reputation Putin has created for Moscow in the Middle East and beyond. The Kremlin has focused on increasing its global influence, and the moves it makes now are critical to its global standing. Losing Assad as an ally will most certainly tarnish Russia’s alliance credibility, even in the face of such immense international pressure to turn on him.

Further, comments by the White House that Russia is trying to “cover up” what happened at Khan Sheikhoun will only be perceived by Russia as insulting pressure from Trump to push Putin’s hand. If Trump decides to carry out additional strikes on Syria, Russia may decide its reputation is at stake and feel compelled to activate its Syrian missile defense systems, especially if its personnel and equipment are not given enough time to get out of harm’s way as they were with the Shayrat strike. Trump has in effect created a situation where both sides are left with no decision but to escalate, with potential nightmarish consequences.

7. The U.S. double standard on WMDs is only going to increase their presence globally.

America’s political and selective approach towards weapons of mass destructions, or WMDs, continues to have negative consequences for global peace and security. During the Iran-Iraq War, the West supplied the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein with material, logistical and political support to launch chemical weapons attacks against Iran and his own people.

All told, about 100,000 Iranians were killed or injured, including countless civilians and children. In Halabja alone, some 5,000 Iraqis were killed, including hundreds of children. America’s false WMD reasoning for the 2003 invasion of Iraq of course also hangs over any new U.S. allegations concerning WMDs.

For America to now use the deaths of some 70 Syrian civilians to launch a missile strike on Syria reflects a double standard. America using the issue of chemical weapons to achieve its own ends and playing politics with civilian lives will only eliminate hopes to achieve a world free from WMDs and make their use more likely.

8. America’s selectivity toward the value of civilian lives will only cause more civilian deaths.

In the weeks prior to the Khan Sheikhoun tragedy, about 200 Iraqi civilians were killed in a single U.S. airstrike in Mosul. The so-called Islamic State also recently beheaded 33 Syrians in one incident and 12 in another. According to the nonprofit Airwars, in March alone, U.S.-led coalition airstrikes have led to deaths of as many as 1,000 Iraqi and Syrian civilians.

The Trump administration has taken no action to redress these humanitarian calamities, but at the same time has launched military strikes for the deaths of these 70 Syrians. This demonstrates that America selectively uses the deaths of civilians to advance its political aims. This approach can only lead to the loss of more civilian life.

9. Trump’s use of Arab allies and confrontation of Iran will only provoke Tehran.

Today, it is commonly acknowledged in Washington that the Arab Persian Gulf states are putting immense pressure on Trump to confront alleged malign Iranian influence in the region. Voices from these states have been pushing the line that if the U.S. finds it “difficult to cut off the head of the snake, than the second best option is start cutting off the tail of snake.” Trump’s phone call with Saudi King Salman immediately after the strike strongly suggests the move was in part meant to satisfy regional U.S. allies.

This idea of “U.S. wars with Arab money” promises not only to worsen regional conflicts, but to also put lives of American servicemen at unnecessary risk. Iran for its part will not sit silently in the face of aggression and will use its regional capabilities ― including its battle-hardened allies on the ground in Syria and Iraq ― to raise the cost of actions against it.

10. The strike’s violation of the UN charter makes it more likely others will cross international peace lines.

Based on the United Nations charter, the U.N. Security Council is the only international organ that can identify threats to international peace and decide on punishments. Unilateral U.S. actions are a blatant violation of the U.N. charter and serve to discredit the U.N. as a meaningful body. Such actions are thus a major blow to international peace and encourage other powers to take unilateral action, one of the reasons that likely led to Russia vetoing the U.N. resolution on the Syria attack. Meanwhile, in America, many are also declaring that the U.S. president’s actions violated the U.S. Constitution.

Trump has taken the United States on an extremely risky path with the Shayrat strikes. America now stands at the precipice of another Middle Eastern war, one that promises to be even more of a quagmire than Iraq and will only serve to elongate the suffering of the Syrian people. The reality is that for Syria, there is no military solution ― only a political one. And Trump has sadly decided to pursue military action before giving diplomacy a chance.

13 April 2017

By Daniel Margrain

With a critical public increasingly turning to social media to scrutinize the claims of the mainstream as well as the credibility of the assertions made by the various NGOs and government-funded human rights organisations, it’s arguably becoming more difficult for the corporate press to pass their propaganda off as legitimate news.

This is particularly the case during periods when the establishment pushes for military conflicts. One salutary lesson from the Iraq debacle, is that the public appear not to be so readily fooled. Or are they?

It’s a measure of the extent to which the mass media barely stray from their paymasters tune, that president Trump, with near-unanimous journalistic support, was able to launch an illegal missile strike on Syria on April 7, 2017. Cathy Newman on yesterday evenings Channel 4 News (April 10, 2017) stated that the attack on the al-Shayrat airbase was in “retaliation” for an alleged sarin gas attack by president Assad. However, for the reasons outlined below, such a scenario seems highly unlikely.

New York Times reporter, Michael B Gordon, who co-authored that papers infamous fake aluminum tube story of September 8, 2002 as part of the media’s propaganda offensive leading up to the 2003 U.S-led Iraq invasion, published (along with co-author Anne Barnard), the latest chemical weapons fake news story intended to fit with the establishment narrative on Syria.

Lack of skepticism

Showing no skepticism that the Syrian military was responsible for intentionally deploying poison gas, the authors cited the widely discredited $100m-funded terrorist-enablers, the White Helmets, as the basis for their story. Meanwhile, the doyen of neocon drum-beating war propaganda in Britain, Jonathan Freedland of the Guardian, wrote a day after the alleged attack:

“We almost certainly know who did it. Every sign points to the regime of Bashar al-Assad.” What these ‘signs’ are were not specified in the article.

Even the usually cautious Guardian journalist George Monbiot appears to be eager for military action. On Twitter (April 7, 2017) Monbiot claimed:

“We can be 99% sure the chemical weapons attack came from Syrian govt.”

Three days later, media analysts Media Lens challenged Monbiot by citing the views of former UN weapons inspectors, Hans Blix and Scott Ritter, both of whom contradicted Monbiot’s assertion.

“What do you know that Hans Blix and Scott Ritter don’t know?”, inquired the analysts. Monbiot failed to reply.

Apparently it hadn’t occurred to these, and practically all the other mainstream journalists (with the notable exception of Peter Oborne and Peter Hitchens), that Assad’s motive for undertaking such an attack was weak. As investigative reporter Robert Parry, who broke many of the Iran-Contra stories, argued:

“Since Assad’s forces have gained a decisive upper-hand over the rebels, why would he risk stirring up international outrage at this juncture? On the other hand, the desperate rebels might view the horrific scenes from the chemical-weapons deployment as a last-minute game-changer.”

A second major inconsistency in the official narrative are the contradictory claims relating to the sarin issue. Charles Shoebridge referred to a Guardian article that claims sarin was used, but he counters the claim by stating: “Yet, a rescuer tells its reporter “we could smell it 500m away”. The intelligence and terrorism expert was quick to point out that sarin is odorless (unless contaminated). As blogger Mark J Doran astutely remarked:

“Now, who is going be stuck with lousy, impure sarin? A nation state or a terrorist group?”

Dodgy ‘doctor’

Then there has been the willingness of the media to cite what is clearly an incredulous source, ‘British doctor’, Shajul Islam. Despite  having been struck off the British medical register for misconduct in March 2016, the media have quoted or shown Islam in their reports where he has been depicted as a key witness to the alleged gas attack and hence helped augment the unsubstantiated media narrative. In 2012 Shajul Islam was charged with terror offences in a British court.

Peter Hitchens takes up the story:

“He was accused of imprisoning John Cantlie, a British photographer, and a Dutchman, Jeroen Oerlemans. Both men were held by a militant group in Syria and both were wounded when they tried to escape. Shajul Islam, it was alleged, was among their captors. Shajul Islam’s trial collapsed in 2013, when it was revealed that Mr Cantlie had been abducted once again, and could not give evidence.

Mr Oerlemans refused to give evidence for fear that it would further endanger Mr Cantlie. Mr Oerlemans has since been killed in Libya. So the supposedly benevolent medical man at the scene of the alleged atrocity turns out to be a struck-off doctor who was once put on trial for kidnapping.”

Fourth, there is the question as to why the U.S would launch a military strike in the knowledge that it would risk further sarin leaks into the atmosphere. As the writer and musician, Gilad Atzmon, argues:

“It doesn’t take a military analyst to grasp that the American attack on a remote Syrian airfield contradicts every possible military rationale. If America really believed that Assad possessed a WMD stockpile and kept it in al-Shayrat airbase, launching a missile attack that could lead to a release of lethal agents into the air would be the last thing it would do. If America was determined to ‘neutralise’ Assad’s alleged ‘WMD ability’ it would deploy special forces or diplomacy. No one defuses WMD with explosives, bombs or cruise missiles. It is simply unheard of.”

Atzmon adds:

“The first concern that comes to mind is why do you need a saxophonist to deliver the truth every military expert understands very well? Can’t the New York Times or the Guardian reach the same obvious conclusion? It’s obvious enough that if Assad didn’t use WMD when he was losing the war, it would make no sense for him to use it now when a victory is within reach.”

Logical explanation

A far more logical explanation, given the location, is that chemicals were released into the air by Salafist terrorists. The location of the alleged attack is an al-Qaeda-affiliated controlled area in Idlib province. It is from here that the Western-funded White Helmets operate. Rather conveniently, they were soon at the scene of the alleged attack without the necessary protective clothing being filmed hosing down victims.

As these are the kinds of people who cut out and eat human organs as well as decapitate heads, they are unlikely to have any compunction in desisting from an opportunity to use Syrian civilians, including children and women, as a form of ‘war porn propaganda’ in order to garner public sympathy as the pretext for Western intervention.

Syrian-based journalist, Tom Dugan, who has been living in the country for the last four years, claims no gas attack happened. Rather, he asserts that the Syrian air force destroyed a terrorist-owned and controlled chemical weapons factory mistaking it for an ammunition dump, and “the chemicals spilled out.” This seems to be the most plausible explanation.

Mr Dugan’s version is markedly similar to the analysis of former DIA colonel, Patrick Lang Donald who, on April 7, 2017 said:

“Trump’s decision to launch cruise missile strikes on a Syrian Air Force Base was based on a lie. In the coming days the American people will learn that the Intelligence Community knew that Syria did not drop a military chemical weapon on innocent civilians in Idlib. Here is what happened:

1. The Russians briefed the United States on the proposed target. This is a process that started more than two months ago. There is a dedicated phone line that is being used to coordinate and deconflict (i.e., prevent US and Russian air assets from shooting at each other) the upcoming operation.

2. The United States was fully briefed on the fact that there was a target in Idlib that the Russians believes was a weapons/explosives depot for Islamic rebels.

3. The Syrian Air Force hit the target with conventional weapons. All involved expected to see a massive secondary explosion. That did not happen. Instead, smoke, chemical smoke, began billowing from the site. It turns out that the Islamic rebels used that site to store chemicals, not sarin, that were deadly. The chemicals included organic phosphates and chlorine and they followed the wind and killed civilians.

4. There was a strong wind blowing that day and the cloud was driven to a nearby village and caused casualties.

5. We know it was not sarin. How? Very simple. The so-called “first responders” handled the victims without gloves. If this had been sarin they would have died. Sarin on the skin will kill you. How do I know? I went through “Live Agent” training at Fort McClellan in Alabama.

The former colonel’s testimony is extremely persuasive and exposes the media’s attempts to take at face value Pentagon propaganda. Another convincing reason to discount the official narrative, is because Assad doesn’t possess any chemical weapons. Even The Wall Street Journal, citing a Hague-based watchdog agency, conceded on June 23, 2014 that “the dangerous substances from Syria’s chemical weapons program, including sulfur mustard and precursors of sarin, have now been removed from the country after a monthlong process.”

Pattern

The alleged attack follows a recent pattern of anti-Assad stories exemplified by four similar controversial events in which the media have attempted to pass fiction off as fact. The first of these on February 13, 2017, relates to the findings of a report by Amnesty International which contends that Assad was responsible for the “execution by mass hangings” of up to 13,000 people. The alleged atrocity that evoked in the press comparisons to Nazi concentration camps, was within days criticised for its unsubstantiated and uncorroborated claims.

It should be recalled that it was Amnesty International who uncritically supported the emergence of a fake news story during the first Gulf War in which Iraqi soldiers were said to have taken scores of babies out of incubators in Kuwait City leaving them to die.

The second press release, three days after the mass-execution story aired, concerned the heart-rending case of a Syrian boy who Anne Barnard of the New York Times reported on twitter as having “his legs…cut because of attacks from Assad and Russia.”

It soon transpired, however, that the organization credited with filming the “attacks” was Revolution Syria, a pro-insurgency media outfit who also provided the videos for the equally fraudulent claim that the Russians bombed a school in Haas in October 2016. Dr Barbara McKenzie provides a detailed background to the story which can be read here.

The third piece of false reporting to have emerged, is in connection with Security Council resolution 2235 which highlights the conclusions of a August, 2015 OPCW-UN report. The said report, aimed at introducing new sanctions against Syria (which Russia and China vetoed), didn’t make the claims subsequently attributed to it in the corporate media, namely that between April, 2014 and August, 2015 the Assad government was definitively responsible for three chemical attacks using chlorine.

Security analyst Charles Shoebridge pointed out on March 1, 2017, that “most media didn’t even seem to bother reading the report”. Shoebridge confirmed that the OPCW-UN investigation contained findings that did not correspond to what the public was being told. Pointing out the reports many caveats and reservations, the analyst said the evidence “wasn’t sufficiently good to declare that Syria had dropped chlorine to a standard that could be considered “strong”, or “overwhelming”, adding that “investigators were largely reliant on reports from the White Helmets.”

Finally, independent journalist Gareth Porter inferred that U.N. investigators increasingly make their conclusions fall in line with Western propaganda after he exposed distortions contained in a March 1, 2017 report by the United Nations’ “Independent International Commission of Inquiry“ which claimed that an airstrike on a humanitarian aid convoy in the west of Aleppo City on Sept. 19, 2016, was undertaken by Syrian government planes. Porter reveals that the reports findings were based on pro-rebel Syrian White Helmets testimonies that were “full of internal contradictions.”

Extraordinarily, in March, 2016 German journalist Dr. Ulfkotte brought the lies of the mainstream out into the open by confessing live on television that he was forced to publish the works of intelligence agents under his own name, adding that noncompliance with these orders would result in him losing his job. Sharing this information in front of millions of people (reminiscent of the film Network), Ulfkotte said:

“I’ve been a journalist for about 25 years, and I was educated to lie, to betray, and not to tell the truth to the public. But seeing right now within the last months how the German and American media tries to bring war to the people in Europe, to bring war to Russia — this is a point of no return and I’m going to stand up and say it is not right what I have done in the past, to manipulate people, to make propaganda against Russia, and it is not right what my colleagues do and have done in the past because they are bribed to betray the people, not only in Germany, all over Europe.”

The inability of mainstream journalists to undertake basic fact-checking illuminated by the examples described, reinforce the veracity of Ulfkotte’s claims that corporate journalists are “educated to lie, to betray, and not to tell the truth to the public.” But more than that, it amounts to a stark admission that the corruption at the heart of the elite media and political establishment is systemic. As Mark Doran on Twitter put it: “Our corrupt politics, our international crime, and our ‘free media’ form a seamless whole.” The goal of this consolidation of power is to secure yet another middle east resource grab.

10 April 2017

By Robert Parry

The U.S. government and the mainstream media rushed to judgment again, blaming the Syrian government for a new poison-gas attack and ignoring other possibilities.

April 5, 2017 – With the latest hasty judgment about Tuesday’s poison-gas deaths in a rebel-held area of northern Syria, the mainstream U.S. news media once more reveals itself to be a threat to responsible journalism and to the future of humanity. Again, we see the troubling pattern of verdict first, investigation later, even when that behavior can lead to a dangerous war escalation and many more deaths.

Before a careful evaluation of the evidence about Tuesday’s tragedy was possible, The New York Times and other major U.S. news outlets had pinned the blame for the scores of dead on the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad. That revived demands that the U.S. and other nations establish a “no-fly zone” over Syria, which would amount to launching another “regime change” war and would put America into a likely hot war with nuclear-armed Russia.

Even as basic facts were still being assembled about Tuesday’s incident, we, the public, were prepped to disbelieve the Syrian government’s response that the poison gas may have come from rebel stockpiles that could have been released either accidentally or intentionally causing the civilian deaths in a town in Idlib Province.

One possible scenario was that Syrian warplanes bombed a rebel weapons depot where the poison gas was stored, causing the containers to rupture. Another possibility was a staged event by increasingly desperate Al Qaeda jihadists who are known for their disregard for innocent human life.

While it’s hard to know at this early stage what’s true and what’s not, these alternative explanations, I’m told, are being seriously examined by U.S. intelligence. One source cited the possibility that Turkey had supplied the rebels with the poison gas (the exact type still not determined) for potential use against Kurdish forces operating in northern Syria near the Turkish border or for a terror attack in a government-controlled city like the capital of Damascus.

Reporting by investigative journalist Seymour Hersh and statements by some Turkish police and opposition politicians linked Turkish intelligence and Al Qaeda-affiliated jihadists to the Aug. 21, 2013 sarin gas attack outside Damascus that killed hundreds, although the Times and other major U.S. news outlets continue to blame that incident on Assad’s regime.

Seasoned Propagandists

On Tuesday, the Times assigned two of its most committed anti-Syrian-government propagandists to cover the Syrian poison-gas story, Michael B. Gordon and Anne Barnard.

Gordon has been at the front lines of the neocon “regime change” strategies for years. He co-authored the Times’ infamous aluminum tube story of Sept. 8, 2002, which relied on U.S. government sources and Iraqi defectors to frighten Americans with images of “mushroom clouds” if they didn’t support President George W. Bush’s upcoming invasion of Iraq. The timing played perfectly into the administration’s advertising “rollout” for the Iraq War.

Of course, the story turned out to be false and to have unfairly downplayed skeptics of the claim that the aluminum tubes were for nuclear centrifuges, when the aluminum tubes actually were meant for artillery. But the article provided a great impetus toward the Iraq War, which ended up killing nearly 4,500 U.S. soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

Gordon’s co-author, Judith Miller, became the only U.S. journalist known to have lost a job over the reckless and shoddy reporting that contributed to the Iraq disaster. For his part, Gordon continued serving as a respected Pentagon correspondent.

Gordon’s name also showed up in a supporting role on the Times’ botched “vector analysis,” which supposedly proved that the Syrian military was responsible for the Aug. 21, 2013 sarin-gas attack. The “vector analysis” story of Sept. 17, 2013, traced the flight paths of two rockets, recovered in suburbs of Damascus back to a Syrian military base 9.5 kilometers away.

The article became the “slam-dunk” evidence that the Syrian government was lying when it denied launching the sarin attack. However, like the aluminum tube story, the Times’ ”vector analysis” ignored contrary evidence, such as the unreliability of one azimuth from a rocket that landed in Moadamiya because it had struck a building in its descent. That rocket also was found to contain no sarin, so it’s inclusion in the vectoring of two sarin-laden rockets made no sense.

But the Times’ story ultimately fell apart when rocket scientists analyzed the one sarin-laden rocket that had landed in the Zamalka area and determined that it had a maximum range of about two kilometers, meaning that it could not have originated from the Syrian military base. C.J. Chivers, one of the co-authors of the article, waited until Dec. 28, 2013, to publish a halfhearted semi-retraction. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “NYT Backs Off Its Syria-Sarin Analysis.”]

Gordon was a co-author of another bogus Times’ front-page story on April 21, 2014, when the State Department and the Ukrainian government fed the Times two photographs that supposedly proved that a group of Russian soldiers – first photographed in Russia – had entered Ukraine, where they were photographed again.

However, two days later, Gordon was forced to pen a retraction because it turned out that both photos had been shot inside Ukraine, destroying the story’s premise. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “NYT Retracts Russian-Photo Scoop.”]

Gordon perhaps personifies better than anyone how mainstream journalism works. If you publish false stories that fit with the Establishment’s narratives, your job is safe even if the stories blow up in your face. However, if you go against the grain – and if someone important raises a question about your story – you can easily find yourself out on the street even if your story is correct.

No Skepticism Allowed

Anne Barnard, Gordon’s co-author on Tuesday’s Syrian poison-gas story, has consistently reported on the Syrian conflict as if she were a press agent for the rebels, playing up their anti-government claims even when there’s no evidence.

For instance, on June 2, 2015, Barnard, who is based in Beirut, Lebanon, authored a front-page story that pushed the rebels’ propaganda theme that the Syrian government was somehow in cahoots with the Islamic State though even the U.S. State Department acknowledged that it had no confirmation of the rebels’ claims.

When Gordon and Barnard teamed up to report on the latest Syrian tragedy, they again showed no skepticism about early U.S. government and Syrian rebel claims that the Syrian military was responsible for intentionally deploying poison gas.

Perhaps for the first time, The New York Times cited President Trump as a reliable source because he and his press secretary were saying what the Times wanted to hear – that Assad must be guilty.

Gordon and Barnard also cited the controversial White Helmets, the rebels’ Western-financed civil defense group that has worked in close proximity with Al Qaeda’s Nusra Front and has come under suspicion of staging heroic “rescues” but is nevertheless treated as a fount of truth-telling by the mainstream U.S. news media.

In early online versions of the Times’ story, a reaction from the Syrian military was buried deep in the article around the 27th paragraph, noting: “The government denies that it has used chemical weapons, arguing that insurgents and Islamic State fighters use toxins to frame the government or that the attacks are staged.”

The following paragraph mentioned the possibility that a Syrian bombing raid had struck a rebel warehouse where poison-gas was stored, thus releasing it unintentionally.

But the placement of the response was a clear message that the Times disbelieved whatever the Assad government said. At least in the version of the story that appeared in the morning newspaper, a government statement was moved up to the sixth paragraph although still surrounded by comments meant to signal the Times’ acceptance of the rebel version.

After noting the Assad government’s denial, Gordon and Barnard added, “But only the Syrian military had the ability and the motive to carry out an aerial attack like the one that struck the rebel-held town of Khan Sheikhoun.”

But they again ignored the alternative possibilities. One was that a bombing raid ruptured containers for chemicals that the rebels were planning to use in some future attack, and the other was that Al Qaeda’s jihadists staged the incident to elicit precisely the international outrage directed at Assad as has occurred.

Gordon and Barnard also could be wrong about Assad being the only one with a motive to deploy poison gas. Since Assad’s forces have gained a decisive upper-hand over the rebels, why would he risk stirring up international outrage at this juncture? On the other hand, the desperate rebels might view the horrific scenes from the chemical-weapons deployment as a last-minute game-changer.

Pressure to Prejudge

None of this means that Assad’s forces are innocent, but a serious investigation ascertains the facts and then reaches a conclusion, not the other way around.

However, to suggest these other possibilities will, I suppose, draw the usual accusations about “Assad apologist,” but refusing to prejudge an investigation is what journalism is supposed to be about.

The Times, however, apparently has no concern anymore for letting the facts be assembled and then letting them speak for themselves. The Times weighed in on Wednesday with an editorial entitled “A New Level of Depravity From Mr. Assad.”

Another problem with the behavior of the Times and the mainstream media is that by jumping to a conclusion they pressure other important people to join in the condemnations and that, in turn, can prejudice the investigation while also generating a dangerous momentum toward war.

Once the political leadership pronounces judgment, it becomes career-threatening for lower-level officials to disagree with those conclusions. We’ve seen that already with how United Nations investigators accepted rebel claims about the Syrian government’s use of chlorine gas, a set of accusations that the Times and other media now report simply as flat-fact.

Yet, the claims about the Syrian military mixing in canisters of chlorine in supposed “barrel bombs” make little sense because chlorine deployed in that fashion is ineffective as a lethal weapon but it has become an important element of the rebels’ propaganda campaign.

U.N. investigators, who were under intense pressure from the United States and Western nations to give them something to use against Assad, did support rebel claims about the government using chlorine in a couple of cases, but the investigators also received testimony from residents in one area who described the staging of a chlorine attack for propaganda purposes.

One might have thought that the evidence of one staged attack would have increased skepticism about the other incidents, but the U.N. investigators apparently understood what was good for their careers, so they endorsed a couple of other alleged cases despite their inability to conduct a field investigation. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “UN Team Heard Claims of Staged Chemical Attacks.”]

Now, that dubious U.N. report is being leveraged into this new incident, one opportunistic finding used to justify another. But the pressing question now is: Have the American people come to understand enough about “psychological operations” and “strategic communications” that they will finally show the skepticism that no longer exists in the major U.S. news media?

Investigative Reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His book, Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush, was written with two of his sons, Sam and Nat. His two previous books are Secrecy & Privilege: The Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq and Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & ‘Project Truth’.

10 April 2017