Just International

Journalists’ Complicity In Hiding Those Guilty For MH17

By Eric Zuesse

Robert Parry headlined on July 9th, “MH-17 Case Slips into Propaganda Fog,” and he wrote: “Many investigative journalists, including myself, have been rebuffed in repeated efforts to get verifiable proof about the case or even informational briefings.” His phrase “have been rebuffed” was linked to a July 3rd article by nsnbc’s Christof Lehmann, “MH17 — The Methodology of an International Cover-Up,” which included the following:

The Firewall against Transparency

Numerous journalists, the author included, have made considerable efforts to elicit independently verifiable evidence from all of the involved parties. This includes mails and phone calls to relevant ministries in Ukraine, the USA, UK, Russia, Australia, Malaysia, and the Dutch Safety Board in The Netherlands.

All requests to provide independently verifiable data have remained unanswered. That includes requests for a certified copy of radar data released by the Russian Ministry of Defense, certified copies of communications between Ukrainian Air Traffic Controllers and the flight crew on board the downed Boeing 777-200, and not least a certified copy of the Comma Separated Variable (CSV) file from the downed Boeing 777-200’s flight data recorder.

To mention but a few examples that demonstrate the significance of the need for full transparency. The DSB [Dutch Safety Board, which is running the entire investigation] published a “transcript” of ATC – Flight Crew communications. Investigative journalists have, in other words, no possibility to see whether the audio has been tampered with or for that matter, if the voices even are consistent with those of the flight crew.

Lehmann then dropped a bombshell, just in passing, a communication from a representative of the investigation-team, which communication had been made individually to Lehmann:

Sara Vernooij from the Dutch Safety Board implicitly provided the key to the puzzling question why non[e] of the involved parties is forthcoming with regards to independently testable and verifiable data end evidence by stating to the author:

“The investigation information is protected by Dutch law (Dutch Kingdom Act). This act determines that only the information issued in the Final Reports is public; sources and files containing investigation information are not publicly accessible. … The Kingdom Act concerning the Dutch Safety Board excludes investigation information from [being covered under] the WOB [Open Government Act]. There is [consequently] no possibility to get any access to investigation information by the Dutch Safety Board if you are not a member of the investigation team.”

… That is – no independently testable and verifiable information will be made available to the public.

This wasn’t the first time that the Dutch Safety Board has made clear that it will prohibit the public from having access to the evidence. The Dutch Safety Board had received its authority over the MH17 investigation by the Dutch Government. The Dutch Government had participated in the planning for the Maidan demonstrations and the overthrow of the prior Ukrainian Government. On 24 August 2014, I had headlined, “MH-17 ‘Investigation’: Secret August 8th Agreement Seeps Out,” and reported that,

Regarding what caused the downing of the Malaysian airliner MH-17 in Ukraine on July 17th, the Ukrainian news agency UNIAN, reported in a brief Russian-language news story on August 12th, that four days earlier (August 8th) a representative of that nation’s [Ukraine’s] Prosecutor General office, Yuri Boychenko, had said that (as auto-translated by google), “the results [of the investigation] will be announced upon completion of the investigation and with the consent of all the parties who signed the corresponding agreement.” This UNIAN report said that, “As part of the four-party agreement signed on August 8 between Ukraine, the Netherlands, Belgium and Australia [all of which nations are allies of the United States and are cooperating with its new Cold War against Russia], information on the investigation into the disaster Malaysian ‘Boeing-777′ will not be disclosed.” In other words: the official ‘investigation’ is being carried out by four nations that, as U.S. allies, are hostile toward Russia. One of those four nations, Ukraine, is … a prime suspect in possibly having shot this airliner down.

Any intelligent person understands that giving a suspect in a crime a veto-power over the ‘findings’ of the official investigation into the crime means that the ‘investigation’ is dishonest; it is corrupt. And yet journaliststs continue to play along with this game as if it weren’t corrupt. Instead of publicizing its corruptness, they pretend that the official ‘investigation’ isn’t corrupt. More is needed than merely to talk about “transparency,” or “propaganda fog.” The appropriate charge here is: “corrupt.” The official ‘investigation’ is corrupt. It is dishonest.

How, then, should investigative journalists deal with this matter?

First of all, they need to publicize that the official ‘investigation’ is corrupt (not only as was just indicated, but in other respects also). Any ‘investigation’ into a crime, where a suspect in the crime possesses veto-power over the ‘findings,’ is corrupt, and cannot be trusted by a journalist who has integrity and basic intelligence. But furthermore, all four national ‘investigators’ were in league with this Ukrainian Government even prior to the downing.

Secondly, it is crucial that journalists identify and point out what constitutes the highest-quality, least-likely-to-have-been-fabricated-or-tampered-with, item of evidence regarding this crime, and that they then build their theory of the case upon that item of evidence, by interpreting every other item of evidence only in ways that are consistent with what is proven to be so on the basis of that one highest-quality item of evidence.

Such a highest-quality item of evidence does, in fact, exist here, and it’s already publicly available; and it is the side-panel of the cockpit right next to where the plane’s pilot was sitting. That side-panel has an enormous gash shot through it, right where the pilot’s belly would have been. This gash is a few feet in diameter, and its ragged edge shows that it was caused not by a huge object like a canonball but instead by a fusillade of much smaller projectiles that had been fired at the pilot and which ripped through the panel to his body, and killed him. This is shocking evidence. It demonstrates that whatever ripped into the pilot’s body was fired sufficiently close-in so as to target him, and not merely target the plane itself, which, of course, is much larger than a pilot’s belly. Here is that side-panel shown positioned onto the plane prior to the downing, so that you can recognize where it had been located on the airliner. And here is a view of this side-panel shown very close up, in high detail.
And here it is shown so that you can see the full side-panel and the enormous gash into it from those projectiles that had been fired at the pilot’s belly.

Now, in order to see an analysis of what is proven by this side-panel, click here. That walks a reader through this and the other reliable evidence, so that you can make your determinations for yourself, rather than relying upon Robert Parry’s statements, or Christof Lehmann’s statements, or my statements — or anyone’s. The case there is presented by me, but it constantly links directly to the actual evidence, and it interprets all of the other evidence in a way that is consistent with this side-panel as you see it in those photographs, all of which were taken within just hours of the shoot-down. This will enable you to make up your own mind about everything, entirely on your own, on a best-evidence basis, and with minimal reliance upon other people’s statements, because your analysis will be entirely upon a best-evidence-based analysis, which is the way that a jury in a court of law in a democratic country is supposed to reach its verdict about a crime.

However, if you are reading this article for the first time, then you might first want to see the case presented in a different way, which points out the reason why the ‘history’ of this event, the cause of that crime, cannot be what the official versions of it say that it is: it cannot be a ground-fired missile that brought down this airliner 33,000 feet above. That ‘explanation’ isn’t only false; it is actually absurd. However, that explanation includes stills from a Russian documentary about the standard ground-based-missile (“Buk”) ‘explanation’ of the shoot-down; and some people in the West have been so indoctrinated to disbelieve everything that comes out of Russia, so that they won’t even want to see that case, which is a preliminary case, demonstrating the U.S.-Ukrainian or Western theory of this event to be absurd on its face. If you want to see that preliminary case (of the absurdity of the U.S.-Ukrainian ‘explanation’), it’s here.

That link, for anyone who isn’t simply closed-minded to Russian sources, is the best single summary presentation of the evidence on the MH17 matter, as I have been able to reconstruct the event.

More recently, I have updated my account in order to deal with the second-most-reliable item of evidence on the case, which is the pilot’s corpse, the autopsy on which is still being hidden, but the cover-up of which is consistent with what one would expect on the basis of my analysis. That update, concerning what would likely be the conclusive proof in the case if it were ever to become public, is here.

And what about the black box and the other items of evidence that are so much the foci of the public’s attention in the West? Well, not only will that evidence never be made public, and so it’s not a rational basis for the public to rely upon in whatever dubious form that might some day become publicly released, but, it’s in the hands of an investigating-team that’s committed to produce a report, if any, that will be acceptable to the Ukrainian Government, which is one of the suspects.

By contrast, the cockpit side-panel was superbly photographed and uploaded to the Internet within only hours of the shoot-down. And no country, and no agent for any country, had had an opportunity to manipulate it before it was made public.

That’s extraordinary. It’s golden. Trusting anything else as constituting the primary item of evidence doesn’t make legal/forensic sense. And, as the last-given link here opens by explaining, wikipedia’s article about the downing of this airliner is deeply untrustworthy, because it altogether ignores the one best item of evidence.

So, the complicity of even the best journalists about this hoax has been that they play along with the pretense that the official authorities on the matter are honest. They make this assumption, even where the authorities persist in hiding evidence from them. Instead, every reader should make up his or her own mind about the downing of this airliner, if a person is interested in the matter at all. Distrust has to be the default assumption for any reader, on this. But what that means in practical terms is: Start only with the least-likely-to-have-been-manipulated item of evidence, and then reason from there, by means of interpreting every other item of evidence on the basis of its consistency with that one, the most-reliable-of-all, item of evidence. And any ‘evidence’ that is inconsistent with it must be presumed to be likely manipulated; it’s legal/forensically inadmissible.

The MH17 shoot-down occurred within the context of U.S. President Barack Obama’s frustration at the EU’s reluctance to increase economic sanctions against Russia, and the downing of this plane was used as the excuse for increasing those sanctions, and it worked — his (and Ukraine’s) ‘explanation’ of the event was accepted right away (though the official ‘investigation’ still has not been completed, if it ever will be). So, this was one of the cardinal historic occurrences in 2014. Anyone seriously interested in the history of our times will need to determine for him or her self how that airliner was shot down. Understanding this event accurately will then open doors to an accurate understanding of our times, and of the world we live in. Not only the victims’ families need to know the truth about this. We all do, actually.

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

11 July, 2015
Countercurrents.org

 

The Greek Tragedy! The Left Won The Battle On The Streets, But Lost The War To Troika In European Parliament

By Xekinima (CWI Greece)

July 9th was a black day for the Greek left. SYRIZA’s leading team, around Prime Minister A. Tsipras, subordinated itself completely and absolutely to the demands of the Troika lenders. The Greek working class finds itself in a tragic position. They voted for SYRIZA in order to find solutions to their problems and to escape from the Memoranda (austerity packages). Yet after five months in government the only thing that SYRIZA was able to deliver was another catastrophic Memorandum which finishes off the pro-austerity policies of the previous governments of New Democracy and PASOK.

The working masses do not forget that the same people who are today betraying the ideas and principles of the Left are the same people who had promised to get rid of the Memorandum “within one day and with one law”. It’s the same people who promised the Salonica Programme (SYRIZA’s more radical pre-election promises), which they claimed would be carried out irrespective of the negotiations with the Troika.

The leading group in SYRIZA and Alex Tsipras has been proven tragically incapable of responding to the tasks of the moment and unworthy of the confidence of the working class. They are unworthy of the earth-shaking ‘No’ vote on 5 July which reverberated throughout Europe and the whole world. They betrayed the confidence of workers, pensioners, the unemployed and the poor, who voted by 70%-80% in favor of ‘No’ in the working class neighborhoods and cities. They betrayed the great struggle launched by the Left and the working class, all across Europe, in support of the struggling Greek workers.

And yet, even at this time, the SYIRZA leaders around Tsipras have the gall to ask people to rally today in favor of ‘No’ because, supposedly, this ‘government of the Left’ needs the support of people in the streets! But why should the working class rally and demonstrate to defend those who have stabbed it in the back! Particularly when, only a few days ago, on Friday 3 July, workers and youth came out in their hundreds of thousands into the center of Athens and on 5 July voted by a massive 61.3% No.

The so-called negotiations with the Troika are still, supposedly, continuing and it seems that the only possibility, however remote, of a reversal of the process of the subordination of SYRIZA is if sections of the ruling classes in Europe simply decide to kick Greece out of the Eurozone. This would be the only instance in which Tsipras could come into a head-on clash with the Eurozone. If this happened, it would of course not change even one iota any of the above criticisms of the leadership of SYRIZA.

July 9th represents a historical turning point in the transformation of SYRIZA from a party of the Left into a party in the service of the capitalist system. Tsipras and the ruling team have crossed the Rubicon. And they will continue on this road even if this leads them into the hands of a “national government” along with the enemies of yesterday, even if they have to expel the left wing of SYRIZA and “destroy” the party.

What lies behind this new historical tragedy of the Greek Left is nothing else but the complete lack of understanding by the leadership of the class character of living reality. And a complete lack of understanding of what class struggle means. They went to the EU to “fight for their proposals” with water pistols against machine guns. They tried to “explain” and to “convince” Schauble and the rest of the capitalist gang leading the EU, naively and foolishly, that they were applying wrong policies and should change them. They never had and never showed any confidence to the power of the working class and its ability to take destiny into its own hands. They swallowed the fairy tale perpetuated by the ruling class that their profit system is invincible, that capitalism can never be overthrown and that the exit from the Euro would equal to a social catastrophe.

The defeat in which Tsipras and his government led the Greek working class is historical but it is not final. It not like the defeat suffered by the left and working class in the Civil War in Greece. There is still a lot of potential for resistance.

The immediate task is the coming together of the forces of the Left which understand the need for a regroupment along the lines of revolutionary socialism, to plan the next steps. There are serious forces in the non-parliamentary Left, inside ANTARSYA (Anti-capitalist Left) and SYRIZA etc., which understand that without rupture with the capitalist system and the Eurozone there is no perspective for a better life. These forces must urgently meet and discuss and take all the necessary steps, to lay the basis for a new, mass revolutionary Left. To lead the struggles of tomorrow and to offer the perspective of struggle for a future against the false hopes of Tsipras and his circle.

The Statement

On the evening of 10 July, a planned SYRIZA demonstration taking place in Syntagma, in central Athens, will now probably become a rally mainly of the SYRIZA Left and of ANTARSYA against the Tsipras U-turn. Members of Xekinima (CWI Greece) will distribute the following statement at the protest.

Xekinima (CWI Greece) calls for the Left SYRIZA MPs and MPs from the other Left parties to oppose and to vote against latest proposals of the Tsipras leadership. The Left in Greece must appeal to workers and youth to mobilise against the new Memorandum, including organising mass protests and demonstrations, invoking the powerful No mandate from last week’s referendum to oppose any sell-out of their class interests.(CWI Greece) calls for the Left to break with austerity and to adopt a socialist programme. This includes refusal to pay the debt; controls on capital flows; for the state monopoly of foreign trade; the nationalisation of the banks and the commanding heights of the economy, under democratic workers’ control and management; reversal of austerity; jobs for all, with a living wage, and free, quality health, education and welfare.

Planning the economy for the needs of the people and not the profits of the capitalists – the socialist re-organisation of society – would see an end to economic crises, poverty, joblessness and forced emigration.

To achieve this it is essential to build independent class politics, inside and outside of SYRIZA. Following the enormous No rallies last week across Greece, continue, deepen and expand the active participation of the working class and youth in the struggle against the Troika and for a socialist alternative. This means the creation of popular assemblies and action committees of the rank and file in workplaces and communities.

Appeal to workers and youth across Europe to fight austerity and for a socialist Europe.

11 July, 2015
Socialistalternative.org

Pew Report: 84 Percent Of World Population Subsists On Under $20 Per Day

By Andre Damon

Despite significant advances in communications, agriculture and bio-technology over the past 15 years, the overwhelming majority of the world population continues to live in economic privation, according to a report on global incomes published this week by the Pew Research Center.

The report, entitled “A Global Middle Class is More Promise than Reality,” classifies 71 percent of the world population as either poor or low-income, subsisting on less than $10 per day. The report concludes that 84 percent lives on less than $20 per day, or $7,300 per year, an income level associated with “deep poverty” in developed countries.

Only seven percent of the world population lives on what the report calls a “high” income level of more than $50 per day, or $18,000 per year. The great majority of these people live in Europe or America.

In the years following the turn of the millennium, and especially before the 2008 financial crash, the supposed emergence of a new “global middle class,” particularly in developing countries, was touted by the political establishment as proof that the capitalist system was capable of bringing economic prosperity to people living in poverty in Asia, Latin America and Africa.

The Pew report pours cold water on such claims. “The global middle class is smaller than we think, it is less well off than we think, and it is more regionally concentrated than we think,” Rakesh Kochhar, the study’s lead author, told the Financial Times .

The report finds that even countries that “sharply” reduced the worst forms of poverty “experienced little change in the share of middle-income populations.” While the report notes that there has been a reduction in the number of people living on less than $2 per day, it points out that those who have ascended from the lowest depths have for the most party landed in the “low-income” category of $2-10 per day—a level that would classify them as living in extreme poverty by US standards.

The report uses the latest purchasing power parity data to analyze and compare the distribution of incomes throughout the world. It covers 111 countries, which account for 88 percent of the world’s population, and spans the years 2001 through 2011.

Over that period, the share of the world’s population classified as “upper-middle income,” making between $20 and $50 per day, grew from 7 percent to 9 percent. This was significantly less than the growth of the share of the population making between $10 and $20 per day, which increased from 7 percent to 13 percent between 2001 and 2011.

The great majority of the increase in “middle income” people occurred in China and other high-growth countries in the Pacific whose economies have rapidly expanded over this period.

The report notes, “Home to more than 1.3 billion people, or nearly 20 percent of the world’s population, China alone accounted for more than one in two additions to the global middle-income population from 2001 to 2011.”

The story was much different for other “developing” countries, with next to no increase in the number of “middle income” earners in Africa, India, Central America and Southeast Asia.

The report states, “In contrast to China, most other Asian countries had relatively little growth in their middle classes. India is a case in point. Although the poverty rate in India fell from 35 percent in 2001 to 20 percent in 2011, the share of the Indian population that could be considered middle income increased from 1 percent to just 3 percent. Instead of a burgeoning middle class, India’s ranks of low-income earners swelled.”

Africa fared little better. The report notes that on that continent “most of the movement was from poverty to low-income status.” It says: “Ethiopia, for example, experienced a decline of 27 percentage points in the share of people who could be considered poor. This translated into an increase of 26 percentage points in the country’s share of low-income earners and only a 1-point increase in middle-income earners.”

Similarly, “In Nigeria, one of the region’s most dynamic economies, the share of the poor fell 18 percentage points from 2001 to 2011, resulting in a 17 percentage point increase in low-income earners and just a 1-point boost in the share of the population that could be considered middle income.”
Despite the significant social and economic changes that have taken place since 2001, the great majority of high-income people continued to reside in the developed countries in North America and Europe. In 2011, 87 percent of “high-income” people—those subsisting on at least $50 per day, or $18,250 per year—lived in these countries.

Despite modest improvements in living standards in some parts of the world, incomes dropped in the United States. As the report states, “The US economy stumbled through the decade from 2001 to 2011, growing at less than 1 percent annually on average. Even these slight gains did not make their way to American families, whose median income actually decreased from 2001 to 2011.”

Amid falling incomes in the United States and continued mass poverty in the rest of the world, the wealth of the global financial oligarchy has continued to soar. Last year, the wealth of the world’s billionaires hit $7 trillion, having more than doubled in the time covered in the Pew report. The astronomical enrichment of this social layer is inseparable from the impoverishment of the world’s workers.

The statistics presented in the Pew report underscore the basic fact that the capitalist system has proven incapable of providing a decent standard of living for the vast majority of the world’s people.

11 July, 2015
WSWS.org

 

Wikipedia As Propaganda Not History — MH17 As An Example

By Eric Zuesse

Wikipedia articles are more propaganda than they are historical accounts. And, often, their cited sources are misleading, or even false.

On 15 August 2007, the BBC headlined “Wikipedia Shows CIA Page Edits,” and Jonathan Fildes reported that, “An online tool that claims to reveal the identity of organizations that edit Wikipedia pages has revealed that the CIA was involved in editing entries.” I.e.: What the CIA doesn’t like, they can (and do) eliminate or change.

More recently, on 25 June 2015, an anonymous reddit poster, “moose,” listed and linked directly to 18 different news reports, in such media as New York Times, Washington Post, Telegraph, Mirror, Guardian, and Newsweek, reporting about wikipedia edits that were supplied not only by the CIA but by other U.S. Government offices, and by large corporations. That person opened with a news report which implicated Wikipedia itself, “Wikipedia honcho caught in scandal quits, defends paid edits,” in which Wikipedia’s own corruption was discussed. Most of the other news reports there concerned unpaid edits by employees at CIA, congressional and British parliamentary offices, the DCRI (French equivalent of the U.S. CIA), large corporations, self-interested individuals, and others. One article even concerned a report that, “All-Russia State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company (VGTRK) changed a Russian language version of a page listing civil aviation accidents to say that ‘The plane [flight MH17] was shot down by Ukrainian soldiers’.” Basically, wikipedia has been revealed to be a river of ‘information’ that’s polluted by so many self-interested sources as to be no more reliable than, say: “New York Times, Washington Post, Telegraph, Mirror, Guardian, and Newsweek.”

And that’s not reliable at all. For example, everybody knew in 2002 and 2003 that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling WMD “Weapons of Mass Destruction,” because they had read it in such ‘news’ sources as that. Consequently, even when wikipedia links to those sorts of articles, it can be propagating lies. After all, The New York Times and Washington Post were stenographically ‘reporting’ the lies from the White House as if those lies were truths (not challenging them at all); so, the fame of a publisher has nothing to do with the honesty (the integrity and carefulness) of its ‘news’ reporting. Stenographic ‘news’ reporting isn’t news-reporting; it is propaganda, no matter how famous and respected the ‘news’ medium happens (unfortunately) to be. Some of the most unreliable ‘news’ media have top prestige.

THE MALAYSIAN AIRLINER OVER UKRAINE

As an example: wikipedia’s English-language article about the 17 July 2014 shoot-down of the MH17 Malaysian airliner is a shameless propaganda-piece by the U.S. Government and its agents. Its (at present) 320 footnote-sources don’t include any of the many reports (virtually all in the foreign press) that present evidence the Ukrainian government shot down this airliner. Among the important issues that aren’t even raised, are: why was the Ukrainian government given veto-power over any final report which will be issued by the official four-nation MH17 investigating team: Netherlands, Belgium, Australia, and Ukraine? Why was Ukraine even included in this team to investigate a crime in which one of the two main suspects is the Ukrainian government itself?

Why was the presence of 30mm bullet-holes in the side-panel next to the pilot not mentioned in this lengthy wikipedia article? (If this plane had been brought down by only a missile, such as wikipedia assumes, there wouldn’t be any bullet-holes — much less, hundreds of them, as there are.) Why was the first analysis of that side-panel — which is the best and most reliable piece of evidence that exists about how this disaster actually happened — ignored altogether in the wikipedia article? After all, that analysis of the side-panel has subsequently been further confirmed by other reliable evidence, all of which the article also ignores.

I have edited some wikipedia articles, but I won’t edit the one on MH17: it’s too thoroughly rotten with speculative and other bad sources, so that it would need to be entirely rewritten — and bogus ‘evidence’ removed from it — in order for the article to present an account that’s based upon the best evidence regarding each of its particulars. Wikipedia’s article is thoroughly based on anti-Russian propaganda; it might as well have been written by the CIA (like the case that was presented about “Saddam’s WMD” was).

Here is the wikipedia article, so that you can see what U.S. propaganda says about the downing of MH17.

Here is my latest article about the downing of the MH17.

Here is my most comprehensive article reconstructing, on a best-evidence basis, how and why and who shot down this airliner.

The core of my case there is the same item of evidence to which Haisenko first called the public’s attention: that side-panel. I basically accept his reconstruction of how the plane came down, but I supplement it with additional evidence. Please click onto any link in the article, to see the evidence more fully analyzed, in the given linked-to source, wherever you have further questions that aren’t directly addressed in the article.

My articles present far fewer items of ‘evidence’ than does the wikipedia article, because I exclude all but the most-reliable evidence about any given detail. There is so much speculation that’s published, and so much bogus ‘evidence’; my guiding principle is therefore to rely only upon the least-speculative argument that refers to only the most-reliable, assuredly untampered-with, items of evidence. This is what one is supposed to do in a court of law; it’s the reason why judges are authorized to exclude from being presented to jurors any ‘evidence’ that fails to meet modern legal/forensic standards of authenticity and reliability. It’s the only way that an unprejudiced verdict can even become possible. It’s the prerequisite to history, as opposed to mere myth.

That’s the contrast between my articles about the MH17 disaster, and the 320 articles from which the wikipedia article about MH17 is constructed. And it also separates my articles from wikipedia’s article itself about the subject, “Malaysia Airlines Flight 17.”

What’s especially wrong about the wikipedia account is that it doesn’t even refer to the 30mm bullet holes in that side panel — evidence that is inconsistent with the U.S.-Ukrainian account (wikipedia’s account) of how this airliner was shot down. (Wikipedia’s article is instead obsessed with “a Buk missile launcher” — the theory of the case that’s pumped by America’s and Ukraine’s governments, and which is entirely inconsistent with such bullet-holes. You don’t get bullet-holes from 33,000+ feet away.) And the wikipedia article also doesn’t refer to Peter Haisenko, the brilliant former Luftahansa pilot who first pointed out those bullet holes in the side-panel, and who noted that there wouldn’t be any, much less hundreds of, bullet-holes firing directly into the pilot’s body, if the only thing that had brought down this airliner were shrapnel from some missile fired from 33,000 feet below. You simply can’t target the pilot’s belly and pump perhaps a thousand bullets into it from 33,000 feet down. This side-panel decimates the American-Ukrainian theory of the case — and so decimates wikipedia’s propagandistic article.

And why wasn’t the autopsy on the pilot made public? Everyone needs to know what was inside that corpse. But wikipedia and the ‘news’ media show no interest in that crucial question, either.

We don’t live in a democracy. This is a dictatorship. The ‘news’ media cannot be trusted by any intelligent and open-minded person. To find the truth, one (unfortunately) needs to investigate on one’s own and take the attitude that only the most solid evidence and the least speculative argument constitutes authentic history, on anything. All else — any casual trusting of the ‘news’ media — is merely accepting lies and myths, which are designed to manipulate people (like when we invaded Iraq), instead of to inform them. There is more than ample reason to distrust the ‘news’ media. And wikipedia is just as manipulated as the rest.

We live now in a culture where lies and myths drown out truth. In other words: we live in a dictatorship. That’s today’s USA. This is the reality, in which we live. And the Big Lie is: it’s not so. But the evidence sadly proves: it’s so; it clearly is the case.

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

09 July, 2015
Countercurrents.org

 

 

 

President Obama Accepts Slavery In Order To Win TPP Trade Deal

By Eric Zuesse

So that U.S. President Barack Obama can end a roadblock and win the agreement of other nations for his proposed Trans Pacific Partnership, he has decided to remove one of the nations, Malaysia, from the U.S. State Department’s official list of countries that allow slavery. Malaysia, which recently found over a hundred graves of discarded slaves, has been on the U.S. State Department’s “Tier 3” list of slave nations, along with North Korea, Zimbabwe, Syria, and Iran, but, unlike those other countries, Obama wants Malaysia to be included in his Trans Pacific Partnership; so, he has decided to remove Malaysia from that official list.
This was first reported by Reuters on July 8th, under the headline “Exclusive: U.S. Upgrades Malaysia in Annual Human Trafficking Report.” Reuters announced: “The United States is upgrading Malaysia from the lowest tier on its list of worst human trafficking centers, U.S. sources said on Wednesday, a move that could smooth the way for an ambitious U.S.-led free-trade deal with the Southeast Asian nation and 11 other countries.”

Zach Carter at Huffington Post headlined, later on July 8th, “Obama To Upgrade Malaysia On Human Rights Despite Mass Graves,” and he reported that U.S. Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) issued a statement saying: “If true, this manipulation of Malaysia’s ranking in the State Department’s 2015 TIP report would be a perversion of the trafficking list and undermine both the integrity of this important report as well as the very difficult task of confronting states about human trafficking.”

However, Senator Menendez, himself, has, behind the scenes, pushed for Obama’s TPP and other mammoth ‘trade’ deals, including TTIP and TISA, even despite these deals allowing participating countries to look the other way and not prosecute when international corporations hire killers to assassinate labor union organizers in a given U.S. trade ‘partner’ country. So, Sen. Menendez is in no position to accuse this President of allowing slavery and even mass-murder of slaves, and he is not making any such accusation. In fact, Menendez was a no-show at the key vote in the Senate on Fast-Tracking — reducing from the Constitutionally required 67 down to the ordinary-law-required 51 Senators, which will be needed in order to approve, as constituting a U.S. law, a treaty — each one of this President’s three gigantic ‘trade’ treaties. Menendez did this even though the Obama Administration has acknowledged that it considers a nation’s murders of labor union organizers to be irrelevant to that country’s suitability to be included in a ‘trade’ treaty as a favored nation and ‘trading’ partner, such as will be in the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), or in its Atlantic equivalent, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).

Allowing murder of trade-union officials, and allowing slavery, are not, in either case, matters of law in any given country, because nowhere are those things technically legal. They are instead matters of not enforcing laws that are technically on the books. When corporations can become more internationally competitive by employing such tactics and paying public officials to look the other way, it’s just a matter of economic competition and of minimizing government regulation of the economy. These are unofficial ways of boosting competitiveness, which — the U.S. President and his “Fast Track” supporters in Congress are now on record as accepting — do not disqualify a given country from being included as one of the treaty “Partners.”

Recently, on May 25th, Britain’s Guardian headlined “Malaysia migrant mass graves: police reveal 139 sites, some with multiple corpses,” and reported that the corpses were probably Bangladeshi but that this had not yet been confirmed. “The revelation is likely to focus new attention on Malaysia’s record in battling a scourge that activists say is carried out by criminal syndicates, likely with the complicity of authorities.” It helps Malaysia stay internationally competitive. And the use of foreigners for this, reduces the likelihood of serious domestic political blowback from this particular means of the nation’s increasing its economic competitiveness. This technique additionally helps to drive down wages within the given nation, and by that indirect means, makes the entire nation even more economically competitive. The Obama Administration is now officially categorizing the entire matter as simply expanding “free trade.”

When the United States provides favored-nation treatment to nations where slaves are used, or where labor-union organizers are murdered, the United States is allowing U.S. international corporations to lower their production-costs by “shipping those jobs overseas” to countries where labor is cheaper (or even free, if the cost of bribes is not included). The beneficiaries of those lower (if any) wages are the owners of these international corporations. U.S. consumers might also benefit, if the lower production-costs get passed along to them; but, sometimes, that doesn’t happen, and all of the benefits from other nations’ union-busting and/or outright slave labor go only to the stockholders of the international corporations.

Under the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, which allows corporations to donate unlimited funds anonymously to U.S. political campaigns, there is no longer any way to prevent international corporations from participating in U.S. electoral politics — it’s now “free speech” (no matter where the corporation is headquartered or incorporated), and any corporation is a “person,” which has unlimited “free speech” regarding political matters. If those corporations (or, actually, their controlling stockholders) decide to do business that way, it’s now only a private decision that they are entirely free to make, according to the U.S. Supreme Court.

An independent economic analysis was done of TPP, and it showed that international corporations will benefit enormously, but that the publics everywhere will become far worse off, if it goes into effect. An independent economic analaysis was also done of TTIP, and it produced the very same findings. However, corporate-backed economic analyses have produced contrary findings, and those are the studies that are officially cited. In current economic theory, the more that things are privatized, the better. Some economists personally object, but most economists who have successful careers do not. Endowed chairs in economics are sparse for dissenters. As the late economist Robert E. Prasch noted:

“Positions at the top twenty research universities are simply closed to scholars working outside the mainstream, and the next twenty on the list have every incentive to become caricatures of the top schools. The reason for this de facto policy of exclusion is not solely ideological. In this era of austerity, research faculties are expected to garner substantial outside funding, and these funds are typically granted to scholars whose work serves the funders ends.”

In other words, there is a “free market” in economists, too.

And so, the “free market” will be expanded, no matter what; and there is likely to be considerable public cheering about it, regardless of what slaves, or non-unionized workers, or other possible objectors, might happen to think about it. International corporations might have lots of “free speech,” but the real people who are at the bottom — not nearly as much. And, in Malaysia, perhaps, not at all.

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

10 July, 2015
Countercurrents.org

 

Document Shows CIA Reaction To Finding No WMD In Iraq

By David Swanson

The National Security Archive has posted several newly available documents, one of them an account by Charles Duelfer of the search he led in Iraq for weapons of mass destruction, with a staff of 1,700 and the resources of the U.S. military.

Duelfer was appointed by CIA Director George Tenet to lead a massive search after an earlier massive search led by David Kay had determined that there were no WMD stockpiles in Iraq. Duelfer went to work in January 2004, to find nothing for a second time, on behalf of people who had launched a war knowing full well that their own statements about WMDs were not true.

The fact that Duelfer states quite clearly that he found none of the alleged WMD stockpiles cannot be repeated enough, with 42% of Americans (and 51 percent of Republicans) still believing the opposite.

A New York Times story last October about the remnants of a long-abandoned chemical weapons program has been misused and abused to advance misunderstanding. A search of Iraq today would find U.S. cluster bombs that were dropped a decade back, without of course finding evidence of a current operation.

Duelfer is also clear that Saddam Hussein’s government had accurately denied having WMD, contrary to a popular U.S. myth that Hussein had pretended to have what he did not.

The fact that President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and their team knowingly lied cannot be overemphasized. This group took the testimony of Hussein Kamel regarding weapons he’d said had been destroyed years ago, and used it as if he’d said they currently existed. This team used forged documents to allege a uranium purchase. They used claims about aluminum tubes that had been rejected by all of their own usual experts. They “summarized” a National Intelligence Estimate that said Iraq was unlikely to attack unless attacked to say nearly the opposite in a “white paper” released to the public. Colin Powell took claims to the U.N. that had been rejected by his own staff, and touched them up with fabricated dialogue.

Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Jay Rockefeller concluded that, “In making the case for war, the Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even nonexistent.”

On January 31, 2003, Bush suggested to Blair that they could paint an airplane with U.N. colors, fly it low to get it shot at, and thereby start the war. Then the two of them walked out to a press conference at which they said they would avoid war if at all possible. Troop deployments and bombing missions were already underway.

When Diane Sawyer asked Bush on television why he had made the claims he had about Iraq’s supposed weapons of mass destruction, he replied: “What’s the difference? The possibility that [Saddam] could acquire weapons, if he were to acquire weapons, he would be the danger.”

Duelfer’s newly released internal report on his hunt, and that of Kay before him, for the figments of propagandists’ imagination refers to “Saddam Hussein’s WMD program,” which Duelfer treats as an on-again, off-again institution, as if the 2003 invasion had just caught it in one of its naturally cyclical low tides of non-existence. Duelfer also describes the nonexistent program as “an international security problem that vexed the world for three decades,” — except perhaps for the part of the world engaged in the largest public demonstrations in history, which rejected the U.S. case for war.

Duelfer openly states that his goal was to rebuild “confidence in intelligence projections of threat.” Of course, having found no WMDs, he can’t alter the inaccuracy of the “projections of threat.” Or can he? What Duelfer did publicly at the time and does again here is to claim, without providing any evidence for it, that “Saddam was directing resources to sustain the capacity to recommence producing WMD once U.N. sanctions and international scrutiny collapsed.”

Duelfer claims that former Saddam yes men, rigorously conditioned to say whatever would most please their questioner, had assured him that Saddam harbored these secret intentions to start rebuilding WMD someday. But, Duelfer admits, “there is no documentation of this objective. And analysts should not expect to find any.”

So, in Duelfer’s rehabilitation of the “intelligence community” that may soon be trying to sell you another “projection of threat” (a phrase that perfectly fits what a Freudian would say they were doing), the U.S. government invaded Iraq, devastated a society, killed upwards of a million people by best estimates, wounded, traumatized, and made homeless millions more, generated hatred for the United States, drained the U.S. economy, stripped away civil liberties back home, and laid the groundwork for the creation of ISIS, as a matter not of “preempting” an “imminent threat” but of preempting a secret plan to possibly begin constructing a future threat should circumstances totally change.

This conception of “preemptive defense” is identical to two other concepts. It’s identical to the justifications we’ve been offered recently for drone strikes. And it’s identical to aggression. Once “defense” has been stretched to include defense against theoretical future threats, it ceases to credibly distinguish itself from aggression. And yet Duelfer seems to believe he succeeded in his assignment.

David Swanson is an author, activist, journalist, and radio host. He is director of WorldBeyondWar.org and campaign coordinator for RootsAction.org. Swanson’s books include War Is A Lie. He blogs at DavidSwanson.org and WarIsACrime.org. He hosts Talk Nation Radio. He is a 2015 Nobel Peace Prize Nominee.

10 July, 2015
TeleSUR

 

Greek Government Approves Brutal Austerity Measures In Proposal To EU

By Alex Lantier

Greece’s Syriza-led government agreed to a massive new €13 billion (US$14.34 billion) package of austerity measures yesterday evening, less than a week after Sunday’s landslide “no” vote in a referendum on European Union (EU) austerity.

The proposal would be the deepest package of cuts since the EU austerity drive began in Greece in late 2009. It goes well beyond the proposed €8 to 9 billion in cuts initially demanded by the EU in talks with Syriza.

The 13-page proposal was submitted to the EU, International Monetary Fund (IMF) and European Central Bank (ECB) before the midnight deadline previously set by the institutions. In exchange for cuts, the Greek government is reportedly asking for a €53.5 billion ($59.2 billion) loan to the Greek state and some form of debt restructuring, allowing it to avoid state bankruptcy and remain in the euro currency area.

The austerity measures reportedly include sharp increases in the regressive VAT sales tax and an increase in the retirement age to 67 by 2022. The elimination of additional payments to the poorest pensioners will take place by the end of 2019, a year earlier than previously scheduled.

Plans for the privatization of state assets, including ports and airports, will go forward. The proposal also includes a reported increase of the corporate tax to 28 percent, rather than 29 percent, a reduction requested by the IMF.

In proposing the new austerity package, Syriza has with extraordinary rapidity repudiated the vote in Sunday’s referendum, which Syriza itself had called and presented as a model of democratic accountability. More than 61 percent of the population rejected precisely the measures that the government has now adopted.

Even as Syriza officially called for a “no” vote, Tsipras had no intention of fighting EU austerity. The prime minister expected to lose the vote and, in response, abandon office and leave it to another government to impose the cuts. (See also: Tsipras petitions EU for new austerity deal)

Following the vote, the Syriza-led government has moved as quickly as possible to reach an accommodation with the pro-austerity parties within Greece and approve a deal that would be acceptable to the European banks.

The measures were finalized in discussions between Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras, Deputy Prime Minister Yiannis Dragasakis, Finance Minister Euclid Tsakalotos and Economy Minister Giorgios Stathakis—all from the ruling Syriza (“Coalition of the Radical Left”) party—and adopted by the Greek cabinet on Thursday.

The government is planning to seek a vote in the Greek parliament today, relying on support from the openly pro-austerity New Democracy and PASOK parties. On Saturday, eurozone finance ministers are scheduled to meet to review the proposal, followed by a meeting Sunday of the EU leaders.

The new austerity proposal was rushed through amidst threats from European officials to entirely cut off funding for Greece and force the country out of the eurozone. In response to these threats, Syriza continually refused to take any measures that would threaten capitalist property relations and rejected any appeal to workers throughout Europe for a common struggle against austerity.

It is uncertain whether an agreement will be approved by the EU, even on the surrender terms being offered by Syriza. Sections of the European ruling class are discussing forcing Greece to default on its debts, expelling it from the euro zone, and pushing it through a drastic economic crisis by forcing it to restore a devalued national currency.

German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble said yesterday that any significant restructuring of Greece’s debt was unlikely, as this would violate EU rules.

Other European officials have indicated a desire to reach agreement with the Greek government. Syriza members told the Guardian that French finance ministry officials had worked with Greek Finance Minister Tsakalotos to rewrite the austerity package Athens was proposing, in order to make it acceptable to the EU.

Donald Tusk, the chair of the EU summit, urged European officials to take certain measures to allow Greece to pay back its debt. “The realistic proposal from Greece will have to be matched by an equally realistic proposal on debt sustainability from the creditors,” Tusk said.

Germany has also come under pressure from the Obama administration to ensure that Greece is not pushed out of the eurozone. On Wednesday, US Treasury Secretary Jack Lew publicly intervened to push for an agreement on austerity between Greece and the EU and call for some form of “debt restructuring.”

Criticizing those who “create more of these kind of life-and-death deadlines,” Lew said they were creating far greater economic and political risks, including a broader financial panic across southern Europe and the possible splitting of Europe. The US wants to ensure that Greece remains within NATO and continues to support the campaign of military and economic aggression against Russia.

With Greece’s banks still closed and depositors limited to €60 in daily cash withdrawals amid the crisis, the Greek economy is rapidly grinding to a halt.

The National Confederation of Hellenic Commerce released a report Wednesday that found that consumption had fallen 70 percent since the closure of Greece’s banks, costing €1.2 billion to the economy. Greeks are reportedly stocking up on key medicines as well as non-perishable foods, such as rice and pasta, fearing a possible collapse of supplies of imported food and medicine.

10 July, 2015
WSWS.org

 

Greece And The EU Situation

By Paul Craig Roberts

I doubt that there will be a Greek exit.

The Greek referendum, in which the Greek government’s position easily prevailed, tells the troika (EU Commission, European Central Bank, IMF, with of course Washington as the puppet master) that the Greek people support their government’s position that the years of austerity to which Greece has been subjected have seriously worsened the debt problem. The Greek government has been trying to turn the austerity approach into reforms that would lessen the debt burden via a rise in employment, GDP, and tax revenues.

The first response of most EU politicians to the Greek referendum outcome was to bluster about Greece exiting Europe. Washington is not prepared for this to happen and has told its vassals to give the Greeks a deal that they can accept that will keep them within the EU.

Washington has a higher interest than the interests of the US financial interests who purchased discounted sovereign debt with a view toward profiting from a deal that pays 100 cents on the dollar. Washington also has higher interest than the interests of the European One Percent intent on using Greece’s indebtedness to loot the country of its national assets. Washington’s higher interest is the protection of the unity of the EU and, thereby, NATO, Washington’s mechanism for bringing conflict to Russia.

If the inflexible Germans were to have Greece booted from the EU, Greece’s turn to Russia and financial rescue would put the same idea in the heads of Italy and Spain and perhaps ultimately France. NATO would unravel as Southern Europe became members of Russia’s Eurasian trade bloc, and American power would unravel with NATO.

This is simply unacceptable to Washington.

If reports are correct, Victoria Nuland has already paid a visit to the Greek prime minister and explained to him that he is neither to leave the EU or cozy up to the Russians or there will be consequences, polite language for overthrow or assassination. Indeed, the Greek prime minister probably knows this without need of a visit.

I conclude that the “Greek debt crisis” is now contained. The IMF has already adopted the Greek government’s position with the release of the IMF report that it was a mistake from the beginning to impose austerity on Greece. Pressured by this report and by Washington, the EU Commission and European Central Bank will now work with the Greek government to come up with a plan acceptable to Greece.

This means that Italy, Spain, and Portugal can also expect more lenient treatment.

The losers are the looters who intended to use austerity measures to force these countries to transfer national assets into private hands. I am not implying that they are completely deterred, only that the extent of the plunder has been reduced.

As I have previously written, the Greek “debt crisis” was an orchestration from the beginning. The European Central Bank is printing 60 billion euros per month, and at any time during the “crisis” the ECB could have guaranteed the solvency of any remaining creditor banks by purchasing their holdings of Greek debt, just as the Federal Reserve purchased the troubled mortgage backed “securities” held by the “banks too big to fail.” This easy solution was not taken.

The orchestration was a benefit to Western financial interests in general by enabling enormous speculations on the euro and gambling with derivative bets on sovereign debt and everything connected to it. Each successive “crisis,” such as Sunday’s No vote, became cover for an attack on oil or other commodities. The rigging and manipulation of markets can be hidden by pointing fingers at the latest “crisis.”

John Perkins in his book, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, describes the process by which Western financial interests intentionally over-lend to weaker countries and then use the pressure of the debt to force the transfer of the countries’ wealth, and often sovereignty, to the West. The IMF and its austerity programs have long played a role in the looting.

In exchange for reducing euro debt on Greece’s books, Greece was to turn over to private interests its water companies, ports, and protected islands. Unless the One Percent can purchase the current Greek government as it purchased previous governments (for example, with payoffs to borrow money with which to purchase submarines), the referendum has frustrated the looters.

In my book, The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism, I explained that the Greek “debt crisis” had two other purposes. One was to get rid of the practice of restructuring a country’s debt by writing it down to a level the country could afford and to establish in its place the new principle that people of a country are responsible for the mistakes of creditors who over-lend. The write-down is no longer to occur on the balance sheet of the creditors’ but instead becomes a write-down of pensions, social services, and employment. This, too, is a process of looting.

The other purpose, as Jean-Claude Trichet, the previous head of the European Central Bank, made explicitly clear, was to further reduce the sovereignty of member states of the EU by transferring authority over fiscal policy (tax and spend decisions) from national governments to the EU in Brussels.

Washington favors this centralization of political power in Europe, and Washington favors the One Percent over the people. However, above all Washington favors its own power and has acted to prevent a Greek exit, which could begin the unraveling of NATO.

Russia and China have missed an opportunity to begin the unraveling of NATO by assisting Greece’s departure from the EU. Whatever the cost, it would be tiny in comparison to the military buildup that Washington is forcing on both countries. Russia and China might have decided that Washington could no more accept Greece’s alignment with Russia than Russia can accept Ukraine becoming a member of NATO.

If the Greek situation and the waiting Italian and Spanish situations are now resolved along the lines that this article suggests, it means that the NATO mechanism for Washington’s pressure on Russia remains intact and that the conflict that Washington has created will continue. This is the bad news and the downside of Greece’s victory over the looters.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal.
08 July, 2015
Paulcraigroberts.org

 

Obama’s Pacific trade deal trails behind China’s development vision

By Nile Bowie

Often touted as the centerpiece of the Obama administration’s re-engagement with Asia, a close vote in the US Senate has brought the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) a major step closer to becoming law. Facing significant opposition within his own party, the US president has secured fast-track negotiating authority, limiting Congress’s constitutional authority to regulate the contents of the trade accord.

Though the US Congress and American public will have an opportunity to review the deal before it is voted on, fast-track passage procedure reduces time for debate and prohibits amendments to the proposed legislation, limiting Congress to passing an up-or-down vote on the deal. Negotiated behind closed doors and drafted under tremendous secrecy for nearly a decade, elected representatives have thus far had limited access to the draft text.

The negotiations, intended to eventually create a multilateral trade and foreign investment agreement, involve Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States and Vietnam. Comprising some 40 percent of the world’s economy, the trade pact represents Washington’s response to the rising influence of China, which is not a participant, despite being the region’s largest economy and the largest trading partner of Asia-Pacific economies.

Bringing together a diverse grouping of culturally and economically disparate countries, the pact aims to enforce a common regulatory framework that governs rules for tariffs and trade disputes, patents and intellectual property, banking, foreign investment and more. The deal is widely seen as being representative of Washington’s long-term commitment to the Asia-Pacific region.

Rebranding the Asia Pivot

Described as a “comprehensive trade pact that could help cement our dominance over China in Asia” by a prominent American columnist, Senator Charles E. Schumer claimed the deal’s stated goal is to “lure” other countries “away from China”. If the underlying geopolitics of the deal weren’t clear enough, President Obama himself claimed, “If we don’t write the rules, China will write the rules,” in an interview with the Wall Street Journal. Needless to say, the TPP is no ordinary trade agreement.

Substantial differences have emerged between Democrats and Republicans over trade policy, though the bulk of American policy makers view the deal in terms of its strategic benefits: consolidating a new regional economic architecture in the Asia-Pacific on American terms. Mainstream economists such as Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz have argued that the deal would in fact yield marginal economic benefits for the US, even for the corporate and financial interests that stand to gain most from regulatory liberalizations.

This conclusion likely explains why US stock markets barely reacted to the House’s initial rejection of fast-track, which could have potentially torpedoed the deal. For the United States, the Pacific trade pact is a symbol representing the reversal of declining US dominance and the rebranding of America as a leading market power in eyes of Asia-Pacific nations who have begun casting doubt on Washington’s staying-power.

The terms through which supporters have defended the deal revolve almost exclusively around standing up to China and the reputational damage caused to American prestige if the accord fails to materialize. Truthfully speaking, the notion that a foreign government could shape the global economy through alternative multilateral institutions and displace the US as the world’s dominant economic actor stirs passions in the American psyche, one that is utterly convinced of its own indispensability and exceptionalism.

Far from being an ordinary trade agreement, the Trans-Pacific Partnership is a by-product of 21st century bloc-politics. Of all the countries participating in the negotiations, Southeast Asian nations – Brunei, Malaysia, Singapore, and Vietnam – are the most strategically significant. These small states seek to balance their relations with Washington and Beijing through economic integration without antagonizing either power.

The View from ASEAN

The four participating Southeast Asian nations are opposed to choosing sides and they may potentially have a restraining influence over provocative military activity in the region. If the Pacific deal is perceived as yielding beneficial results in these states, the United States will have greater leverage in bringing second-round entrants onboard, expanding the trade area to incorporate other regional players, which will have repercussions for the Chinese economy.

The deal would give Southeast Asian nations preferential access to US markets, which will initially reduce China’s export competitiveness. Vietnam, for example, seeks to the join the TPP to offset its ballooning trade deficit with China. Its textile and garment industries rely on Chinese inputs, but in order to gain tariff-free access to the US apparel market, the materials used must originate within the TPP area, which would force Vietnamese exporters to restructure supply chains to seek alternatives to Chinese products. It should be recognized that these measures impose costs on developing economies and can undermine their capacity to compete.

For American multinationals, the deal opens doors to low-cost offshoring alternatives that would ease dependence on China. Malaysian manufacturers would be in the same position vis-à-vis the deal’s rules of origin, though its multinationals would stand to gain from greater access to new export markets for its natural resources. The pact’s developing economies see widened foreign direct investments as a major incentive, although greater competition between SMEs and multinationals will put downward pressure on wages.

Small states with extensive investment capital and limited domestic markets such as Brunei and Singapore stand to gain most from the TPP, as evidenced by the latter’s aggressive lobbying in favor of the deal. Singapore’s multinational-friendly tax structure and staunch adherence to regulating intellectual property make it a magnet for investment, spurring domestic job growth as its own companies become better positioned to do business with TPP partners to the benefit of the city-state’s financial, shipbuilding and petrochemical sectors.

The View from Beijing

Facing declining commodity and oil prices, lower international and domestic demand, falling industrial production, and the slowest pace of growth in over two decades, China’s leadership has raised concerns that the TPP will undermine its export competitiveness. Though the country has taken steps to move towards a consumption-led growth model, manufacturing and trade is still the engine of the Chinese economy.

Beijing’s latest manufacturing plan specifically mentions the US-led trade deal, claiming it would “further impair China’s price advantage in the exports of industrial products and affect Chinese companies’ expansion”. China is the top trading partner of over 120 countries. If the TPP exacerbates the slowdown of China’s economy, export markets worldwide would be adversely affected.

China’s Industrial output has contracted for three consecutive years, while declining performance in the productive economy and mounting property sector debts have begun triggering signs of speculative bubbles. The most favorable outcome of these developments for the United States would be a reduction in the operational scope of the internationalization of the renminbi and China-sponsored multilateral institutions, such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), which the US and Japan have shunned.

The question of whether China would eventually join the TPP as a second-round entrant implies that it would have to accept the reorientation of its economy around the agreed upon result of the TPP negotiations that it did not participate in. The deal’s trade rules would demand of China a significant departure from its traditionally incremental approach to liberalizing reforms and strong state-led organization of the economy.

Given prevailing Chinese attitudes toward the deal, which is largely viewed as representing a policy of containment, and the ongoing antagonisms between China and the US over land reclamation issues in the South China Sea, it would be genuinely surprising if Chinese leaders sought TPP membership. Beijing’s primary focus will continue to be developing a parallel regional economic architecture and alternatives to the existing international financial institutions such as the Western-dominated IMF and World Bank and Japan-led Asian Development Bank.

China & the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank

Throughout the Asia-Pacific, the most significant obstacles to regional trade result from inadequate networks of infrastructure rather than high tariffs and other protectionist barriers. A study conducted by the World Economic Forum in 2013 concluded that world GDP would rise over six times the current level by reducing supply chain barriers rather than removing all import tariffs. It is in this context that China’s AIIB initiative offers an approach to regional integration through which the TPP provides no equivalence.

China’s AIIB is set to become operational in 2016 with US$100 billion initial capital, drawing investments from a long list of countries that have opted to become AIIB co-founders. Despite pressure from the United States, some of its closest allies – Australia, France, Germany, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, and the United Kingdom – have joined Beijing’s new multilateral development bank, which seeks to reduce the vast gaps in economic infrastructure worldwide.

Beijing has garnered one of the world’s most impressive track records in infrastructure development over the last two decades. Building on this experience, the AIIB will play a key role in China’s “One Belt, One Road” initiative, which aims to modernize two ancient trade routes – the Silk Road Economic Belt linking China with Europe via Central Asia, and the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road connecting China with Southeast Asia – that would serve as two prongs in an evolving global trading regime under Beijing’s auspices.

The success of these initiatives would make China, with its whooping US$4 trillion in foreign currency reserves, the central player in the global development landscape. In the prevailing circumstances, where the powers of the region are competing to achieve their own strategic outcomes, it must be asked whether there is any parity between the United States and its path to regional integration through the Trans-Pacific Partnership in comparison to the vision put forward by the Chinese leadership.

Assessing the Trans-Pacific Partnership

A paper published by the East West Center estimated that the projected gains from the TPP for the countries involved would only result in a 0.5 per cent increase of income. The deal’s focus is on dismantling “nontariff barriers” to business, such as regulatory measures to protect labor, consumers and the environment. Countries involved would be required to adopt new regulatory practices built to cater to the needs of multinational business interests, of which American firms – which stand to gain most from radically enhanced protection for patents and copyrights – will be most advantaged.

American manufacturers, large Silicon Valley firms, Hollywood studios and the pharmaceutical industry have been the most vocal proponents of the sweeping intellectual property provisions in the TPP, which would negatively impact developing countries. A study conducted by the Australian National University found that enhanced protections for pharmaceutical corporations would limit access to antiretroviral drugs for an estimated 45,000 Vietnamese HIV patients who would no longer be able to afford their medication.

A panel of UN experts have recently objected to the potentially adverse impact of the TPP, arguing that the deal’s provisions cater disproportionately to the business interests of pharmaceutical monopolies. The most egregious aspect of the trade deal is the Investor-State-Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism, which would allow corporations to seek restitution against states in an international arbitration court for the alleged diminution of their potential future profits as a result of government regulations.

This provision was used by tobacco giant Phillip Morris to sue the South American nation of Uruguay for US$25 million when it enacted health warnings on its cigarettes and laws designed to discourage children and pregnant women from smoking. The ISDS subjects the participating developing countries to expensive arbitration suits that hinder their ability to adopt regulations that protect labor, the environment and public health.

There is no mandate to speak of for ushering in policies that so demonstrably neglect public interest. Granting multinationals new powers that allow national laws and regulations to be challenged in international tribunals represents a step toward a new interpretation of sovereignty: one that shifts away from national governments toward that of an international-corporate sovereignty. The proponents and beneficiaries of the Trans-Pacific Partnership must ask themselves whether this deal truly serves the people of the region.

1 July 2015

“Islam” As A Conduit For Western Terrorism

By Ghali Hassan

“Western governments no longer hide the fact that they’re using jihadists [a.k.a. foreign terrorists] and NATO forces to overthrew Mouamar al-Qadhafi by using al-Qaeda as its only ground forces; Israel displaced the UN Forces in the occupied Golan Heights, and replaced them with al-Nusra [terrorists]; the international anti-ISIS Coalition allowed Palmyra to fall in order to cause more problems for Syria. But while we can understand Western interests, we fail to grasp why and how the jihadists can serve Uncle Sam in the name of Islam”. Thierry Meyssan, Voltaire Network.

In his recent address to a summit on “countering violent terrorism” in Washington, President Barack Obama repeatedly stressed the need to talk “squarely and honestly” about the “root causes” of terrorism. As a master of deceit, President Obama did his best to cover up the U.S. vicious role in global terrorism. In the Middle East, terrorism is a U.S. tool to justify U.S. imperialist war.

Obama’s big lie was when he told his audience: “The notion that the West is at war with Islam is an ugly lie”. His aim was to deflect attention away from Western government crimes against Muslims and to co-opt those people who buy into his rhetoric. The truth, of course, is that Muslims are not at war with the West. It is the West and Israel that are at war with the Islam and Muslims. Whether in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen or Palestine, Western-Zionist armies have killed millions of innocent Muslims and left their nations in ruin and mired in violence. If premeditated violent aggression and wanton destruction are not terrorism, what is it? Who is benefiting from terrorism?

Terrorism

First, let’s look at terrorism. Herman and O’Sullivan (1990) show that, “terrorism is mainly an instrument of the powerful, which have the resources to terrorise, a frequent interest in using terror to keep opponents of their rule under control, and the cultural power to define terrorism to exclude themselves and pin the label on their enemies and targets”[1]. The powerful Western governments make no apology for their crimes. We are always the innocent victims of terrorism, never its perpetrator. Today’s enemies and targets are Muslims, home and abroad. Anytime a crime is committed, the accused is depicted as “Islamist” to associate the crime with Muslims and Islam. Modern terrorism is a Judeo-Christian invention exported not only to the Middle East but also around the world by the U.S. and its allies (vassals) including, Israel, Britain, France, Germany and the rest. Terrorism is a Western instrument that has always been used to serve Anglo-Zionist interests. It is a fact that, “in western political culture, it is taken to be entirely natural and appropriate that the ‘Leader of the Free World’ [claimed by successive U.S. regimes] should be a terrorist rogue state and should openly proclaim its eminence in such crimes“, writes Noam Chomsky. It is true that, American ruling elites believe that they have right to terrorise, and inflict suffering on defenceless nations that are no subservient to U.S. imperialist dictates.

A plethora of research on terrorism shows that, the U.S. is the biggest terrorist state in the world, and poses the greatest existential threat to world peace and humanity today. The U.S. is terrorism dinosaur. The fascist state of Israel, U.S. closest ally, comes second. All major terrorist operations originated (planned and financed) in Washington D.C. and Tel Aviv. “While the U.S. perpetually invokes international laws to blame others, it repudiates any life – protective law applied to its actions, or [the criminal actions of] its key ally Israel”, writes John McMurtry, author and fellow of the Royal Society of Canada. As long as the terrorists are serving U.S.-Zionist interests, they will be financed, armed and defended by the U.S. and its allies. The U.S.-Israel proxy terror network, the so-called “Islamic state” is a good example.

ISIS: The Proxy Terror Network

The name “Islamic State” (IS) or “Islamic State in Iraq and Syria” (ISIS), is the brainchild of the U.S. CIA and the Israelis, and is designed to associate (connect) all Muslims and anything Islamic with violence and terrorism. ISIS is a foothold the U.S. keeps in the region to blackmail any nation with independent aspirations.

The U.S. created and nurtured ISIS in Iraq in early 2006 to counter the Iraqi Resistance to U.S. occupation. The U.S. and U.S. allies made it possible for ISIS to traverse international borders – from Iraq to Libya to Syria and to Iraq. ISIS was created, funded and armed by the U.S. and U.S. allies, namely Britain, Turkey, Israel, Jordan, France, Qatar and Saudi-Arabia. In fact, according to a recent Russian Foreign Ministry statement; the “UN Security Council’s al-Qaida Sanctions Committee, the United States, Britain, France, and Jordan have blocked Syria’s request – supported by Russia – to include ISIS terrorist group in the sanctions list as a separate group”. (For more, see Ben Swann, The Origin of ISIS). Western governments and the media have also managed to create a fictitious ISIS leader. The so-called al-Baghdadi was created by the CIA and then described as a “native of Baghdad, a fact reflected in his name”. The NYT reported that al-Baghdadi is a fiction.

By creating ISIS and associated it with Islam and “extremism”, the U.S. and its allies are demonising Muslims and Islam, and justifying U.S.-led aggression in the region to protect Anglo-Zionist interests. In fact, ISIS violence is deliberately criminal and designed to demonise Islam. However, if one compares ISIS violence with U.S.-led Western violence, ISIS terrorists have done nothing compared to the barbaric war crimes committed by the U.S. and its allies in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Vietnam, and North Korea.

There is nothing Islamic about ISIS. ISIS is a U.S.-Israel proxy terrorist network of foreign mercenaries collected from various countries around the world. The majority of ISIS terrorists are from Western and U.S.-allied countries. Their main duties are “to wreak havoc and destruction on Syria and Iraq, and distort the name of Islam acting on behalf of their U.S. sponsors. The Washington Post, revealed that, “the flow of foreign fighters [a.k.a. terrorists and mercenaries] making their way to Syria remains constant, so the overall number continues to rise”. In October 2014, the Guardian newspaper obtained a report by the UN Security Council, which finds that 15,000 mercenaries from more than 80 countries travelled to Syria and Iraq to fight alongside ISIS and similar extremist groups. It is a fact that, many of ISIS terrorists are recruited in the West, including Australia, Britain, Canada, France Germany, and the Scandinavian countries. They are leaving and returning with ease. “The Western propaganda offensive encouraged extremists to join in a virtual holy war against Syria. No Australian was detained or deterred from travelling to Syria in the first two years of the crisis. The first few killed were often praised as ‘humanitarian workers’ or victims of the regime’s ‘indiscriminate bombing’”, writes Tim Anderson of the University of Sydney.

ISIS ideology is an Anglo-Zionist ideology designed to distort Islam and depict Islam as a violent religion and justify attacks on Islamic nations and the persecution of Muslims. Hence, Western media and Western politicians frame ISIS violence in a religious dimension. While ISIS uses Islam as a cover, it has nothing to do with religion. The so-called “war on ISIS” is a rebranded open-ended “war on terror” with the same Anglo-Zionist agenda targeting any country. In other words, ISIS is a cover to disguise U.S. imperialist war.

It is a documented fact that ISIS terrorists are trained, armed and financed by the U.S. and U.S. closest allies. In fact, the U.S. and its allies – Turkey, Israel and Jordan in particular – recruited, equipped, trained, and financed ISIS terrorists. In spite of all the pretentious facades in combating these mercenary terrorist forces, the U.S. and U.S. allies have been supporting them all over the Middle East. In a recent speech at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, U.S. Vice-president Joe Biden he stated clearly that: “Our allies in the region [Israel, Turkey, Jordan Qatar, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia] were our largest problem in Syria. The Turks were great friends… [and] the Saudis, the Emirates, etcetera. What were they doing?…They poured hundreds of millions of dollars and tens of tons of weapons into anyone who would fight against Assad — except that the people who were being supplied, [they] were al-Nusra, and al-Qaeda, and the extremist elements of [ISIS] who were coming from other parts of the world”. You can’t be serious, Joe? It is unfair to blame the vassals. Your U.S. regime is the world’s biggest sponsor of terrorism. Like al-Qaeda, ISIS wouldn’t exist today as a major force either in Syria or in Iraq if it wasn’t for the U.S. and U.S. allies.

President Obama has just approved funds to train 20,000 ISIS terrorists to mount terrorism attacks against the Syrian legitimate Government. According to Western media, the U.S. and Turkey have signed an agreement to openly train and arm anti Syria’s “moderate rebels”, masquerading as “rebels”, and the majority of whom are members of ISIS. The deal was signed by U.S. ambassador John Bass and a senior Turkish official. The U.S. and its allies are careful not to call ISIS terrorists. A detailed search of Western media show that ISIS is often called, “ISIS fighters”, “ISIS group”, “moderates rebels”, and “Daesh organisation”, but never terrorists because Western allies are not terrorists; they are something else. We know that, there are no such things as “moderate rebels”. According to Alexey Borodavkin, the Russian Federation ambassador to the UN: “Armed groups qualified as ‘moderate’ [by the U.S.] are closely coordinating their activities with terrorist groups”. He added that Syria is facing a “huge army of trained, armed terrorists.”

ISIS serves as the perfect pretext to justify U.S.-Zionist aggression. The U.S. and its allies, namely Australia, Britain, Canada, and France use ISIS to justify domestic repression and imperial rule. The propaganda from both sides shapes not just the perception of the “war on terror,” but on-the-ground conflicts as well. Dissecting the propaganda shows why ISIS is not a grave threat, and how the West uses ISIS to perpetuate a U.S.-sponsored war that shows little sign of ending. ISIS exists as a smokescreen for U.S. war agenda against Syria and Iraq. As Garikai Chengu, a scholar at Harvard University rightly observes: “America is using ISIS in three ways: to attack its [Muslim] enemies in the Middle East, to serve as a pretext for U.S. military intervention abroad, and at home to foment a manufactured domestic threat, used to justify the unprecedented expansion of invasive domestic surveillance”.

It is relevant to note that, the U.S.-led attacks on Iraq and Syria have nothing to do with “defeating” ISIS terrorists. The West alleged efforts to “degrade and ultimately destroy” ISIS are in fact strengthening ISIS and increased their terror. The criminal destruction caused by the terrorists designed to soften Syria for the current U.S.-led attacks on the country. Since the U.S.-led coalition began their “cosmetic” air strikes to “defeat” the terrorists, ISIS went from strength to strength in Iraq and in Syria. The Syrian Arab Army and their Iraqi counterparts bear the brunt of the fighting.

“The U.S. treats the Islamic State like an attack dog, restrained in Iraq where its interests (protection of the Kurdish state and its oil wealth) are threatened but let off the leash in western Iraq and Syria. The U.S. did nothing to prevent the capture of Mosul last year and stood by again when the ISIS terrorists captured Ramadi recently and paraded through the streets in more captured U.S. army pickups. Neither did it take any action to stop ISIS as they streamed across the desert in the direction of ancient city of Palmyra in Syria. In both cases ISIS columns were an open target which could have been obliterated from the air yet nothing was done to stop them”, writes Jeremy Salt of the Bilkent University in Ankara, Tukey. Indeed, oonly when ISIS came close to capture the headquarters of the Kurdish Mafia in Irbil, the U.S. and U.S. allies, including Israel rushed to their defence. The U.S. support for the Kurds is part of the U.S.-Zionist strategy to partition Iraq.

ISIS serves two of U.S.-Zionist objectives: 1) ISIS is used as a U.S.-Israel proxy terrorist force in the war on Syria with the final aim of toppling the Syrian Government – the Libyan model, and 2) ISIS is used to blackmail and compel the U.S.-installed Iraqi government to allow the U.S. to have permanent military presence in Iraq. For example, ISIS was used to intimidate the former Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki to resign because he was not obedient enough to U.S. colonial diktats. ISIS terrorists are only doing what al-Qaeda under the U.S. command did in Afghanistan in 1980s and then in the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s.

IRAQ

The on-going U.S.-led aggression in Iraq that began in 1991 shows that the U.S.-Zionist project – the complete destruction of Iraq as a unified, strong and prosperous nation – has failed. The U.S. war on Iraq killed more than 3 million Iraqi civilians, most of whom women and children. (For more, see Nafeez Ahmed in MEE, 08 April 2015).

According to the United Nations’ own statistics, every month throughout the 1990s, 6,000 children under the age of five in Iraq were dying from malnutrition and lack of access to simple medicines. Meticulous UN figures show that 1.7 million Iraqi civilians died due to the West’s (U.S.-UK) barbaric economic sanctions regime, half of whom were children. “If the U.S. wants to impose military sanctions on Iraq, let them do it, but don’t deprive our children of milk, health, medicine,” said the then Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister, the late Tariq Aziz. Three senior UN officials resigned in protest, including Denis Halliday, the UN assistant secretary general. At the time, Halliday was serving as the humanitarian coordinator in Baghdad. In his own words, Halliday said: “I had been instructed to implement a policy that satisfies the definition of genocide: a deliberate policy that has effectively killed well over a million individuals, children and adults.” The aim was “to reduce Iraq and Iraqis to the preindustrial age”, as the former U.S. Secretary of State, the violent James Backer threatened to do.

Katherine Hughes, a court watcher with the ACLU observed: “Prior to the 1991 U.S. war, Iraq was a wealthy country, had a First World standard of living. The government of Saddam Hussein provided universal health care and education – including university education – for all Iraqi citizens, [regardless of ethnic or religious affiliation]. There was virtually no illiteracy and the education system and health system were the best in the region. Women enjoyed equal rights and religious minorities were respected.

The second phase of the Iraqi genocide was the 2003 Anglo-American criminal invasion and murderous occupation of Iraq. The international supreme crime culminated in the murder of President Saddam Hussein and the destruction of Iraq as a progressive state. As a consequence of the invasion and occupation, more than 1.5 million Iraqis; the overwhelming majority of them were women and children. The Anglo-American invaders have deliberately destroyed and looted a relatively advanced developing country whose people were largely prosperous. Close to five million Iraqis were displaced by the invasion out of a population of 31 million, and five million Iraqi children became orphans. Women suffered the greatest losses in education, professions, child care, nutrition, and safety. Sexual violence against women and girls in Iraq (and now Syria) has increased exponentially. More than one-fourth of Iraq’s population died, became disabled, or fled the country as refugees. The Americans and their British boodles left Iraq in ruin and in a state of lawlessness.

Before the Anglo-American aggression, Iraq “had the highest level of education in the Middle East. When you point this out you’re accused of being a President Saddam Hussein’s apologist, but Baghdad University in the 1980s had more female professors than Princeton did in 2009; there were crèches to make it easier for women to teach at schools and universities. In Baghdad and Mosul there were libraries dating back centuries. The Mosul library was functioning in the eighth century, and had manuscripts from ancient Greece in its vaults. The Baghdad library, as we know, was looted after the occupation, and what’s going on now in the libraries of Mosul is no surprise, with thousands of books and manuscripts destroyed” with the visible hands of the Anglo-Zionist imperialism (Tariq Ali, LRB, 09 April 2015).

The occupation of Iraq is one of the most destructive acts of terrorism in modern history. Even though Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nuked, the social and political structure of the Japanese state was maintained; although the Germans and Italians were defeated in the Second World War, most of their military structures, intelligence structures, police structures and judicial structures were kept in place, because there was another enemy already in the offing – communism. But Iraq was treated as no other country has been treated before. Indeed, U.S.-led barbaric aggression against Iraq left the region in chaos.

Furthermore, “prior to the 2003 U.S.-Britain criminal invasion, Iraq had no history of extremism. The Kurds had done territorial and political deals; Sunni and Shia had class and sectarian differences, but they were at peace; intermarriage was common. Three years before the invasion, I drove the length of Iraq without fear. On the way I met people proud, above all, to be Iraqis, the heirs of a civilization that seemed, for them, a presence”, writes John Pilger, a rare exception in Western journalism.

In order to completely destroy Iraq as a nation, the U.S. planted the seeds of violence and division in Iraq and incited Iraqis against each other. Furthermore, the U.S. annulled the progressive Iraqi Constitution and replaced it with a U.S.-Zionist crafted constitution which endorses sectarianism and denies women equal rights. The U.S. Occupation forces disbanded the Iraqi Army and security forces and replaced them with U.S.-trained and armed sectarian militias to achieve U.S.-Israel objective of turning Iraq into a divided, subservient and weaker Iraq. The so-called “New Iraqi Army” is under the control of the Pentagon. Hence, the U.S. supply the New Iraqi Army with weapons and Humvees, and the New Iraqi Army passed the weapons and Humvees to ISIS terrorists, and no one blames the U.S. for arming ISIS terrorists. “ISIS is now better armed than the New Iraqi Army. And this all happened with the U.S. support”, said President Vladimir Putin of Russia.

It is a fact that ISIS terrorists invaded Iraq from Syria and Turkey in broad daylight with the full knowledge of the U.S. regime and in full sight of U.S. reconnaissance. If the U.S. and its allies had wanted to destroy ISIS mercenaries, they could have obliterated their convoys of Toyota pickup trucks when they crossed the desert from Syria into Iraq in June 2014.

Commenting on U.S. Defence Secretary Ashton Carter’s comment that, “the Iraqi army shows no will to fight” ISIS terrorists in Ramadi, the Head of Iraqi Parliament’s National Security and Defence Committee, Hakem al-Zameli dismissed the claim as: “unrealistic and baseless.” He said: “The U.S. failed to provide good equipment, weapons and aerial support. The U.S. is trying to deflect the blame”. Al-Zameli also disclosed that the anti-ISIS coalition’s planes have dropped weapons and foodstuff for the ISIS in Salahuddin, al-Anbar and Diyala provinces. In January, al-Zameli underlined that the coalition is the main cause of ISIS’s survival in Iraq. “There are proofs and evidence for the U.S.-led coalition’s military aid to ISIS terrorists through air (dropped cargoes),” he told FARS News Agency (FNA) at the time. “We don’t trust the Americans; they have targeted our forces many times in so-called mistakes,” al-Zameli said. Former U.S. Secretary of States, Henry Kissinger have publicly stated on Fox Business that: ”The Iraqi intelligence sources have claimed that the U.S. military planes have airdropped several aid cargoes for ISIS terrorists and only to those terrorists that cooperate with the Pentagon to help them resist the siege laid by the Iraqi army, security and popular forces”.

On March 29 2015, the U.S. fighter jets struck the positions of Iraq’s popular forces during their fierce clashes with ISIS terrorists near Tikrit, injuring a number of fighters. “The U.S. planes have dropped weapons for the ISIS terrorists in the areas under ISIS control and even in those areas that have been recently liberated from the ISIS control to encourage the terrorists to return to those places,” Coordinator of Iraqi popular forces Jafar al-Jaberi told FNA. “Two coalition planes were also seen above the town of al-Khas in Diyala Province and they carried the ISIS terrorists to the region that has recently been liberated from the ISIS control,” al-Jaberi said. In Tikrit, which has been recently liberated from ISIS terrorists, the U.S.-led coalition has conducted eight airstrikes, but they hit the popular forces’ positions instead of ISIS. ISIS success is U.S.-orchestrated to provide a pretext for a second U.S.-led invasion. The common theme is, “we can’t win against ISIS unless we have troops on the ground”.

The U.S. is playing a game by fuelling both sides to serve its own Zionist interest. It is reminiscent of the Iran-Iraq war when the U.S. openly supported Iraq while at the same time provided weapons to Iran. It is an irony that, most Iraqis today view Iran as their best friend in the war against ISIS terrorists not the U.S. and its allies.

The Obama regime used ISIS to blackmail the former Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouril al-Maliki to resign. Only after al-Maliki has resigned, the U.S. and its allies, including Australia embarked on a military invasion to “save” Iraq from ISIS. It was a pretext to reoccupy Iraq and set the stage for a U.S. colonial dictatorship. Next, it will be Syria.

Syria

Since 2011, a reign of terror has descended on Syria by an array of Western-sponsored foreign mercenaries and terror networks, including ISIS entering Syria from Turkey and Jordan. It is part of the West’s violent “regime change” masquerading as the “Arab Spring”. The criminal “Libyan model” orchestrated by U.S.-NATO armies with UN complicity was to be replicated in Syria. As Carla Stea, an accredited journalist at the UN and the U.S. Department of State, accurately observed: “Had Russia and China not vetoed a number of draft UN Security Council resolutions on Syria, they would have resulted in military attacks against Syria, culminating in the collapse of President Assad’s government, a ‘failed state,’ and no doubt, in the extrajudicial murder of President Assad [and his family], following the pattern of ‘Regime Change’ coveted by U.S./NATO governments” against Iraq and Libya. She continued: “These new draft UN resolutions always masqueraded sanctimoniously as concern for ‘human rights’, in an attempt to obscure and justify the naked and brutal power grabs such draft resolutions actually sought to make possible. But this time, both Russia and China repeatedly vetoed these new draft resolutions, thereby denying UN Security Council authorization for mass murder”. The UN is not only a tool to legitimise U.S.-Zionist aggression, the UN is complicit in U.S.-sponsored terrorist attacks on Syria (for more on the UN complicit role in U.S. war on Syria, see: Tim Anderson, OpEdNews, 29 August, 2012; Eva Bartlett, RT, 04 February 2015).

The U.S. and its closest allies (the so-called “friends of Syria”) have been openly recruiting, training, arming and financing these foreign and terrorists against the Syrian Government. “The ‘covert’ U.S. training [of the terrorists] at bases in Jordan and Turkey began months before President Obama approved plans to begin directly arming the opposition to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, according to U.S. officials and rebel commanders”, revealed the LA Times on 21 June 2013.

Writing in The Intercept, Glen Greenwald observes: “Now the Obama administration and American political class is celebrating the one-year anniversary of the failed Bomb Assad! Campaign by starting a new campaign to bomb those fighting against Assad—the very same side the U.S. has been arming over the last two years. It’s as though the U.S. knew for certain all along that it wanted to fight in the war in Syria, and just needed a little time to figure out on which side it would fight…. Something very similar happened in Libya: the U.S. spent a decade insisting that a Global War on Terror—complete with full-scale dismantling of basic liberties and political values—was necessary to fight against the Unique Threat of al-Qaeda and ‘Jihadists,’ only to then fight on the same side as them, and arming and empowering them” (Greenwald, The Intercept, August 27, 2014). Greenwald points out that Obama wanted to go to war against Syria just a year ago as a matter of allegedly urgent national security, but was stopped by public opinion, a failed British parliamentary vote, and the intervention of peacemaker “villain” Vladimir Putin.

More than 200,000 innocent Syrians have been killed and another nine million have become refugees inside and outside their country in a U.S. proxy war that only achieved death, destruction and suffering. As Dr Bouthaina Shaaban, an adviser to President Bashar al-Assad told the English Zionist, Robert Fisk: “Right from the beginning of this crisis, I never truly felt that the issue was about President Assad. It was about the weakening and destruction of Syria. There has been so much destruction – of hospitals, schools, factories, government institutions, you name it. I think the Americans take their battles against leaders and presidents – but only as a pretext to destroy countries. Saddam was not the real target – it was Iraq. And it’s the same for Libya now – America told everyone it was about Gaddafi. The real issue is about weakening the Arab armies, whoever they are. When the Americans invaded Iraq, what was the first thing they did? They dissolved the Iraqi army,” followed by the complete destruction of Iraq and the Iraqi society.

Western propaganda is that the ISIS terrorists are against Jews and Christians, but the overwhelming majority of ISIS victims are Muslims in countries considered not aligned with the U.S. and Israel. If ISIS terrorists are truly Islamic, they will try to topple the un-Islamic and murderous dictatorial regimes in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, Kuwait, Qatar or liberate Palestine from murderous Israeli occupation. ISIS terrorists, on behalf of their handlers, are destroying and ransacking everything in their path, including Islamic and ancient civilisation cultures just like the U.S.-British invaders did in Iraq. For the Anglo-Zionists, cultures transcend national identity. The past influence the present, and by destroying the past, ISIS are destroying the present and future of the nation as well. Moreover, the U.S. and its allies (namely Israel) are attacking the nations and movements that are fighting against ISIS.

A series of reports to the UN Security Council by the UN Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF), show that Israel is coordinating with terrorist groups, including ISIS by providing them not only medical care but also other military and ammunition supplies. In addition, Israel provides ISIS and other anti-Syria terrorists with a safe haven – for their tanks and artilleries – along its “border” with Syria in the illegally-occupied Golan Heights. One report reveals that Israel is using the terrorists not only against the Arab Syrian Army, but also to harass and ultimately expel the UN monitors in attempt to prevent any reporting of Israel’s terror activities in the area.

The on-going Western campaigns, including sanctions and support for terrorists against Syria are a gift to Israel. Israeli leaders have been calling on the U.S. and European governments to support ISIS. Benjamin Netanyahu was not ashamed to use the old saying of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” to call for war on Syria, Iran and Hezbollah using ISIS terrorists. “[T]he fact of the matter is that ISIS actually benefits Israel by causing problems for those very states that do actively oppose Israel’s terror in Palestine and support the Palestinians, such as Syria. What ISIS is causing in the Middle East is perfectly attuned with the view of the Israeli Right — as best articulated by Oded Yinon in 1982 — which sought to have Israel’s Middle East enemies fragmented and fighting among themselves in order to weaken the external threat to Israel,” observes Stephen Sniegoski (Consortium News, 05 November 2014). With the unconditional support provided by the U.S. and U.S. allies, the Israeli fascist regime have continuously conducting terrorists attacks against Syria, bombing key Syrian military installations and vital civilian infrastructures. The Israeli aggression is in flagrant violation of international law and proves Israel’s direct involvement in the on-going terror attacks against Syria.

As Syrian President Bashar al-Assad told RT: “There is no serious effort to fight terrorism, and what is being achieved by the Syrian forces on the ground equals in one day what is being achieved by these states in weeks,” Assad said. “An anti-terrorist coalition cannot consist of countries which are themselves supporters of terrorism.” The U.S. and U.S. (U.S.-led coalition) are attacking the countries that are at war with ISIS terrorists.

According to Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) report about Syria: “internally, events are taking a clear sectarian direction. … The salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood, and al-Qaeda are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria. … The West, Gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition [i.e., al-Qaeda, ISIS, whatever]; while Russia, China, and Iran support the legitimate Syrian Government.” The report show that the U.S. gun-running operation created “the ideal atmosphere” for the terrorists and the rise of ISIS in the Middle East. The report also confirms much of what President Bashar al-Assad told Western media about the danger of supporting terrorists inside and outside Syria.

The U.S. and its allies are not at war with ISIS; they are allies. Arwa Damon, CNN international correspondent reported that; “15-20 days before the airstrikes, ISIS buildings were evacuated, and fighters then mixed in with the local population”, which suggests that ISIS terrorists have advanced warning before the U.S. air strikes on Syria. It was a slip of the tongue by the U.S. most insidious global propaganda organ. The U.S.-led air strikes on Iraq and Syria has already caused thousands of civilian deaths and hundreds of thousands to flee their homes.

Furthermore, U.S.-led coalition airstrikes have destroyed grain silos and food storage facilities and killed innocent civilians in Manbij in Northern Syria were not aimed at ISIS. The destruction of the grain silos was aimed at preventing the Syrian Government from retaking much needed resources to provide for the Syrian people and Syrian Army after long fought battles with ISIS. In addition, the bombing of Syrian oil refineries before they were retaken by the Syrian Army was designed to deny the Syrian Government needed oil revenues. It is a well-known U.S. strategy, to destroy Syria’s vital civilian infrastructure, as it was in Iraq. In fact, the highly publicised airstrikes by the U.S.-led coalition of more than 60 vassal states did nothing to stop ISIS terror. Ten airstrikes a day by 60 states is nothing when compared by the daily air strikes of a small nation like Syrian. The Syrian air force conducts hundreds of airstrikes a day. Mounting evidence shows that the U.S.-Israeli-Saudi Arabia cooperation has not only created but continues to finance, arm and train al-Qaeda and ISIS. (Mohamed Elmasry, 08 March 2015, The Canadian Charger). Whether in Iraq or in Syria, U.S. military continues to supply ISIS terrorists with regular air drops of arms, ammo and food supplies. In addition, in Tikrit, U.S. air strikes provided air cover to ISIS and targeted Iraqi forces advancing to liberate the recently occupied town.

It is evident that, the on-going U.S.-.led war is not against ISIS, but against the people of Syria and the Syrian Government. It is in flagrant violations of international law and Syrian sovereignty. Ask yourself, who is arming and financing ISIS? How does ISIS sell its oil and get its money while Syria and the Syrian people are under strict and illegal sanctions? Oh, we have been told “ISIS sells oil on the black market”. Why the legitimate Syrian Government is denied access to this open and lucrative “black market?” Moreover, Western media reported that, President Obama contemplating to enforce a no-fly zone over north-eastern Syria to deprive the Syrian Air Force of its legitimate airspace, and more importantly protects ISIS terrorists and other terrorist groups attacking the Syrian Government.

If U.S. politicians and their allies are concern about ISIS threat, they should stop arming and financing ISIS and other terrorist groups. Furthermore, “if Obama is truly wanted to target ISIS, he would have included Syria, Iran, and Russia in his anti-ISIS “coalition.” These nations were excluded because Obama’s coalition is the exact same one [“friend of Syria”] that only months before was a U.S.-led coalition against the Syrian government”, writes Shamus Cooke of Workers Action. The same old wine in a different bottle to foul the people. The aim remains the same: to topple the Syrian Government of President Bashar al-Assad. Indeed, Obama told the recent UN meeting in New York that the US will train and arm the Syrian opposition” (a.k.a. ISIS) to be counterweight to the Syrian Government of President Assad. Western countries, including Australia are in league with ISIS terrorists and the whole purpose of this is to allow the U.S. to illegally and unjustifiably bomb Syria and reoccupy Iraq. The attacks are unlawful act of aggression in violation of the UN Charter.

According to Turkish sources, the Turkish government (the White Turks) is protecting and cooperating with ISIS and al-Qaeda terrorists, and providing free medical care to their leaders. Moreover, Turkey’s leading daily newspaper, Today’s Zaman, Turkish nurses are sick of providing free medical treatment to ISIS terrorists in Turkish hospitals. Opposition Turkish lawmakers revealed that the Turkish Government is protecting and cooperating with ISIS and al-Qaeda terrorists (Hurriyet Daily News, 13 June 2014). According to Barney Guiton of U.S. News week Magazine, the Turks have been providing logistical, financial and military support by allowing ISIS fighters to ‘travel through Turkish territory to reinforce fighters battling Kurdish forces in Kobane. And despite the ubiquity of the Turkish armed forces in the border region and the closure of the border by a wall of Turkish tanks, ISIS mercenaries are moving cross the border from Turkey into Syria in large numbers — in some cases even in broad daylight, and without any problem (Deutsche Welle, 14 May 2014).

In fact, the white Turks have been colluding with ISIS since 2010 in a dual attempt to oust its regional nemesis, the Syrian Government, and at the same time undermining the Kurdish autonomy in Syria. Turkey — the second largest military force in NATO and an obedient U.S. lapdog — continues to provide open borders to ISIS and other terrorist groups trying to attack Syria, even allowing ISIS terrorists to cross back into Turkey to regroup, receive medical treatment, and sell Syrian and Iraqi oil on the black market.

A recent reporting by Eric Schmitt of the New York Times (June 2012), revealed that, “a small number of CIA officers are operating secretly in southern Turkey”, delivering arms to the terrorists in Syria, including “automatic rifles, rocket-propelled grenades, ammunition and some antitank weapons.” In another report published by the New York Times in March 2013, the CIA noted the arms deliveries had “grown to include more than 160 military cargo flights by Jordanian, Saudi and Qatari military-style cargo planes”. The German broadcaster, Deutsche Welle, just published a video report (‘IS’ supply channels through Turkey) confirming that ISIS is supplied not by “black market oil” or “hostage ransoms” but billions of dollars’ worth of supplies carried into Syria across NATO member Turkey’s borders from the direction of the U.S. military base by hundreds of trucks a day.

According to the Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu, the U.S. had agreed to provide air cover for the “moderate” terrorists (ISIS and al-Qaeda in U.S. parlance) being trained in a US-funded camp in Turkey, once they cross the border into Syria to attack the Syrian Government. “There is a principle agreement on providing air support. How it is going to be provided is in the responsibility of the army”, (The Turkish Daily Sabah, 25 May 2015), conforming earlier statement by U.S. Secretary of Defence Ashton Carter that, the U.S. “would have some responsibility to help the terrorists if they come in contact with the Syrian troops”.

Furthermore, the French daily l’Humanité reported that the Turkish military (NATO) is supporting ISIS mercenaries capturing the Syrian border town of Ain al-Arab, also known as Kobane in Northern Syria and several villages close to the Turkish border with Syria by preventing thousands of Turkish Kurds from crossing the border and joining their compatriots in the defence of Kobane, even firing teargas at Kurdish refugees fleeing from Syria. The U.S.-led coalition has conducted waves of bombings in Kobane, but ISIS positions remained undisturbed. It never targeted positions of the ISIS and has caused it no loss. Only occasionally the coalition forces carry out bombing missions that seem to be essentially theatrical, or just for the record. It is worth noting that the violence against Kobane was deliberately prolonged to divert public attention away from ISIS violent invasion of Iraq. The U.S.-led coalition forces of some 60 nations, including Australia did not deter ISIS terrorists’ advances in Iraq and Syria.

Australia as a Case Study

While across Europe and North America, anti-Muslim sentiment coupled with the rise of mainstream fascist politics is widespread, Australia makes a very good case study. In Australia, ISIS is used as the perfect pretext to terrorise the alienated and marginalised Muslim Community and justify domestic repression. Hostile racist media and political establishments are leading an anti-Muslim fearmongering hate campaign of demonising the Muslim Community.

The Liberal (a substitute for neo-Fascist) Government of Prime Minister the bigoted Prime Minister Tony Abbott has turned Australia into a totalitarian police-state run by the Australian Police and ASIO (Australian Security Intelligence Organisation). In addition to the 60 anti-Muslim oppressive laws, the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Data Retention) Act 201s is now law allowing for a vast expansion of [aggressive and invasive mass] surveillance and oppression (J. Holmes, The Age, 22 April 2015). An Australian-wide survey of 800 Muslim Australians conducted (14 focus groups across Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne in 2014) by the University of Queensland (UQ) found that “counter terrorism” policy in Australia was generating anger, backlash, distrust and a siege mentality. Muslims are fed up with systemic racism, police terror, injustice and discrimination.

The claim that these repressive laws are aimed primarily at countering terrorism is a lie. The truth, they are well-known to be “ineffective” against terrorists. As journalist Glenn Greenwald observes, it allowed the government to “exploit the fear of terrorism to get more and more powers for itself” and pry into the lives of law abiding citizens, and instil fear in the population by cracking-down on freedom and civil liberties. The aim is to play on community fears and thereby gain a bit of political popularity and justify aggressive war abroad. “If politicians can make a country fearful and make them think that they are being protected from something fearful, they will gain political support,” said Julian Burnside QC, a leading human rights lawyer. Politicians and the media are telling Australian that ISIS is Islamic, and Islam is ISIS. The primary aim is to connect all Muslims to the Middle East and to Western-sponsored ISIS terrorists.

Members of the Muslim Community are under siege and living in fear. The Government is telling Muslim Australians: “You are either with us or with the terrorists”. Australian political and media establishments are seemingly “with the terrorists”. In 2012, the Australian government (under Labor) expelled the Syrian ambassador to Australia and was contemplating recognising ISIS terrorists as the de facto Syrian government in exile. The Former Foreign Minister, Bob Carr, told ABC TV that and end to the war on Syria needed “an assassination” of President Bashar al-Assad or “defections” among the Syrian Arab Army. Carr’s unwise (criminal) comment showed that Australia is a major supporter of ISIS war on Syria.

The Abbott’s Government is doing its best to associate every Muslim with ISIS. The Police and ASIO have planted paid informants among the Muslim Community to spy on their fellow Muslims and “inform” them on any “suspicious behaviour”, leaving the Community divided and full of suspicion and mistrust. In addition, the Police have “National Security Hotline” which can be used by anyone to accuse someone (a Muslim) of preparing for or planning an act of terrorism. In the State of Victoria, the Police are “judge, jury and executioner”. In Melbourne, the so-called Australia’s “multicultural capital” – better known as, Australia’s most racist anti-Muslim capital –, Muslim Australian men have been arbitrarily arrested, and charged without evidence.

Family homes are raided on a large-scale by an army of Special Forces employing Israel’s version of terror. Young Muslim men were arrested and thrown in high security prisons without the evidence that a verifiable criminal act has been committed. Muslims make up to 6 percent of the prison population in Victorian and 9 percent of the prison population in the State of NSW. Muslim Australians constitute 2.2 percent of the total Australian population. This shows that the Police and the Australian justice system is racist to the core and cannot function without a daily dose of anti-Muslim racism. The Police, magistrates and judges hate Muslims. They will do anything to show they are tough on Muslims, by picking on innocent Muslims. Bashing Muslims is deemed popular in this very backward and racist society where Anti-Muslim sentiment is on the rise.

Furthermore, the Abbott’s Government has introduced law to allow teenage Muslims to be tried in adult courts, a flawed process used in the U.S. to imprison children for life. The only evidence is that, the teenagers “might be preparing for or planning” an act of terrorism, is the Police claim. As Mike Head writes (WSWS, 14 May 2015); “For the second time in two weeks, alarming police claims and racist media reports about teenagers planning imminent terrorist attacks – first on April 25 (the “Anzac Day plot”) and then May 10 (the “Mother’s Day plot”) – have proven to be dubious” and nothing more than anti-Muslim racist propaganda.

The plots were allegedly being masterminded by a 14-year-old British boy in London. Police claims are nothing more than false Police claims. There has been no existential threat to the wider Australian society from Muslim Australians. Innocent Muslims were targeted for political reasons and as a pretext to terrorise the Muslim Community. While the Police are chasing Muslim teenagers who the police allege they might be preparing or planning acts of terrorism, forty Australian women have been killed this year in sexual violent acts – more than double (16.4 %) the global average.

As I write these lines, the Abbott’s Government has introduced another draconian law giving the minister for immigration the power to strip Muslim Australians with dual citizenship of their Australian citizenship without reference to a court of law. The law, rightly described as “deeply flawed”, applies retrospectively to any Muslim Australian whose behaviour deems by the Abbott’s Government as “endangering Australian security”, even visiting places like Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Yemen considered an act of terrorism. It is not known why the Government wants to revoke people citizenship when it is much easier to cancel their passport. The law is reminiscent of Nazi Germany’s policy of stripping of German citizenship from Slavic people, Roma people (gypsies) and Jews. In stark contrast, Jewish Australians (always dual citizens with loyalty to Israel) who travel to Israel to participate in Israel’s daily terror against the Palestinians is welcomed back “home” with open arms. Moreover, Australians who the Abbott’s Government accuses them of fighting with ISIS are not at war with Australia; they are fighting alongside U.S.-led coalition which includes Australia against the legitimate Syrian Government.

In order to manipulate and mislead the public into supporting Australia’s anti-Muslim propaganda and Australia’s involvement in U.S.-led aggression in the Middle east, the Australian Government and the racist media have co-opted and bribed academics, the so-called “counter-terrorism experts” to spread Government’s propaganda. One of these corrupted academics, who built their careers on disinformation and anti-Muslim bigotry, is Professor Greg Barton of Monash University. Employs sound bites to mislead the public, Professor Barton has become the “expert” on Islam, “counter terrorism”, security, woman’s rights, same-sex marriage, citizenship, Asia Pacific, etc. For months now, Barton has been a fixture on the Government’s mouthpiece, the Zionist ABC. He has built a career on falsification of history, distortions of reality, war propaganda and outright bigotry. According to Barton’s distorted theory, people engage in “extremism” once they start changing their ideas, cutting off old friends and making new ones. This means, students who study at Monash, where Barton is employed, have no rights to engage in critical analysis and no rights to make new friends. Another expert on “terrorism and deradicalisation” is Clarke Jones of the Australian National University. Jones is calling on the Government to “rehabilitate” returning veteran terrorists and allow them to work with the Government and the Police on the “deradicalisation” of youth. Apparently, Dr Jones is calling form more funding for “counter terrorism” research. Obviously, Barton and Jones are only regurgitating the Government’s policies. They would do well to focus their research on the rise of racism among white Anglo Australians, injustice, police terror and marginalisation of Muslim Australians.

Unlike Barton and Jones, Muslim scholars and any Muslim who disagrees with the Government’s false propaganda are banned from appearing on the “Australian” racist media. Only Whites, non-Muslim (men) have “expertise” on Islam and what they call “humanitarian wars”, a euphemism for Western terrorism. In the words of Ramesh Thakur, a professor of Public Policy at the Australian National University; “If you are Western, you can tackle any topic or region. If you are non-western you are expected to inhabit the intellectual ghetto of your own country or continent.” In short, only those who can tell lies, agree with the government’s false propaganda and mislead the public are rewarded with TV interview and a space in the mainstream print media. Unfortunately, this false propaganda has manipulated not only Anglo-Australians but also Muslim Australians to accept the Government’s fabricated and false narrative.

Terrified by the Australian Government’s anti-Muslim hate campaign and Police terror, many Muslim Australians, especially the self-appointed “community leaders” have fallen for the Government’s false propaganda. Muslim stooges and informants have been bribed and offered highly-paid jobs to spread the Governments’ anti-Muslim propaganda and spy on their fellow Muslims. Some are calling on Muslim Australians to buy into the Abbott’s Government’s false propaganda of associating the violence of ISIS terrorists with Islam. Mr Abbott and his ministers are telling Muslim Australians that, ISIS is an Islamic “death cult” and had “declared war on the world”, and that all Muslims must take responsibility for ISIS violence. It is a falsehood that forms part of Western governments’ false propaganda to associate ISIS with Islam and Muslims.

Furthermore, Muslim Australians are in a dilemma; they are mistrusted if they condemned terrorism, and they are attacked if they condemn Western anti-Muslim propaganda. As with the fraudulent “War on Terrorism”, Muslims have one choice, either to be with “Abbott’s team” or with the “terrorists”. Julie Szego, a columnist for The Age, ranted that Muslim “community leaders” and Muslims in general have no right to associate ISIS with the West. She alleges that, she knows the “truth” about ISIS; “it is Islamic”, anything else is a lie. She is regurgitating the Government’s anti-Muslim propaganda that, Muslims, not Western politicians and Western media, must take responsibility for crimes committed by individuals who the Government associates them with Islam. Moreover, she also accused Muslims of “anti-Semitism”, a Christian hate crime associated with “Western values”, not with Islam and Muslims. Australian journalists and columnists are not known for their intelligence and honesty. From Julie Szego and Miranda Devine to Paul Monk and Paul Sheehan to Greg Sheridan – to name just a few – they have shown to be anti-Muslim bigoted racists, like the propaganda organs they work for.

The Abbotts’ Government anti-Muslim hate campaign pays dividends. Australia obligingly complied with U.S. demand and joined the U.S.-led aggression on Syria and Iraq. There was deafening public silence as Australian troops start departing. ISIS is used to justify Australia’s military involvement.

In Iraq, the Iraqi government did not request that Australia become involved in U.S. attacks on Syria. Rather, it appears that it was completely at the initiative of the Abbott’s Government that Australian troops have joined the latest U.S.-led “coalition of the willing” in Iraq. On their part, the Iraqi people and Iraqi parliamentarians are against the presence of Australian troops. They have called on “Aussies to go home”. The Iraqi government has asked Australia’s Foreign Minister Julie Bishop that Australia send humanitarian, rather than military assistance. Iraqis made it clear that they do not need Western “advisers”. “We have more than enough manpower to fight and we are worried about the objectives of this American coalition of more than 40 nations”, said Adnan al-Shahmani, an Iraqi in Baghdad. “You can’t be too optimistic about today’s Australian political leaders, because they have no foreign policy framework and seem frightened of big ideas. They don’t even feel able to debate critical policy decisions, such as going back to Iraq with the U.S.”, writes Stephen Fitzgerald, former Australian Ambassador to China.

Finally, terrorism is an instrument used by powerful Western governments to justify violent aggression and geopolitical domination. If the U.S. and U.S. allies really want to defeat terrorism, including ISIS terrorists in Iraq and Syria, they would stop arming and financing the terrorists and stop participating in terrorism.

Ghali Hassan is an independent researcher and writer living in Australia.
06 July, 2015
Countercurrents.org