All posts filed under: empire watch

The Rogue State that is the United States of America

from New Antarctica As one more US aircraft carrier steams off to confront the North Koreans and threaten nuclear war once again , it is timely to recall that 60 years ago the United States and its allies (including a very compliant New Zealand) began a genocidal bombing of every town and city in the north of Korea. Millions of Koreans died. Since that war ended, the largest and nuclear superpower in the world has refused to sign a peace treaty with North Korea, has stationed thousands of troops and weapons along its South Korean border and has regularly threatened to nuke North Korea, applied annual large scale attack manoeuvres along the border with North Korea, as well as implementing sanctions that in several years since the war, caused mass starvation in the north. Small wonder that the North Korean regime might be considered paranoid and unstable! Ironically, the United States has absolutely no interest in the Korean peninsula and its peoples; its sole rationale for maintaining the ongoing conflict with North Korea is to …

Donald Trump Has Been Played Like a Violin

by David William Pear, via OpEd News The Central Intelligence Agency, the Democrats, neocons in the Republican Party and the Main Stream Media (MSM) have gotten under Donald Trump’s thin skin. When attacked, Trump’s instinct is to lash out at his attackers with counter attacks, without regard to his truthfulness or not. When Trump was a candidate for President that meant a war of words. As the President of the United States of America he has resorted to a dangerous and deadly shooting war of aggression. Trumps critics are so numerous, unrelenting and persistent that like a cornered rat, Trump lost any sanity that he may have possessed and instead of lashing out at his tormentors, he lashed out at Syria’s president Bashar al-Assad. Just like a drunk that comes home and beats his wife, terrorize his children, busts up the furniture and kicks the dog it accomplished nothing but chaos, but it feels so good to blow off some steam, even if it is at the wrong target. Now Trump has a lot of …

MIT Professor says White House claims of Syrian chemical attack “cannot be true”

Theodore Postol, Professor of Science, Technology and National Security Policy in the Program in Science, Technology, and Society at MIT, has made some preliminary responses to the four-page report by the Trump Administration on the Syrian “chemical attack”. We reproduce his findings in part below. See the document in full here A Quick Turnaround Assessment of the White House Intelligence Report Issued on April 11, 2017 About the Nerve Agent Attack in Khan Shaykhun, Syria. Dear Larry: I am responding to your distribution of what I understand is a White House statement claiming intelligence findings about the nerve agent attack on April 4, 2017 in Khan Shaykhun, Syria. My understanding from your note is that this White House intelligence summary was released to you sometime on April 11, 2017. I have reviewed the document carefully, and I believe it can be shown, without doubt, that the document does not provide any evidence whatsoever that the US government has concrete knowledge that the government of Syria was the source of the chemical attack in Khan Shaykhun, …

A multi-level analysis of the US cruise missile attack on Syria and its consequences

by The Saker, 11 April 2017 The latest US cruise missile attack on the Syrian airbase is an extremely important event in so many ways that it is important to examine it in some detail.  I will try to do this today with the hope to be able to shed some light on a rather bizarre attack which will nevertheless have profound consequences.  But first, let’s begin by looking at what actually happened. The pretext: I don’t think that anybody seriously believes that Assad or anybody else in the Syrian government really ordered a chemical weapons attack on anybody.  To believe that it would require you to find the following sequence logical: first, Assad pretty much wins the war against Daesh which is in full retreat.  Then, the US declares that overthrowing Assad is not a priority anymore (up to here this is all factual and true).  Then, Assad decides to use weapons he does not have.  He decides to bomb a location with no military value, but with lots of kids and cameras.  Then, …

The Impending Clash Between the U.S. and Russia

by Mike Whitney, 7 April 2017, UNZ Review President Donald Trump’s missile attack on the Shayrat Airfield in Western Syria was a poorly planned display of imperial muscle-flexing that had the exact opposite effect of what was intended. While the attack undoubtedly lifted the morale of the jihadists who have been rampaging across the country for the last six years, it had no military or strategic value at all. The damage to the airfield was very slight and there is no reason to believe it will impact the Syrian Army’s progress on the ground. The attack did however kill four Syrian servicemen which means the US troops in Syria can no longer be considered part of an international coalition fighting terrorism. The US is now a hostile force that represents an existential threat to the sovereign government. Is that the change that Trump wanted? As of Friday, Russia has frozen all military cooperation with the United States. According to the New York Times: In addition to suspending the pact to coordinate air operations over Syria, …

Five Top Papers Run 18 Opinion Pieces Praising Syria Strikes–Zero Are Critical

by Adam Johnson, FAIR Five major US newspapers—the New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, Wall Street Journal and New York Daily News—offered no opinion space to anyone opposed to Donald Trump’s Thursday night airstrikes. By contrast, the five papers ran a total of 18 op-eds, columns or “news analysis” articles (dressed-up opinion pieces) that either praised the strikes or criticized them for not being harsh enough: New York Times After the Missiles, We Need Smart Diplomacy on Syria (4/7/17) Acting on Instinct, Trump Upends His Own Foreign Policy (4/7/17) (originally headlined “On Syria Attack, Trump’s Heart Came First”—presumably changed due to social media mockery) Trump Raises the Stakes for Russia and Iran (4/7/17) Syria’s ‘Conundrum’: Limited Strikes Risk Entrenching Assad’s Strategy (4/7/17) Washington Post Editorial: Trump’s Chance to Step Into the Global Leadership Vacuum (4/7/17) Trump Enforces the ‘Red Line’ on Chemical Weapons (4/6/17) Trump Has an Opportunity to Right Obama’s Wrongs in Syria (4/6/17) Syrian Opposition Leader: Trump Has a Chance to Save Syria (4/7/17) Was Trump’s Syria Strike a Moral Impulse or …

Afghanistan – ‘Small’ Western Propaganda Lies, Huge Impact

by Andre Vltchek Ask anyone on the streets of Kabul about the revolutions that have in recent years transformed huge parts of Latin America, and the chances are you’ll encounter a blank stare.  Perhaps mentioning Cuba could evoke at least some recognition, but definitely not Venezuela, Ecuador or Bolivia.  I know because I tried on several occasions, and I failed. Ask in the marvelous historic city of Herat, with its huge minarets and Italian military contingent, about Western imperialism, or about NATO and its murderous campaigns all over the world, and chances are that your question won’t even be understood. “Chances are that those Afghan people who can speak English or other Western languages, are now actually working for the Westerners; either for their military, or for their ‘defense’ contractors… or for the embassies, the United Nations, or perhaps some NGO”, explained an Asian reporter who is based in Afghanistan for more than two decades. “These people are not going to rock the boat, dwelling on crimes committed by the West, here and all over …

The Western media refute their own lies on Syria

by Michel Chossudovsky, 7 April 2017, globalresearch.ca The Western media refute their own lies. Not only do they confirm that the Pentagon has been training the terrorists in the use of chemical weapons, they also acknowledge the existence of a not so secret “US-backed plan to launch a chemical weapon attack on Syria and blame it on Assad’s regime”  London’s Daily Mail in a 2013 article confirmed the existence of an Anglo-American project endorsed by the White House (with the assistance of Qatar) to wage a chemical weapons attack on Syria and place the blame of Bashar Al Assad. The following Mail Online article was published and subsequently removed. Note the contradictory discourse: “Obama issued warning to Syrian president Bashar al Assad”, “White House gave green light to chemical weapons attack”. This Mail Online report published in January 2013 was subsequently removed from Mail Online. For further details click here The Pentagon’s Training of  “Rebels” (aka Al Qaeda Terrorists) in the Use of Chemical Weapons CNN accuses Bashar Al Assad of killing his own people while …

Evidence Calls Western Narrative About Syrian Chemical Attack Into Question

by William Craddick, 6 April 2017, Disobedient Media The April 4th, 2017 incident at Khan Sheikhoun has provoked an emotional response around the world after images began to emerge showing civilian adults and children apparently suffering from the effects of chemical weapons.  US President Donald Trump has stated that the attack has totally changed his views towards the Syrian civil war, and may alter his intended strategy there. Although Western media immediately accused Bashar al-Assad of participating in a gas attack against his own people, the evidence indicates that the intended target was not immediately in a civilian area and was in fact a location where Syrian White Helmets were on the scene with rebel groups at what observers have claimed was a storage facility for conventional and chemical munitions. Additionally, evidence indicates that rebel groups may have had prior knowledge of the attack and knew that there was a risk of chemical weapons being unleashed. The attack also came in the aftermath of a trip by Senator John McCain to meet with groups known …

Chemical Attack in Idlib — Duplication of Eastern Ghouta Scenario

by Mariam Alhijab, Syrian Media Center On April 7, two U.S. Navy battleships USS Porter (DDG-78) and USS Ross launched 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at al-Shayrat military airfield in Syria’s Homs province from the Eastern Mediterranean.  The U.S. strikes particularly targeted the main landing strip, aircraft, radio locators, air defense system and fuel stations. The strike was approved by U.S. President Donald Trump, who said that the Syrian Air Force had used affiliated al-Shayrat air base to prepare chemical attack on the city of Khan Shaykhun in Idlib.  “It is in this vital national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons”, Trump said. Previously, on April 4, several European states accused Syrian Air Force of using warfare poisonous agents while striking Khan Shaykhun.  Syrian government, in its turn, refuted these accusations, stating that the target of the strike was a militants’ position where they had organized a chemical depot.  The strike led to the spread of poisonous agents and dozens of casualties among civilians. …

Philip Giraldi says IC-Military Doubt Assad Gas Narrative

via libertarianinstitute.com Philip Giraldi, former CIA officer and Director of the Council for the National Interest, says that “military and intelligence personnel,” “intimately familiar” with the intelligence, say that the narrative that Assad or Russia did it is a “sham,” instead endorsing the Russian narrative that Assad’s forces had bombed a storage facility. Giraldi’s intelligence sources are “astonished” about the government and media narrative and are considering going public out of concern over the danger of worse war there. Giraldi also observes that the Assad regime had no motive to do such a thing at this time. http://dissentradio.com/radio/17_04_06_giraldi.mp3  

Demonizing Russia: The Psychology and Consequences of Neo-Mccarthyism

by Stormcloudsgathering, March 28, 2017 This article is not intended to alter your position in regard to Donald Trump in any way. Whether you love him or hate him isn’t an issue of global importance, nor is his political survival relevant to this analysis. Some of the tactics being used in the push to take Trump down however, are. The Stakes Before we dive into the quagmire that the topic of of Russia, Trump and the 2016 elections has become, it behooves us to anchor to the stakes: Russia is a nuclear power. The demonization of foreign nations is a precursor to war, and even a limited conflict between the United States and Russia would kill millions (if not billions) of people; rendering much of the planet uninhabitable for decades. Using U.S. Russian relations as a political football in this context is foolish and irresponsible. The Trump Variable Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign made tying Trump to Russia a central pillar of their messaging strategy. This line of attack was predicated on comments made by …

Trump Doesn’t Intend to Keep Any of His Campaign Promises on Syria

by Anja Unger, Syria Media Center Apparently, having forgotten his campaign promises, Donald Trump has recently toughened his foreign policy, especially in Syria, where he went much further than his predecessor, Barack Obama. Instead of re-establishing relationships with all sides of the Syrian conflict to fight against terrorism, he managed to make the situation in Syria even worse. Tonight, destroyers USS Porter (DDG-78) and USS Ross launched 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at al-Shayrat military airfield in Syria’s Homs province from the Eastern Mediterranean. The US strikes particularly targeted the main landing strip, aircraft and fuel stations. According to Reuters, at a two-day summit with Chinese President Xi Jinping, Trump confirmed that he had ordered a targeted military strike on the Syrian airfield. He claimed that the strike came as a “response” to the suspected chemical attack in Idlib. In addition, U.S. President called on all civilized nations to join efforts in seeking “to end slaughter and bloodshed” in Syria. However, not everyone has supported this barbarous attack carried out by the U.S. Navy. It should …

Questions following the US attack on Syria

Last night, and much to chagrin of people who thought Trump would not escalate matters in Syria, the US military launched 59 Tomahawk missiles into Syria, allegedly attempting to destroy a government airbase. They warned the Russian government before-hand, who will have passed on that warning to the Syrians, meaning the area was probably on alert, with any important equipment or personnel removed. The Pentagon have also stated that, at this time, there are no plans for any other strikes or any campaign in Syria.

Does the Washington Establishment Seek War with Russia?

by Eric Zuesse, originally posted at strategic-culture.org Which does the Washington’s Establishment prefer: a U.S. President who wants to reach new agreements with Russia, or a U.S. President who wants to replace all of Russia’s allies? What we’ve been having recently is solely Presidents who want to replace all of Russia’s allies — and they’ve been succeeding at that, so far: They replaced Saddam Hussein. They replaced Muammar Gaddafi. They replaced Viktor Yanukovych. They’re still trying to replace Bashar al-Assad, and also Iran’s leadership. There still is question, however, as to whether U.S. President Donald Trump will continue this string; and many in America’s ‘news’media consider him to be too favorable toward Russia. The aristocracy own the few ‘news’media that have substantial audiences in the U.S., and their advertisers are also overwhelmingly owned by them; and the politicians’ campaigns tend also to be receiving most of their money from them; so, generally, it’s considered political suicide to buck what the few billionaires are rather united on in America, and what they seem quite united on …

“Experts” reveal their “evidence” of Russian “hacking”

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence convened today, hearing testimony from three “star witnesses”. If you have a spare three hours, and a strong stomach, feel free to watch the whole sordid ordeal here. Not surprisingly there was no mention of that fact the that the FBI didn’t analyse the DNC servers – they were not allowed to. Likewise, there was no talk of CrowdStrike, the private firm that did get to do analysis, and then had to backtrack on their own findings. None of that was deemed important. Instead we got three hours of speeches from people who had nothing to say. The three expert witnesses have startlingly similar backgrounds, all hailing from the intelligence community in some way or other. They are all very long on exposition…and very short on actual evidence. Rather than citing statistics, or bringing up evidence of any kind, the Senators are more than happy to just let the three men ramble along twisting narrative pathways. Two of them had the good-grace to be non-committal, or at least vague, …