Syrians in Ghouta Claim Saudi-Supplied Rebels Behind Chemical Attack

Written by Tony Cartalucci
This article is a collaboration between Dale Gavlak reporting for Mint Press News (also of the Associated Press) and Yahya Ababneh. 
Ghouta, Syria — As the machinery for a U.S.-led military intervention in Syria gathers pace following last week’s chemical weapons attack, the U.S. and its allies may be targeting the wrong culprit.
Interviews with people in Damascus and Ghouta, a suburb of the Syrian capital, where the humanitarian agency Doctors Without Borders said at least 355 people had died last week from what it believed to be a neurotoxic agent, appear to indicate as much.

Prince Bandar bin Sultan bin Abdul Aziz al-Saud—plutocrat and corrupt autocrat at the center of antidemocratic intrigues for decades.


Warmongering Saudi Arabia’s Prince Bandar bin Sultan bin Abdul Aziz al-Saud—plutocrat and corrupt autocrat at the center of antidemocratic intrigues for decades. 

The U.S., Britain, and France as well as the Arab League have accused the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for carrying out the chemical weapons attack, which mainly targeted civilians. U.S. warships are stationed in the Mediterranean Sea to launch military strikes against Syria in punishment for carrying out a massive chemical weapons attack. The U.S. and others are not interested in examining any contrary evidence, with U.S Secretary of State John Kerry saying Monday that Assad’s guilt was “a judgment … already clear to the world.”

However, from numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families, a different picture emerges. Many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the dealing gas attack.
“My son came to me two weeks ago asking what I thought the weapons were that he had been asked to carry,” said Abu Abdel-Moneim, the father of a rebel fighting to unseat Assad, who lives in Ghouta.
Abdel-Moneim said his son and 12 other rebels were killed inside of a tunnel used to store weapons provided by a Saudi militant, known as Abu Ayesha, who was leading a fighting battalion. The father described the weapons as having a “tube-like structure” while others were like a “huge gas bottle.”
Ghouta townspeople said the rebels were using mosques and private houses to sleep while storing their weapons in tunnels.
Abdel-Moneim said his son and the others died during the chemical weapons attack. That same day, the militant group Jabhat al-Nusra, which is linked to al-Qaida, announced that it would similarly attack civilians in the Assad regime’s heartland of Latakia on Syria’s western coast, in purported retaliation.
“They didn’t tell us what these arms were or how to use them,” complained a female fighter named ‘K.’ “We didn’t know they were chemical weapons. We never imagined they were chemical weapons.”
“When Saudi Prince Bandar gives such weapons to people, he must give them to those who know how to handle and use them,” she warned. She, like other Syrians, do not want to use their full names for fear of retribution.
A well-known rebel leader in Ghouta named ‘J’ agreed. “Jabhat al-Nusra militants do not cooperate with other rebels, except with fighting on the ground. They do not share secret information. They merely used some ordinary rebels to carry and operate this material,” he said.
“We were very curious about these arms. And unfortunately, some of the fighters handled the weapons improperly and set off the explosions,” ‘J’ said.
Doctors who treated the chemical weapons attack victims cautioned interviewers to be careful about asking questions regarding who, exactly, was responsible for the deadly assault.
The humanitarian group Doctors Without Borders added that health workers aiding 3,600 patients also reported experiencing similar symptoms, including frothing at the mouth, respiratory distress, convulsions and blurry vision. The group has not been able to independently verify the information.
More than a dozen rebels interviewed reported that their salaries came from the Saudi government.

Saudi involvement

In a recent article for Business Insider, reporter Geoffrey Ingersoll highlighted Saudi Prince Bandar’s role in the two-and-a-half year Syrian civil war. Many observers believe Bandar, with his close ties to Washington, has been at the very heart of the push for war by the U.S. against Assad.
Ingersoll referred to an article in the U.K.’s Daily Telegraph about secret Russian-Saudi talks alleging that Bandar offered Russian President Vladimir Putin cheap oil in exchange for dumping Assad.
“Prince Bandar pledged to safeguard Russia’s naval base in Syria if the Assad regime is toppled, but he also hinted at Chechen terrorist attacks on Russia’s Winter Olympics in Sochi if there is no accord,” Ingersoll wrote.
“I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us,” Bandar allegedly told the Russians.
“Along with Saudi officials, the U.S. allegedly gave the Saudi intelligence chief the thumbs up to conduct these talks with Russia, which comes as no surprise,” Ingersoll wrote.
“Bandar is American-educated, both military and collegiate, served as a highly influential Saudi Ambassador to the U.S., and the CIA totally loves this guy,” he added.
According to U.K.’s Independent newspaper, it was Prince Bandar’s intelligence agency that first brought allegations of the use of sarin gas by the regime to the attention of Western allies in February.
The Wall Street Journal recently reported that the CIA realized Saudi Arabia was “serious” about toppling Assad when the Saudi king named Prince Bandar to lead the effort.
“They believed that Prince Bandar, a veteran of the diplomatic intrigues of Washington and the Arab world, could deliver what the CIA couldn’t: planeloads of money and arms, and, as one U.S. diplomat put it, wasta, Arabic for under-the-table clout,” it said.
Bandar has been advancing Saudi Arabia’s top foreign policy goal, WSJ reported, of defeating Assad and his Iranian and Hezbollah allies.
To that aim, Bandar worked Washington to back a program to arm and train rebels out of a planned military base in Jordan.
The newspaper reports that he met with the “uneasy Jordanians about such a base”:
His meetings in Amman with Jordan’s King Abdullah sometimes ran to eight hours in a single sitting. “The king would joke: ‘Oh, Bandar’s coming again? Let’s clear two days for the meeting,’ ” said a person familiar with the meetings.
Jordan’s financial dependence on Saudi Arabia may have given the Saudis strong leverage. An operations center in Jordan started going online in the summer of 2012, including an airstrip and warehouses for arms. Saudi-procured AK-47s and ammunition arrived, WSJ reported, citing Arab officials.
Although Saudi Arabia has officially maintained that it supported more moderate rebels, the newspaper reported that “funds and arms were being funneled to radicals on the side, simply to counter the influence of rival Islamists backed by Qatar.”
But rebels interviewed said Prince Bandar is referred to as “al-Habib” or ‘the lover’ by al-Qaida militants fighting in Syria.
Peter Oborne, writing in the Daily Telegraph on Thursday, has issued a word of caution about Washington’s rush to punish the Assad regime with so-called ‘limited’ strikes not meant to overthrow the Syrian leader but diminish his capacity to use chemical weapons:
Consider this: the only beneficiaries from the atrocity were the rebels, previously losing the war, who now have Britain and America ready to intervene on their side. While there seems to be little doubt that chemical weapons were used, there is doubt about who deployed them.
It is important to remember that Assad has been accused of using poison gas against civilians     before. But on that occasion, Carla del Ponte, a U.N. commissioner on Syria, concluded that the rebels, not Assad, were probably responsible.

Some information in this article could not be independently verified. Mint Press News will continue to provide further information and updates . 

Dale Gavlak is a Middle East correspondent for Mint Press News and the Associated Press. Gavlak has been stationed in Amman, Jordan for the Associated Press for over two decades. An expert in Middle Eastern Affairs, Gavlak currently covers the Levant region of the Middle East for AP, National Public Radio and Mint Press News, writing on topics including politics, social issues and economic trends. Dale holds a M.A. in Middle Eastern Studies from the University of Chicago. Contact Dale at dgavlak@mintpressnews.com
Yahya Ababneh is a Jordanian freelance journalist and is currently working on a master’s degree in journalism,  He has covered events in Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Russia and Libya. His stories have appeared on Amman Net, Saraya News, Gerasa News and elsewhere.

This article was first published on Land Destroyer.

– See more at: http://therebel.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=685119:syrians-in-ghouta-claim-saudi-supplied-rebels-behind-chemical-attack&catid=215:tony-cartalucci&Itemid=1929&acm=2715_662#sthash.7CtgJLfa.dpuf




Prince Bandar and the Destruction of Syria

Back in the Limelight
by PEPE ESCOBAR

Talk about The Comeback Spy. Prince Bandar bin Sultan, aka Bandar Bush (for Dubya he was like family), spectacularly resurfaced after one year in speculation-drenched limbo (was he or was he not dead, following an assassination attempt in July 2012?). And he was back in the limelight no less than in a face-to-face with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

 

Saudi King Abdullah, to quote Bob Dylan, “is not busy being born, he’s busy dying”. At least he was able to pick up a pen and recently appoint Bandar as head of the Saudi General Intelligence Directorate; thus in charge of the joint US-Saudi master plan for Syria.

The four-hour meeting between Bandar Bush and Vlad the Hammer by now has acquired mythic status. Essentially, according to diplomatic leaks, Bandar asked Vlad to drop Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and forget about blocking a possible UN Security Council resolution on a no-fly zone (as if Moscow would ever allow a replay of UN resolution 1973 against Libya). In return the House of Saud would buy loads of Russian weapons.
[pullquote] Human vermin of the Bandar type usually enjoys a very long life. [/pullquote]

Vlad, predictably, was not impressed. Not even when Bandar brazenly insisted that whatever form a post-Assad situation would take, the Saudis will be “completely” in control. Vlad – and Russian intelligence – already knew it. But then Bandar went over the top, promising that Saudi Arabia would not allow any Gulf Cooperation Council member country – as in Qatar – to invest in Pipelineistan across Syria to sell natural gas to Europe and thus damage Russian – as in Gazprom’s – interests.

When Bandar saw he was going nowhere, he reverted to his fallback position; the only way out in Syria is war – and Moscow should forget about the perennially postponed Geneva II peace conference because the “rebels” will be a no show.

Once again, Vlad did not need a reminder that the Saudis – in “cooperation” with Washington – have
now taken over the “rebel” galaxy. Qatar has been confined to a (expensive) dustbin, as Vijay Prashad alludes to here. This is part of Washington’s plan – if there is one – to isolate the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood and its shady jihadi ramifications/connections.

Wily Bandar, for his part, is not a fool to believe his own propaganda; he knows Moscow has more complex geostrategic interests other than just keeping Syria as a weapons client. And he might have suspected that Moscow simply does not bother with Gulf competition in Pipelineistan targeting European markets.

It’s instructive to remember that in 2009, Damascus did not sign an agreement with Qatar for a pipeline via Syria; but they did sign the memorandum of understanding last year for the US$10 billion Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline. So the point is for Damascus, the deal with Iran was much better; and if the pipeline is ever built Gazprom may even be part of it, in infrastructure and distribution. What Moscow has concluded is that Gazprom won’t lose its energy grip over Europe to the benefit of Qatari natural gas. A case can be made that Gazprom holds more power over the distressed, decaying, virtually insolvent eurozone than the European Central Bank (ECB).

What Vlad does fear is a potential post-Assad utter chaos, to be fully exploited by Salafi-jihadis. It’s never enough to remember that from Aleppo to Grozny it’s roughly 900 kilometers. The next stop for the Global Jihad in Syria would be the Caucasus. And that’s where Bandar Bush and Vlad the Hammer might converge; their mutual strategic interest is to reign in jihadis – although Bandar, in fact, is also weaponizing them.

The New Afghanistan

Moscow won’t drop Damascus. Period. At the same time, as Bandar threatened, Geneva II seems more unlikely to happen than the Obama administration ceasing to drone Yemen to death.

The name of the game, in practice, remains Syria as the new Afghanistan, with the House of Saud in control of all aspects of jihad (with Washington “leading from behind”). Deadly historic irony also applies; instead of clashing with the Soviet Union, now the Saudis clash with the Russian federation. Bandar is simultaneously the new Weaponizer-in-Chief, as well as Liberator-in-Chief of Syria. The Comeback Spy is not accounting for future, inevitable, ghastly blowback; what’s alarming is that the Obama administration is right behind him.

Bandar Bush’s visit to Moscow simply could not have happened without a green light from Washington. So what’s the (muddled) master plan? The Obama administration seems to believe in a remixed Sykes-Picot – almost a century after the original. The problem is they are clueless on how to configure the new zones of influence. Meanwhile, they’re letting the Saudis do the heavy lifting. The first step was to eliminate Qatar from the picture. It’s astonishing how fast the emirate, up to two months ago a prospective mini-superpower, now has been reduced to less than an afterthought.

Yet Bandar by now may have seen the writing on the (bloody) wall; Bashar al-Assad will be in power until the 2014 elections in Syria, and may even win those elections. The Saudis might accept a form of compensation in Lebanon, with their protege, the cosmically incompetent Saad al-Hariri, back in power in a coalition government including the political branch of Hezbollah – not the other one which the European poodles branded “terrorist”. This also seems unlikely.

So what is Bandar the Liberator to do? Well, he can always direct his private jet to Dallas and liberate his sorrows in a sea of single malt, provided by the House of Dubya.

Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007) and Red Zone Blues: a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge. His new book, just out, is Obama does Globalistan (Nimble Books, 2009). He may be reached at pepeasia@yahoo.com

This column originally appeared on Asia Times.




Glen Ford: Obama the more effective evil

Wherein the executive editor of Black Agenda Report explains why he regards Barack Obama as a far better salesman of reactionary policies than a Republican president, the slickest demagog since Ronald Reagan, perhaps even more dangerous.




Planet of the Humans

Mini Editorials—
OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

Who are these assholes? What depraved impulse motivates them?

Too bad that by the time humanity finally recognizes these acts as crimes worthy of strong rebuke and punishment millions of these idiots will have already departed this earth—unpunished. 




Snowden: Nobel Peace Prize Nominee

By Stephen Lendman

People support Snowden all over the world .

People support Snowden all over the world .

Swedish Sociology Professor Stefan Svallfors nominated him. He praised his “heroic effort at great personal cost.”  He revealed NSA’s lawless global spying. He told millions worldwide what they need to know. He did so at great risk.  He deserves high praise, not persecution. He showed “individuals can stand up for fundamental rights and freedoms,” said Svallfors. 

His nominating letter states:

“Best committee members!

I suggest that the 2013 Peace Prize (be) awarded to the American citizen Edward Snowden.

Edward Snowden has – in a heroic effort at great personal cost – revealed the existence and extent of the surveillance, the US government devotes electronic communications worldwide.

By putting light on this monitoring program – conducted in contravention of national laws and international agreements – Edward Snowden has helped to make the world a little bit better and safer.”

Through his personal efforts, he has also shown that individuals can stand up for fundamental rights and freedoms.  This example is important because since the Nuremberg trials in 1945 (it’s) been clear that the slogan ‘I was just following orders’ (rings hollow) as an excuse for acts contrary to human rights and freedoms.”

Despite this, it is very rare that individual citizens have the insight of their personal responsibility and courage Edward Snowden showed in his revelation of the American surveillance program.  For this reason, he is a highly (deserving) candidate.

The decision to award the 2013 prize to Edward Snowden would – in addition to being well justified in itself – also help to save Nobel (Committee members) from the(ir) disrepute (resulting from) the hasty and ill-conceived decision to award US President Barack Obama 2009 award.

It would show (their) willingness to stand up in defense of civil liberties and human rights, even when such a defense (would) be viewed with disfavour by the world’s dominant military power.”

Sincerely,

Stefan Svallfors 
Professor of Sociology at Umea University

Honoring Obama wasn’t the first disgraceful award. Many others preceded it. More followed. Nobel hypocrisy is longstanding. Worthy recipients are rare. War criminals win often.  Doing so mocks peace. It reflects gross injustice. Perhaps committee members believe war is peace. Don’t expect them to explain why scoundrels regularly win. Political expediency, not worthiness, matters most.

Russian Duma International Committee of the Russian State head Alexey Pushkov is right, saying:

“Not in a million years will the United States allow Snowden to get the Peace Prize. But his nomination is significant. Many in the West see him as a champion of democracy.”

Millions do worldwide. This type support is reward enough. It’s priceless. It can’t be bought. It can’t be denied. It can’t be ignored. It has meaning. It’s what Nobel scoundrels lack – integrity to do what’s right regardless of risks involved.

Svallfors is credentialed to submit nominations. Qualified individuals include:

  • members of national assemblies and governments;
  • international courts members;
  • university rectors;
  • social sciences, history, philosophy, law and theology professors;
  • peace research organizations;
  • foreign policy institutes;
  • former Nobel recipients;
  • board members of organizations awarded the prize;
  • active Nobel Committee members; and
  • former Committee advisors.

Annual awards are supposed to be given to “person(s) who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies, and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”  Nobel words ring hollow. Awards reflect polar opposite principles. They’re not what members claim. It happens with disturbing regularity. It doesn’t surprise. Snowden’s eligible for the December 2014 award. The deadline for this year’s nominations ended in February. Winners are invited to Oslo to receive it. Snowden can’t come.

Norway rejected his asylum request. Washington pressured its decision. Aftenposten is Norway’s largest circulation broadsheet.  It said granting him asylum’s the diplomatic equivalent of war on America. It’s why most countries reject him. They cravenly support what’s wrong.

Norway’s a NATO country. The North Atlantic Alliance is America’s imperial tool. It’s a killing machine. It’s for offense, not defense.  It advances Washington’s imperium. It does so destructively. Norway’s one of 12 founding members. It’s been one since April 4, 1949.

Imagine if China, Russia, Venezuela, Iran, or other independent countries pressured Norway and other Western countries not to grant one of their citizens asylum.

Their request would be denied. Their ambassadors would be called on the carpet. Perhaps they’d be expelled. Western hypocrisy is longstanding. Double standards are common practice.  Washington rules apply. Rule of law principles are spurned. Democratic values are mocked. Honor and integrity don’t matter. It doesn’t surprise.

On July 16, Russia Today headlined “Russia receives Snowden temporary asylum request,” saying:

Russia’s Federal Migration Service(FMS) confirmed receipt. Processing may take several months. In the meantime, he’ll either be transferred temporarily to a refugee center or allowed to choose his own accommodations.

A previous article said he’ll be given freedom of movement. He’ll get special permit permission to do so. He’ll have it in a matter of days.  According to Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, Putin’s apprised of what’s happening. He abstained from the process.

“If we are talking about temporary asylum, then this issue is not for the president, but the FMS, where it is not even reviewed on a chief’s level,” said Peskov.

On Tuesday, human rights lawyer Anatoly Kucherena said Snowden “handed over his application to Sheremetyevo’s (FMS) staff.”

“I told him about all the intricacies of the procedure.”

“It was decided that a staff member from the FMS office will come to the airport to accept Snowden’s temporary asylum request, as he is not allowed to leave Sheremetyevo’s transit zone.”

“He is being pursued by the US government. That’s what he wrote.”

“I am quoting – and he fears for his life, safety, that he will be tortured or receive the death penalty.”

His situation is very difficult. He’s a man without a country. He’s wrongly pursued for doing the right thing. He’s no criminal.

He’s undecided whether to remain in Russia or move to a permanent safe haven. If granted temporary asylum, he may decide to say if permitted to do so.

“Talking to me,” said Kucherena, “he did not mention that he was going to move to another country after he receives asylum. It looks to me like he has not made a final decision.”

He had a choice. He could have applied for political or temporary asylum. He chose the latter because review time is months shorter.  He’s tired of living in airport transit zone limbo. Temporary asylum grants humanitarian status. It postpones or avoids deportation.

If approved, he can stay in Russia 12 months. He can be granted another year and a third. Perhaps longer with FMS approval. According to FMS’ Public Chamber head Vladimir Volokh:

For the next several days, Snowden will either remain in Sheremetyevo’s transit zone or move temporarily to an asylum center.

“Right now we are beginning the first stage – the definition of (his) legal status,” Volokh said.  He “would have to be in the transit area, or FMS can transfer him to the temporary accommodation for refugees for internally displaced persons.”

Russia Today interviewed Anatoly Kucherena. He explained the complexities of Russia’s asylum process.  It’s decision to review his request is based on human rights considerations.

“In terms of his legal status,” said Kucherena, “receiving political asylum or temporary asylum would not change status. In terms of receiving political asylum status, the procedure is quite long – 6 months.”

“Receiving temporary asylum will only take up to 3 months. He chose this option.”  He’s tired of transit zone limbo. He wants resolution soon as possible. If FMS “rules in favor of his petition, he will be issued a refugee ID.”   It permits free movement anywhere for a year. He’ll have “full rights and privileges of a Russian citizen.”  He’ll make his own accommodation arrangements. Kucherena agreed to represent him.

“Russia’s humane approach in resolving this issue, without a doubt bears witness to the fact that no matter who or which country the individual comes from, in times of such difficult personal troubles, we have to act humanely toward that individual,” he said.

“I believe that under such circumstances and his written petition, it is necessary for him to be granted temporary asylum.”

“I think it will be a humane step, and since Russia is acting humanly, the US government cannot view it as a hostile step or hostile behavior toward the US.”

Kucherena believes Snowden’s a man of his word. He’s morally and legally right. His fears are credible. He’s ideologically driven. He calls it “unacceptable to violate universal human rights on such a large scale.”  He may decide to stay in Russia. He told Kucherena he’d like to stay. If granted permission he’ll “become a citizen with all rights and privileges.”

For now, Russia’s his safest option. Travel outside its borders is too hazardous to risk. He may decide to stay permanently.  He’s got plenty of time to resolve his final status. He’ll get competent help doing so.

A Final Comment

The Movement of the Icelandic Parliament, EU Pirate parties, and former Tunisian Secretary of State for Sport & Youth nominated Bradley Manning for the 2013 Nobel Peace Prize.  So did past award winner Mairead Maguire, saying:

“I have chosen to nominate US Army Pfc Bradley Manning, for I can think of no one more deserving.”

“His incredible disclosure of secret documents to Wikileaks helped end the Iraq War, and may have helped prevent further conflicts elsewhere.”  Manning connected important dots. He did so for millions. He exposed war horrors graphically. He did so at great risk. He suffered horrendously for doing the right thing.

Maguire’s right. No one’s more deserving. Let America try explaining why it plans imprisoning a peace prize honoree. Lift the bar beyond its reach. Show its ugly face. Make it answerable for gross injustice. Let the whole world know better than before.  Eugene Debs should have won. In 1924, he was nominated. Nobel Committee members rejected him. On April 13, 1919, he was imprisoned. He opposed WW I. He was against America’s involvement.

Woodrow Wilson called him a traitor. He urged draft resistance. He faced 10 sedition counts. His trial defense called no witnesses. He alone addressed the court.  He spoke for two hours. He was convicted. At sentencing, he spoke again. Journalist Heywood Broun called his speech “one of the most beautiful and moving passages in the English language.”

“He was for that one afternoon touched with inspiration. If anyone told me that tongues of fire danced upon his shoulders as he spoke, I would believe it.”

In part, he said:

“Your honor, I have stated in this court that I am opposed to the form of our present government; that I am opposed to the social system in which we live; that I believe in the change of both but by perfectly peaceable and orderly means….”

“I am thinking this morning of the men in the mills and factories. I am thinking of the women who, for a paltry wage, are compelled to work out their lives; of the little children who, in this system, are robbed of their childhood, and in their early, tender years, are seized in the remorseless grasp of Mammon, and forced into the industrial dungeons, there to feed the machines while they themselves are being starved body and soul….”

“Your honor, I ask no mercy. I plead for no immunity. I realize that finally the right must prevail.”

“I never more fully comprehended than now the great struggle between the powers of greed on the one hand and upon the other the rising hosts of freedom.”

“I can see the dawn of a better day of humanity. The people are awakening. In due course of time they will come into their own.”

Your Honor, years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth.”

“I said then, and I say now, that while there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free.”

He appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court. It rejected him. In 1920, he ran for president in Atlanta, GA prison. He got 919,799 write-in votes.  On December 23, 1921, Warren Harding commuted his sentence to time served. He wasn’t pardoned. He returned to Terre Haute, IN. Thousands greeted him.  In 1924, Finnish socialist Kark Wiik nominated him for the Nobel Peace Prize. He did so because Debs “work(ed) actively for peace during WW 1.” He considered it waged for “the interest(s) of capitalism.”

No award was granted that year. On October 20, 1926, heart failure took him. On October 26, a supporter said his epitaph should read:

“He who labored incessantly for others, at last found rest. He who waged ceaseless strife on behalf of his brothers has entered into the eternal peace.”

 ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached atlendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.  His new book is titled “Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.  It airs Fridays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening. 

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour