USN submarine research killing whales and other marine life

HELP ENLIGHTEN YOUR FELLOWS. BE SURE TO PASS THIS ON. SURVIVAL DEPENDS ON IT.

Thank you for visiting our animal defence section. Before reading our main essay, please join us in a moment of compassion and reflection.

The wheels of business and human food compulsions are implacable and totally lacking in compassion. This is a downed cow, badly hurt, but still being dragged to slaughter. Click on this image to fully appreciate this horror repeated millions of times every day around the world. With plentiful non-animal meat substitutes that fool the palate, there is no longer reason for this senseless suffering. Meat consumption is a serious ecoanimal crime. The tyranny of the palate must be broken. Please consider changing your habits in this regard.


A US Navy Ohio-class submarine. In the hands of the neoliberal plutocracy, a tool not so much for defence as global supremacy.


‘This has been 100% predicted to happen! The US NAVY, Australian Navy and New Zealand Navy are conducting a RIMPAC type underwater electronic weapons testing with Raytheon right where these whales died! We have been reporting on this now for two years since the US Navy and Royal Australian Navy announced the war games!

Raytheon even boasted on their Australian web page that they "will control the seas and the Chinese had better take notice". They are using high intensity underwater electromagnetic and plasma energy weapons to detect and destroy Russian and Chinese "quiet submarines" that cannot be detected by using normal sonar.

The Navy even warms all Navy scuba divers to stay miles away from these underwater weapons or you will suffer a heart seizure! The larger the animal will absorb more of an electrical discharge due to its larger skin surface. One US submarine has the electronic fire power to kill a hundred pilot whales and when you add a dozen of these submarines along with underwater drones and surface war ships in one area the marine life is going to be destroyed!

The US Navy is doing the same type testing out of PMRF in Kauai and along the Oahu north shore but they track the whales using hydrophones and move away from the pods of whales and dolphin so this does not happen again here in Hawaii. But what the Navy is finally learning is these very dangerous underwater electronic weapons also kill coral reefs like what happened in Kauai and the Great Barrier Reef in Australia. The corals can not simply swim away from the submarines bombarding their habitat with electricity!’


There has been an unprecedented amount of marine-life washing up on shores by the thousands either dead or dying. When still alive, they appeared in most cases to be clearly disoriented. Ones that were helped back to the water would only find themselves right back on the beach, and in some cases internal and external trauma was apparent; periodically dolphins and even whales have been found with perforated ear drums. Some showing up dead with dozens of pounds of toxic plastic waste inside their stomachs. The timeline of these unusual events perfectly coincide with the US Navy’s planned five-year test of underwater sonar and sonic weaponry that commenced in 2014 and will last until 2019. One weapon being tested manipulates a tiny ball of plasma to produce incredible noise. (Our thanks to Last American Vagabond)

 



black-horizontal
[premium_newsticker id=”154171″]




The Only Regime Change that Is Needed Is in Washington


Ambassador James Jeffrey Nut of the Month

James Jeffrey and the rotund bully Pompeo—two impudent lying warmongers that exemplify the worst of humanity. Naturally employed by the US pluto government.

[dropcap]O[/dropcap]ne of the things to look forward to in the upcoming holiday season is the special treats that one is allowed to sample. Fruitcake and nuts are Thanksgiving and Christmas favorites. They usually come in tins or special packages but it seems that this season some of the nuts have escaped and have fled to obtain sanctuary from the Trump Administration.

Currently, there is certainly a wide range of nuts available on display in the West Wing. There is the delicate but hairy Bolton, which has recently received the coveted “Defender of Israel” award, and also the robust Pompeo, courageously bucking the trend to overeat during the holidays by telling the Iranian people that they should either surrender or starve to death. And then there is the always popular Haley, voting audaciously to give part of Syria to Israel as a holiday treat.

But my vote for the most magnificent nut in an Administration that is overflowing with such talent would be the esteemed United States Special Representative for Syria Engagement James Jeffrey. The accolade is in part due to the fact that Jeffrey started out relatively sane as a career diplomat with the State Department, holding ambassadorships in Iraq, Turkey, and Albania. He had to work hard to become as demented as he now is but was helped along the way by signing on as a visiting fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), which is a spin-off of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

Jeffrey set the tone for his term of office shortly after being appointed back in August when he argued that the Syrian terrorists were “. . . not terrorists, but people fighting a civil war against a brutal dictator.” Jeffrey, who must have somehow missed a lot of the head chopping and rape going on, subsequently traveled to the Middle East and stopped off in Israel to meet Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It has been suggested that Jeffrey received his marching orders during the visit.

James Jeffrey has been particularly active during this past month.  On November 7th he declared that he would like to see Russia maintain a “permissive approach” to allowing the Israelis to attack Iranian targets inside Syria.  Regarding Iran’s possible future role in Syria, he observed that “Iranians are part of the problem not part of the solution.”

What Jeffrey meant was that because Israel had been “allowed” to carry out hundreds of air attacks in Syria ostensibly directed against Iran-linked targets, the practice should be permitted to continue. Israel had suspended nearly all of its airstrikes in the wake of the shoot-down of a Russian aircraft in September, an incident which Moscow has blamed on Israel even though the missile that brought down the plane was fired by Syria. Fifteen Russian servicemen were killed. Israel reportedly was deliberately using the Russian plane to mask the presence of its own aircraft.

Russia responded to the incident by deploying advanced S-300 anti-aircraft systems to Syria, which can cover most of the more heavily developed areas of the country. Jeffrey was unhappy with that decision, saying “We are concerned very much about the S-300 system being deployed to Syria. The issue is at the detail level. Who will control it? what role will it play?” And he defended his own patently absurd urging that Russia, Syria’s ally, permit Israel to continue its air attacks by saying “We understand the existential interest and we support Israel” because the Israeli government has an “existential interest in blocking Iran from deploying long-range power projection systems such as surface-to-surface missiles.”

On November 15th James Jeffrey was at it again, declaring that U.S. troops will not leave Syria before guaranteeing the “enduring defeated” of ISIS, but he perversely put the onus on Syria and Iran, saying that “We also think that you cannot have an enduring defeat of ISIS until you have fundamental change in the Syrian regime and fundamental change in Iran’s role in Syria, which contributed greatly to the rise of ISIS in the first place in 2013, 2014.”

As virtually no one but Jeffrey and the Israeli government actually believes that Damascus and Tehran were responsible for creating ISIS, the ambassador elaborated, blaming President Bashar al-Assad for the cycle of violence in Syria that, he claimed, allowed the development of the terrorist group in both Syria and neighboring Iraq.

He said “The Syrian regime produced ISIS. The elements of ISIS in the hundreds, probably, saw an opportunity in the total breakdown of civil society and of the upsurge of violence as the population rose up against the Assad regime, and the Assad regime, rather than try to negotiate or try to find any kind of solution, unleashed massive violence against its own population.”

Jeffrey’s formula is just another recycling of the myth that the Syrian opposition consisted of good folks who wanted to establish democracy in the country. In reality, it incorporated terrorist elements right from the beginning and groups like ISIS and the al-Qaeda affiliates rapidly assumed control of the violence. That Jeffrey should be so ignorant or blinded by his own presumptions to be unaware of that is astonishing. It is also interesting to note that he makes no mention of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, knee-jerk support for Israel and the unrelenting pressure on Syria starting with the Syrian Accountability Act of 2003 and continuing with the embrace of the so-called Arab Spring. Most observers believe that those actions were major contributors to the rise of ISIS.

Jeffrey’s unflinching embrace of the Israeli and hardline Washington assessment of the Syrian crisis comes as no surprise given his pedigree, but in the same interview where he pounded Iran and Syria, he asserted oddly that “We’re not about regime change. We’re about a change in the behavior of a government and of a state.”

Actually, the only regime change that is needed is in Washington and it would include Jeffrey, Bolton, Haley, Pompeo, and Miller. And while we’re at it, get rid of son-in-law Jared Kushner and his claque of Orthodox Jews, Jason Greenblatt the “peace negotiator” and David Friedman the U.S. Ambassador in Israel. None of them are capable of acting to advance any American national interest, which they wouldn’t recognize even if it hit them in the butt. Once they are gone the U.S. can bid the Middle East goodbye and leave its constituent nations to sort out their own problems. Jeffrey’s ridiculous prescriptions for the Syrians and Russians are symptomatic of what one gets from a team of yes-men who have latched onto some dystopic ideas and pursued them relentlessly, blinded by what they believe to be American power. Someone should tell them that their antics have made that power a commodity that is dramatically depreciating in value, but it is clear that they are not listening.

TOP IMAGE: *(Secretary Pompeo officiates the Swearing-In Ceremony for Ambassador James F. Jeffrey. Image credit: U.S. Department of State/ flickr)

PHILIP GIRALDI 

is a former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer who served nineteen years overseas in Turkey, Italy, Germany, and Spain. He was the CIA Chief of Base for the Barcelona Olympics in 1992 and was one of the first Americans to enter Afghanistan in December 2001. Phil is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a Washington-based advocacy group that seeks to encourage and promote a U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East that is consistent with American values and interests.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES BY THE EDITORS NOT THE AUTHORS

black-horizontal
[premium_newsticker id=”154171″]

Revolutionary wisdom

Words from an Irish patriot—

 

People in the center are cowards.
They are sheep.
They don’t want to offend, or to think. They have no opinions of their own. They agree with the last person they spoke with.
And they presume that the center is safe.
How can anyone criticize a moderate?
Easily, it turns out.
Moderates are the casualties in all conflicts.
They are the enemy of both the right and the left.
They are without morality, conscience, principles, or common sense.
They are like a stumbling drunk in the middle of a highway, at risk of being run over by cars going in both directions.


—Roland Vincent, Armory of the Revolution

 




Be Afraid … Be Very Afraid!

MAKE SURE YOU CIRCULATE THESE MATERIALS! BREAKING THE EMPIRE'S PROPAGANDA MACHINE DEPENDS ON YOU.


[dropcap]A[/dropcap]larm, fear, panic, hysteria, dread are loose in Washington DC. Here are sample headlines which sum up why our lawmakers have emptied the shelves of smelling salts in the local apothecaries:

COMMISSION: U.S. COULD LOSE WARS WITH RUSSIA, CHINA

U.S. could potentially lose a war against China or Russia

US military edge has eroded, study says

U.S. 'COULD LOSE' ITS NEXT WAR: REPORT SHOWS MILITARY 

WOULD ’STRUGGLE TO WIN' AGAINST RUSSIA AND CHINA

U.S. military might "struggle to win, or perhaps lose"

War with China or Russia, report says

Our “official” defense budget for 2019 is $716 billion — $686 billion earmarked for the Department of Defense. That’s four times the defense budget of China, ten times the defense budget of Russia.

AND WE CAN’T WIN A WAR WITH THESE TWO BACKWARD, UPSTART NATIONS?

[dropcap]W[/dropcap]hat’s the explanation? We’ve got the best-equipped, most powerful military money can buy. We’ve got the largest navy, the most submarines, the largest air force, the most tanks and artillery. We have over 800 bases around the world. And we can’t win a war against Russia or China?

What’s going on? 

Glad you asked.

It seems that the peddlers of this paranoiac prattle, aka pitchmen for the MIC and all who profit from promoting war, left out two words.

What two words? 

The two words are … (drumroll) … ‘of aggression’.

That’s right we can’t win a war OF AGGRESSION against China or Russia.

What’s left out of the sales pitch for more astronomical increases in our defense spending is some simple straightforward talk, which would undercut the whole argument for more military might.

You see, neither China or Russia can win a war of aggression against the U.S. or Europe either. Somehow that didn’t get mentioned. So the truth is, right now we are at parity with these countries. We can’t win attacking them. They can’t win attacking us. 

I would think this would be a cause for celebration. But that’s just me … and maybe 300 million other sane people in this country.


[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he difference is that neither China or Russia are trying to build some colossal offensive war machine. The major thrust of the defense spending for both of those countries is to DEFEND AGAINST a war of aggression. That's where they put their money. And it takes a lot less money to defend a homeland, than to prepare to attack another country. Or to police an empire that stretches across the entire planet. A lot less!

That's not to say that Russia and China don't have offensive weapons. They do. But they deploy those weapons in a defensive posture. There are two ways to defend a country. Either you go head-to-head with an invading force, which would not just include soldiers, tanks, artillery, but also anti-ballistic missile systems, electronic warfare (incapacitating the high-tech weaponry of the attacking force), whatever mechanisms, some very destructive and lethal, are needed to keep the invaders at bay.

The Chinese Navy is not doing "freedom of navigation" exercises in the Caribbean or off the coast of New England or California. Russia and/or China are not conducting huge war games in Canada or Mexico. There are NO Chinese or Russian bases anywhere in our hemisphere.
The other major defensive category is the ability to inflict so much damage on the aggressor nation, its aggression results in "unacceptable losses". That can be personnel, military assets, but it can also be non-military assets. For example, taking down the aggressor nation's power grid, internet, communications, even their satellites, all of which compromise the aggressor nation's capacity to continue waging a war fall into this category.

Creating weaponry for those two purposes, that is, to defeat an invading military force or to discourage an aggressive attack, is predominantly what Russia's and China's military R&D and asset deployment has excelled at. This type of weaponry is much less expensive. Which explains in very simple terms why they can have such effective militaries at a fraction of the cost.

The handwringing, cold sweats, hyperventilation, allegedly caused by our WAR WINNING GAP — remember the missile gap of the 70s and 80s — are symptoms of the insanity which has infected both major political parties, destroyed any perspective and common sense, made completely impossible any rational conversation about the role our military should play in the world, and especially voided any discussion of how much of our nation's resources should be diverted away from constructive social programs — including but not limited to quality universal education, investment in sustainable productive infrastructure, quality universal health care, and getting serious about addressing the climate crisis — to support the grand imperial project of world domination with even more military expansion.

Right now, no one can win a war of aggression. In all probability, considering the dismal record of our military since WWII, no matter how much the U.S. spends, it will NEVER BE ABLE TO WIN A WAR OF AGGRESSION. If we keep pushing for war, as they say, be careful what you wish for. Because neither Russia or China will back down. The risks of a major confrontation with either going nuclear are very high.

Don't forget those two words: 'of aggression'. Because when the lunatics now in power talk about our diminishing military capacity, they are referring to our decreasing ability to mount an armada and take on Russia and China OVER THERE, not HERE — that is, winning a war in "their immediate sphere of influence".

If you have any doubts about what I'm saying, just check any map of foreign deployed military bases and track where the war games are taking place.



The Chinese Navy is not doing "freedom of navigation" exercises in the Caribbean or off the coast of New England or California. Russia and/or China are not conducting huge war games in Canada or Mexico. There are NO Chinese or Russian bases anywhere in our hemisphere. Moreover, while both Russia and China have conducted large-scale war games — important to note these are exercises in defending against large scale attacks from an aggressor — they on held in Russia and in China, not in bordering countries, and certainly not thousands of miles away in "our immediate sphere of influence".

Andrei Belousov, deputy head of the Department of Nonproliferation and Arms Control at the Russian Foreign Ministry, recently made this statement: "Linguistically, this difference is in just one word, both in Russian and in English; Russia is preparing for war, and the US is preparing a war....Yes, Russia is preparing for war, I have confirmed it. We are preparing to defend our homeland, our territorial integrity, our principles, our values, our people — we are preparing for such a war."

Let's hope they never have to fight such a war. We must relentlessly work toward removing the lunatics now in power in the Washington DC bubble — more resembling an insane asylum with each passing day — who apparently are preparing to launch such a war OF AGGRESSION against Russia, and another against China.

In summary, the military analysts are correct in saying, we can't win such a war now. But they can double, triple, quadruple the defense budget, and it will accomplish nothing. No amount of destructive weapons will ever produce a winner in such a conflict. An attack on either Russia or China could very well go nuclear, in which case there will be no winners. There will be no one around period to plant flags or declare victory.

<strong>John Rachel</strong>
 johnRachel7 Senior Contributing Editor John Rachel has a B. A. in Philosophy, has traveled extensively, is a songwriter and music producer, a novelist, a left-of-left liberal, and has spent his life trying to resolve the intrinsic clash between the metaphysical purity of Buddhism and the overwhelming appeal of narcissism. John Rachel has a B.A. in Philosophy, and has written eight novels and three political non-fiction books. His political articles have appeared at OpEdNews, Russia Insider, The Greanville Post, and other alternative media outlets. Since leaving the U.S. in 2006, he has lived in and explored 33 countries. He is now somewhat rooted in a traditional, rural Japanese community about an hour from Osaka, where he lives with his wife of five years. Daily he rides his bicycle through the soybean fields and rice paddies which sprawl across the surrounding landscape. As of the date of the release of his most recent book, "The Peace Dividend: The Most Controversial Proposal in the History of the World", he has a small but promising organic vegetable garden which begs his attention. You can follow his writing and the evolution of his world view at: http://jdrachel.com "Scribo ergo sum."

horiz-long greyblack-horizontal
[premium_newsticker id=”154171″]




Why Did Turkey Go Public With Murder Accusation Against Saudis Royals?

HELP ENLIGHTEN YOUR FELLOWS. BE SURE TO PASS THIS ON. SURVIVAL DEPENDS ON IT.


TRANSCRIPT

Wednesday, October 31, 2018

PAUL JAY: Welcome to The Real News Network. I’m Paul Jay.

It was reported in the U.K. newspaper the Express that the British intelligence service MI6 had known about the planned attack on Khashoggi in the Saudi embassy in Turkey, and pleaded, begged, according to the headline in the Express, begged the Saudi royals not to go ahead with this. There’s apparently in that report no direct link in British intelligence to Mohammed bin Salman, MBS, the Crown Prince. But clearly senior levels of the royal family, as it’s reported. Of course, it was earlier reported that American intelligence also knew about a planned attempt to kidnap, to interrogate Khashoggi, that turned into a killing. In fact, in the British report it specifically mentions that the British intelligence heard the Saudis planning a Plan B, which had to do with something more than just an abduction if it didn’t go well, which suggested a plan for a murder. And we know that the Saudi prosecutor has now said that this was all a premeditated plan, which included the murder, if I understand it correctly.

So just what is the bigger geopolitical context of these events? Now joining me to discuss all of this is Larry Wilkerson. Larry is the former chief of staff of U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell; currently an adjunct professor of government at the College of William and Mary, and a regular contributor to The Real News Network. Thanks for joining us, Larry.

LARRY WILKERSON: Thanks for having me, Paul.

PAUL JAY: So the British and American intelligence agencies knows this is coming. They don’t tell Khashoggi to be wary; don’t go for a visit to the Saudi embassy. For the life of me I actually can’t understand how he thought he could, but at any rate, he did.

And I would have thought, perhaps, that the Americans and British maybe wouldn’t have made such a big deal out of this after the fact. But maybe they had no choice once Turkey went so public, and had actual audio recordings. The Turks seemed to know this thing was coming. I know there’s some suggestion about his watch, but … You know, everyone’s listening to everybody these days. And it seems to me it’s a sign of the impunity the Saudis feel that they probably know they’re being listened to. They do all this stuff anyway, and think they’re going to get away with it. Why they thought they would get away with it in Turkey I don’t quite get. But talk about why the Turks decided to make such hay with this.

LARRY WILKERSON: Let me say, first of all, that those were very leading questions, which is a style to which I’ve become accustomed. But I have to say even with that qualification, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, period. You’re right on almost everything you’ve said. I would think that sources and methods might have something to do with warning the gentleman. That might sound cretin-like, but it is true that we would sacrifice an individual to revelation of sources and methods. And there’s no guarantee it would have adhered to it anyway. He probably would have perservered and gone anyway.

But to your question, your substantive question, the two real ideological enemies in that region of the world are Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Turkey being, and Erdogan in particular manifesting this, the evolution now of the political Muslim Brotherhood; and Riyadh representing the very opposite, the Salafist, Wahhabist, the radical kind of Islam that brought about 9/11, for example.

So you’re really looking at the two ideological opponents when you look at Turkey, on the one hand, and Saudi Arabia on the other hand. That makes what Mohammed bin Salman has accomplished here with his disastrous war in Yemen, which he is losing, at one of the kingdom, and his disastrous boycott of Qatar at the other end of his kingdom, which has lured thousands of Turkish troops onto Qatari soil, and brought Riyadh’s enemy cheek and jowl with him, if you will. Even more dramatic, if one wanted to say that Mohamed bin Salman was one of the worst strategic thinkers and executors in the world, I’d support that description.

PAUL JAY: Well, is that partly what this, in fact, is about, then? Lindsey Graham- who, to my mind, speaks for the military-industrial-congressional complex, as some people call it- Lindsey Graham said that MBS is schizophrenic, and has got to go. Now, if he speaks for arms manufacturers, and this is one of their biggest customers, Lindsay sticking his neck out to some extent, in the sense that it seems to me that that’s the plan, that MBS needs to go. And maybe that’s- they’ve all taken advantage of this opportunity to bring him down. And it’s not because they’re so worried about one journalist getting killed. They’re worried that MBS, and this, as you say, disastrous war in Yemen, and his, what he’s doing in terms of trying to completely consolidate power in Saudi Arabia, that he’s distracting from the real target, which is the American plan for regime change in Iran.

LARRY WILKERSON: That could be true. That’s one interpretation of some of these more complex events. Another interpretation is that Stalin was right when he said kill one person, it’s murder; kill a million, it’s a statistic. And what you have here is that phenomenon manifesting itself rather dramatically. We have been helping the Saudis prosecute this brutal war in Yemen which is killing thousands of people, bringing on a cholera epidemic the world has not seen the likes of, and creating a humanitarian disaster in terms of starvation that we haven’t seen since World War II. Really a brutal, tragic war.

And then we suddenly, and then the Congress- I’ve been lobbying the Congress now for almost six months on two pieces of legislation: House Continuing Resolution 138 now, and Senate Special Resolution 54, which essentially say to the president invoking the War Powers Act to get out of Yemen. Now. 30 days, get out. And explains why we have not to this point had much traction with the legislation because of the brutal war in Yemen, but now we have incredible traction because of this single murder.

So look at it the way you will; if you want to look at it is fate operating with its fickle finger, then that’s what’s happened here. You’ve had a confluence of interest in making this an issue. Turkey, the United States, ultimately, people like Lindsey Graham, for example, who want to get rid of MBS. You’ve had those come together, and now we have a real issue over this single murder.

PAUL JAY: It’s no surprise that MBS and the Saudi royals think they can get away with just about anything, because in the past they’ve gotten away with just about everything.

LARRY WILKERSON: Indeed. As I’ve pointed out to audience after audience, they may even have gotten away with 9/11; at least 15 of the 19 hijackers. And I think fairly definitive evidence even now, without our knowing- all of it’s in the archives, all of it’s in the testimony to the 9/11 Commission, that was the deal- without our even knowing that, we have pretty firm evidence that there was a connection with some part, at least, of the royal family and some of those hijackers who flew into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

PAUL JAY: Well, certainly Bob Graham, who co-chaired the joint congressional investigation into 9/11, came to the conclusion that the Saudi government- in fact, according to Graham in the interviews I conducted with him, he thinks the Saudi king was directly involved. Of course, the the man that stick handled it for him was the Saudi ambassador to the United States, Bandar. And Bandar clearly is in wiretaps, and other evidence connecting him with the hijackers. And we don’t need to go into the whole 9/11 story now, although we will again. But according to Graham, he thinks Cheney and Bush both knew it was coming, and knew in connection with Bandar that the Saudis were involved, and did nothing to stop it. But that’s another conversation, unless you want to take that up.

But I’m more interested in the- at this point- in imagining the rivalry between the Saudis, the Iranians, and the Turks. I don’t think it’s a stretch to imagine that this was what Europe was for centuries; you know, rising industrial capitalist powers, or even when they were more feudal powers, contending with each other. Slaughtering each other, waging wars against each other. The difference, I guess, in the Middle East with these powers that are contending with each other is it all happens under the rubric of American, you know, some people say hegemony in the region.

LARRY WILKERSON: Well that’s certainly a part of the empire’s periphery. And what damages the empire ultimately from that periphery. Broadly stated, all our alliances, tacit or otherwise, with dictators, autocrats, and just plain cretins, and all that implies for the value system that America is supposed to exemplify. Less so every day that goes by, it seems of late, from torture to this sort of thing right here.

So yeah, that’s a huge component of it, I think. It’s a huge component of this war in Yemen. And the difficulty in getting the Congress of the United States to do what anybody with a sane mind would think they should do immediately, which is to extricate the United States from it- let’s look at what we’ve got happening right now. We’ve got the Secretary of Defense. We’ve got a four-star general, General Votel, in charge of the Central Command, who are essentially- wittingly or unwittingly, increasingly I think wittingly- lying to the Congress about what the Saudis are doing in Yemen.

I recently had an email conversation with people I had met just recently in Oklahoma City, and they got on the telephone with the junior senator from Oklahoma, James Lankford. And he was maintaining that the Saudis were doing essentially what Pompeo and Mattis have testified to, which is trying- rather incompetently, but trying- to restrict their bombing to targets that we say their bombing should be restricted to. Military targets.

Well, when you present the Senator with a list that shows about a third of those targets, over some 15,000 airstrikes, have been civilian targets, clearly civilian targets, from school buses to hospitals to weddings, and so forth. And then you suggest to him that precision-guided munitions are supposed to allow you to hit the target you aim at. It’s pretty difficult to then argue that Pompeo and Mattis haven’t been lying to the Congress and to the American people; that in fact they know the Saudis are targeting civilian targets, waging a brutal war against food, against medicine, against anything they can hit with their bombs, in an effort to bring the Houthis to bay.

They should go back and look at Nasser’s Egyptian forces in that same country, Yemen, back in the ’60s. Most of the veterans of that campaign who are still alive will tell you that was Egypt’s Vietnam. So that’s the other aspect of this, is we’re supporting Saudi Arabia in this brutal war, and they’re losing. They’re losing badly. And they’re ultimately going to lose the whole thing. They’re spending a fortune on it. It’s a real drain on their treasury right now. And this is being called increasingly in the region MBS’s war. Worse for the United States, it’s not seen as an American proxy war in the sense that we’re involved in it and the Saudis are our executioner, except with the people in the region. And that’s what’s happening right now that helps Al-Qaeda and other groups like that recruit. And it also is increasing the ranks of terrorists all across the region, because they see this war as the U.S. war against Iran, with the Saudis as our proxy.

PAUL JAY: Well it’s no wonder, then, Lindsey Graham wants MBS gone, because if what you really want to do is target Iran, you don’t need Saudis distracted by Yemen.

LARRY WILKERSON: Yeah, that’s a very important point. What we’ve had happen here is this death of this Washington Post journalist, and the brouhaha that has developed around it has drowned out Iran and the administration, the Trump administration, John Bolton the National Security Advisor in particular is probably roiling, trying to figure out how to get the focus back on Iran. But as long as we’re looking at the Saudi chief prosecutor heading- I guess he’s arrived, now- in Istanbul, and other things associated with this, as long as Erdogan just sort of lets this out piecemeal, a little bit at a time, it keeps everyone titillated thereby. Then Iran’s off the screen. And it’s literally taken off the headlines by this series of events.

So it’s it’s damaging to the administration’s policies. As far as I’m concerned Iran can stay off the headlines forever. But it’s damaging for the administration, because the administration, particularly Bolton, wants to keep Iran right in the Klieg lights.

PAUL JAY: All right. Thanks for joining us, Larry.

LARRY WILKERSON: Thanks for having me.

PAUL JAY: And thank you for joining us on The Real News Network.


About the Author
  Paul Jay is founding editor and producer at TRNN.



[premium_newsticker id=”154171″]

Parting shot—a word from the editors
The Best Definition of Donald Trump We Have Found

In his zeal to prove to his antagonists in the War Party that he is as bloodthirsty as their champion, Hillary Clinton, and more manly than Barack Obama, Trump seems to have gone “play-crazy” -- acting like an unpredictable maniac in order to terrorize the Russians into forcing some kind of dramatic concessions from their Syrian allies, or risk Armageddon.However, the “play-crazy” gambit can only work when the leader is, in real life, a disciplined and intelligent actor, who knows precisely what actual boundaries must not be crossed. That ain’t Donald Trump -- a pitifully shallow and ill-disciplined man, emotionally handicapped by obscene privilege and cognitively crippled by white American chauvinism. By pushing Trump into a corner and demanding that he display his most bellicose self, or be ceaselessly mocked as a “puppet” and minion of Russia, a lesser power, the War Party and its media and clandestine services have created a perfect storm of mayhem that may consume us all. Glen Ford, Editor in Chief, Black Agenda Report 




EXCLUSIVE: Meet the Reporters Whose Pages Were Shut Down By Facebook

HELP ENLIGHTEN YOUR FELLOWS. BE SURE TO PASS THIS ON. SURVIVAL DEPENDS ON IT.

THANK THE SCUMBAG CIA DEMOCRATS FOR THIS ASSAULT ON THE FIRST AMMENDMENT. They engineered this entire mess, the jawboning of social media companies behInd the pretext of "fake news"; the Russiagate hoax, imaginary Russian trolls threatening a nonexistent democracy, and so on. Trump and the Republican mob are scum, but they can't fool the majority, they are too transparently vile and inept. Only the morons who follow them for some twisted or ignorant reason swallow their narrative. With the Democrats it's different: deception of the smoothest and most dangerous kind is their specialty. Just think of the Obama brand. And they dominate the "prestige media."


CC BY 2.0 / Jennifer Moo

[dropcap]F[/dropcap]acebook purged hundreds of pages from its platform on Thursday. But instead of the usual targets - namely Russia and Iran - Thursday’s ban shut down accounts operated by independent American reporters and activists, Sputnik News has learned.

Facebook said the pages were "working to mislead others about who they are, and what they are doing," but the co-founder of one of the pages, The Free Thought Project, tells Sputnik News Facebook's claim couldn't be further from the truth.

Most of the pages that were banned and viewed by Sputnik News were independent media outlets and pages that advocated for marijuana legalization or shined a light on police brutality.


In total, Facebook removed 559 pages and 251 personal accounts "that have consistently broken our rules against spam and coordinated inauthentic behavior," the social media giant said. "Given the activity we've seen — and its timing ahead of the US midterm elections — we wanted to give some details about the types of behavior that led to this action," Facebook said, going on to accuse the accounts of manipulating the platform to make their content appear more popular, hawking fake products or functioning as ad farms that tricked "people into thinking that they were forums for legitimate political debate."

The founder of one of the pages — Nicholas Bernabe of The Anti-Media — said he had no knowledge of his page engaging in any such behavior. The Free Thought Project co-founder Jason Bassler similarly denied Facebook's accusations. Rachel Blevins, a reporter for RT America whose personal journalism page was nixed, also denied inauthentic behavior.

Just hours after its ban from Facebook, Twitter suspended Anti-Media from its platform, following a pattern of social media companies successively banning users that has been demonstrated in the past. For example, Facebook, YouTube and Apple all banned the far-right conspiracy theory site InfoWars around the same time. And after the CIA-funded cybersecurity firm FireEye contacted Facebook, Google and Twitter, each company banned a number of accounts allegedly linked to Iran.

 

In the case of InfoWars, Twitter eventually followed suit.

While many warned that the ban of InfoWars from social media would establish a slippery slope, they were often mocked and ridiculed. Thursday's onslaught on independent media appears to have confirmed their suspicions, however.

 

Facebook has been partnering with the Digital Forensics Lab, an arm of the Atlantic Council think tank — a neoconservative group funded by Gulf monarchies and defense giants like Raytheon — to weed out inauthentic users from its platform. Similarly, it has been partnering with the neoconservative Weekly Standard magazine to fact check so-called fake news.

Journalist Abby Martin, who hosts "The Empire Files" on TeleSur English, told Sputnik News after TeleSur's page was temporarily removed from Facebook, "The shuttering of progressive media amidst the ‘fake news' and Russiagate hysteria is what activists been warning all along — tech companies, working in concert with think tanks stacked with CIA officials and defense contractors, shouldn't have the power to curate our reality to make those already rendered invisible even more obsolete."

Sputnik News contacted a number of journalists caught up in the ban. Below is what they had to say, edited extremely lightly for clarity.

Independent reporter John Vibes, who contributes to The Free Thought Project and other websites:

This signifies a re-consolidation of the media. Cable news media controlled the narrative for most of modern history, but the internet has lowered that barrier to entry and allowed the average person to become the media themselves. This obviously took market share and influence away from the traditional media, and it has allowed for a more diverse public conversation. Now it seems the platforms that have monopolized the industry are favoring mainstream sources and silencing alternative voices. So now, instead of allowing more people to have a voice, these platforms are creating an atmosphere where only powerful media organizations are welcome, just as we had on cable news.

People think that we are just providing an activist spin on the news, but they don't see the families struggling to have their voice heard. For example, when someone is shot by police, mainstream media sources often just republish the press release from the police department, without presenting the victim's side of the story. We give the victims and their families a voice, which is essential to keep power in check. This also goes for bigger issues like foreign policy as well; multiple full-scale invasions of Syria have been prevented because of information that the alternative media made viral.

"Information exchange" activist Jason Bassler, who co-founded The Free Thought Project and solely founded Police the Police, both of which were banned:

We were verified by Facebook with a little check mark next to our name, so they know we are a legitimate organization/outlet. They have seen our "Articles of Organization" which was issued by the state of Louisiana, which is where my partner and The Free Thought Project co-founder lives.

We have even paid Facebook to boost our posts and for likes in the past, meaning they gladly took our money for a product that they ended up manipulating and backing out on. It wasn't much, maybe $1,200 over the past 6 years. Do we get that money back now?

We have already had the lawyers at Rutherford Institute (a nonprofit civil liberties organization) send them a letter late last month about unfair treatment by third-party "fact checkers," which they ignored and never responded to.

I was motivated [to start The Free Thought Project] by the injustices I saw on social media during Occupy Wall Street in 2011. I knew I had an obligation to get involved somehow and to share information critical for liberty and peace. I never thought I would have built fan pages of 5 million fans, nor did I ever think we would employ and give jobs to nine other activists (at one point), but I was inspired to do what I could to plant seeds and combat the mainstream media's bullsh*t narratives, to keep police and government accountable, to make sure people knew their rights and how to interact with police.

All that's gone now with a click of a button. Six years of hard work, literally seven days a week, working our as*es off finding stories, researching them, writing them, making thumbnails and titles for them, making graphics and videos for them, sharing them on various social media outlets.

What's next? I will fight this until I am utterly exhausted. We will fight back tooth and nail. I don't care if that means protesting in front of Facebook headquarters (which I've already considered doing many times in the past two years), I will make sure people know how corrupt and untrustworthy Facebook is if it's the last thing I do. You can't just steal years of hard work from someone and not expect there to be consequences. I will do everything I can to make their lives miserable. That's a promise.

Rachel Blevins, a correspondent for RT America:

Today I was locked out of my Facebook account for four hours, and my public page was "unpublished." There appears to be no explanation for this other than the vague claim from Facebook that my page was taken down because it was "administered by a fake account, misleading users or violating the Facebook spam policies." I am the only person who publishes posts on my page; the only posts I publish are articles I have written or videos of my reports, and I only post one or two times a day — which rules out all of the claims that I have violated Facebook's policies.

My page had nearly 70,000 followers before it was taken down. I have poured the last four years into building my page as a journalist, and I have noticed recently that the reach seems to have been stifled and that the engagement on my posts was down significantly. I know that I am not the only one who has become a victim of this purge, and there are hundreds of other pages — many of which had millions of followers — that have been taken down with no warning and no explanation.

Ford Fischer, the founder of the media startup News2Share, had a number of his live streams removed during the purge, although they were later restored:

This attack was a long time coming. Facebook has been slowly clamping down on independent media. First, they removed more extreme pages and made it harder for the surviving ones to make a living by hurting their algorithms (unless they paid, of course!). Then they started purging those that didn't quickly respond to their ID requests. Today, hundreds of pages belonging to the family of independent media, especially those that question state authority, were removed without explanation. This is just one step further toward the total state and corporate takeover of what you're allowed to think.

Nicholas Bernabe, founder of The Anti-Media:

Our approach generally is to cover stories and angles that corporate media underreport or misreport and to amplify activist and anti-war voices and stories. All of our content is professionally fact-checked and edited.

I got into this line of work because I felt there was a need for media that challenged mainstream assumptions and biases in politics. I wanted to shed light on corruption and wrongdoing against oppressed peoples and cover the harsh truth about American foreign policy.

Over the last 28 days, we reached 7,088,000 people on Facebook.

The timing of this purge is rather dubious in my view, coming shortly before the midterm elections. This could be an attempt by Facebook itself to affect the outcome of the coming elections. The Twitter suspension caught me by surprise. I can only speculate that these suspensions were a coordinated effort to stifle our message ahead of the coming elections.

By Alexander Rubinstein.



About the Author

 ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES BY THE EDITORS NOT THE AUTHORS

black-horizontal
[premium_newsticker id=”154171″]