Archive | October 25, 2015

1000s March against NATO War Games in Italy, Spain*

1000s March against NATO War Games in Italy, Spain*

Thousands of anti-war protesters in Italy and Spain have taken to streets to express opposition to war games conducted in their respective countries by the US-led NATO military alliance.

The demonstrators carried banners and chanted anti-NATO and anti-U.S. slogans during their protest in the southern Italian city of Naples and Spain’s capital Madrid, insisting that the aim of ongoing military drills – dubbed ‘Trident Juncture 2015’ — is to prepare for new aggression on the horizon.

According to press reports, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization embarked on a major military exercise on September 28 in bases in Spain, southern Italy, as well as Portugal involving 36,000 air, land, and marine troops from over 40 countries and organizations. The war games – the NATO’s largest in the past 13 years — is set to continue until November 6.

The anti-war activists in Naples marched through the main streets of the city carrying placards that read in part “NATO must dissolve” and “Smash NATO.”

Meanwhile, the protesters in Madrid marched through the centre of the city to censure the massive military drills that is currently underway in Italy, Spain, Portugal, the Mediterranean Sea and the Atlantic Ocean.

Organized by the Global Platform Against Wars, the protesters marched from Callao Square to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, waving anti-war banners and chanting slogans such as “No to NATO, bases out”, “Imperialism is terrorism”, and “Yankees go home.”

The anti-NATO protest efforts come as the military alliance has drastically expanded its war games in eastern European countries neighbouring Russia, in what Moscow has censured as provocations over the persisting Ukraine conflict in a bid to expand military presence near Russia.

Source*

Related Topics:

China Warns Russia That “State Of War” Now Exists With the U.S.*

U.S. and NATO Launch Disinformation Terror War*

U.S. on Russia’s Borders Trying to Provoke War*

The Earthquake that Stopped Before Hitting Ukraine and Russian Borders*

U.S. Playing Games Whilst Russia Strike 72 Terrorist Targets in Syria*

Whoever Controls Eurasia Controls the World*

Tony Blair FINALLY apologises for Iraq War and admits in TV interview the conflict caused the rise of ISIS*

Tony Blair FINALLY apologises for Iraq War and admits in TV interview the conflict caused the rise of ISIS*

Number Of Iraqis Slaughtered In US War And Occupation Of Iraq “1,455,590

Number of U.S. Military Personnel Sacrificed (Officially acknowledged) In U.S. War And Occupation Of Iraq 4,801

By Simon Walters, Glen Owen, Martin Beckford, Daniel Bates

Tony Blair has finally said sorry for the Iraq War – and admitted he could be partly to blame for the rise of Islamic State.

The extraordinary confession by the former Prime Minister comes after 12 years in which he refused to apologise for the conflict.

Blair makes his dramatic ‘mea culpa’ during a TV interview about the ‘hell’ caused by his and George Bush’s decision to oust Saddam Hussein.

In the exchange, Blair repeatedly says sorry for his conduct and even refers to claims that the invasion was a war ‘crime’ – while denying he committed one.

Blair is asked bluntly in the CNN interview, to be broadcast today: ‘Was the Iraq War a mistake?’

He replies: ‘I apologise for the fact that the intelligence we received was wrong.

‘I also apologise for some of the mistakes in planning and, certainly, our mistake in our understanding of what would happen once you removed the regime.’

Challenged that the Iraq War was ‘the principal cause’ of the rise of Islamic State, he said: ‘I think there are elements of truth in that.

‘Of course you can’t say those of us who removed Saddam in 2003 bear no responsibility for the situation in 2015.’

In the ‘trial by TV’, respected U.S. political broadcaster Fareed Zakaria accuses him of being President Bush’s ‘poodle’ over the conflict. Blair’s confession comes a week after The Mail on Sunday published a bombshell White House memo revealing for the first time how Blair and Bush agreed a ‘deal in blood’ a year before the invasion.

BLAIR’S ‘APOLOGY’ IN FULL: HOW THE FORMER PM FINALLY ADMITTED MISTAKES BUT STILL REFUSED TO SAY SORRY FOR TOPPLING SADDAM

Appearing on the US TV network CNN Tony Blair was asked directly whether the decision to enter Iraq and topple Saddam Hussein had been ‘a mistake’.

He replied: ‘You know whenever I’m asked this I can say that I apologise for the fact that the intelligence I received was wrong.

‘Because even though he had used chemical weapons extensively against his own people against others, the programme in the form we thought it was did not exist in the way that we thought. So I can apologise for that.

‘I can also apologise, by the way, for some of the mistakes in planning and certainly our mistake in our understanding of what would happen once you had removed the regime.

‘But I find it hard to apologise for removing Saddam. I think even from today 2015 it’s better that he is not there than he is there.’

Mr Blair was then asked whether the invasion of Iraq was the ‘principle cause’ of the rise of ISIS.

The former Prime Minister said: ‘I think there are elements of truth in that. But we have got to be extremely careful otherwise we will misunderstand what’s going on in Iraq and in Syria today.

‘Of course you can’t say that those of us who removed Saddam in 2003 bear no responsibility for the situation in 2015.

‘But it’s important also to realise – one, that the Arab Spring which began in 2011 would also have had its impact on Iraq today. And two – ISIS actually came to prominence from a base in Syria and not in Iraq.

‘This leads me to the broader point, which I think is so essential when we are looking at policy today. We have tried intervention and putting down troops in Iraq. We’ve tried intervention without putting down troops in Libya.

‘And we’ve tried no intervention at all but demanding regime change in Syria.

‘It’s not clear to me that even if our policy did not work, subsequent policies have worked better.’

A 2002 briefing note from U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell to the President showed Blair had secretly pledged to back the conflict – while telling MPs and British voters that he was seeking a diplomatic solution.

In his CNN interview, Blair candidly asks for forgiveness for his blunder in not realising ‘what would happen once you removed the regime’.

The admission makes a mockery of the statement in the Powell memo that Blair would ‘demonstrate [to Bush] that we have thought through ‘the day after’ ‘ – a reference to the consequences of invasion.

However, the bloody chaos in the region continues to this day. And in a separate development, former Labour Home Secretary David Blunkett has revealed that he challenged Blair before the war about avoiding chaos after Saddam’s downfall.

Lord Blunkett says Blair failed to give him such ‘reassurances’ – and instead placed blind faith in the two main ‘hawks’ in the US administration, Vice-President Dick Cheney and Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Lord Blunkett also vented his fury that Sir John Chilcot, who is leading the long-delayed inquiry into the Iraq War, had failed to ask him to give evidence.

BLAIR’S ‘MEA CULPA’ COMES AFTER 12 YEARS OF NON-APOLOGIES

‘I will not apologise for the conflict. I believe it was right.’ House of Commons 2004

‘I don’t think we should be apologising at all for what we are doing in Iraq. We should be immensely proud. I can’t take responsibility for people sending car bombs into a market place.’ TV interview , 2007

I may have been wrong, but I did what I thought was right for our country.’ When he resigned as PM, 2007

[If he had known there were no WMDs] ‘I would still have thought it right to remove Saddam.’ TV interview, 2009

‘It was a headline question. It had to have a headline answer. Answer ‘Yes’ and I knew the outcome: ‘Blair apologises for war’, ‘At last he says sorry’. I can’t say sorry in words; I can only hope to redeem something from the tragedy of death, in the actions of a life, my life, that continues still.’ Memoirs , 2010

‘When people say to me, ‘Do you regret removing him’, my answer is, ‘No – how can you regret removing somebody who was a monster?’ ‘ TV interview , 2013

‘Given my front-row seat at these events, I am mystified Chilcot has not asked me to provide either oral or written evidence,’ Lord Blunkett told The Mail on Sunday.

‘I would have thought that over the six years the inquiry has been going on, Sir John would have found the time to ask the then-Home Secretary what he knew.’

Blair’s confession about the Iraq War and the rise of IS is in stark contrast to his repeated refusal to shoulder the blame for the conflict, or its long term consequences. In 2004, he told MPs: ‘I will not apologise for the conflict. I believe it was right.’

He stuck to his hard line in 2007, saying: ‘I don’t think we should be apologising at all for what we are doing in Iraq.’

Remarkably, Blair himself predicted how the apology U-turn he finally makes today would be reported.

In his 2010 memoirs, he explained why he had so far refused to say ‘yes’ when asked if he was sorry, because he knew it would prompt damaging headlines.

‘Answer ‘Yes’ and I knew the outcome: ‘BLAIR APOLOGISES FOR WAR’, ‘AT LAST HE SAYS SORRY’. I can’t say sorry in words.’

His apology is bound to prompt claims that he is trying to head off the scathing criticism of his handling of the Iraq War expected to be included in Chilcot’s findings.

All the key figures, including Blair and other senior Labour politicians, are understood to have been given notice of the broad thrust of Chilcot’s verdict on them, expected to be made public next year.

As a master of public relations and media manipulation, Blair may have calculated that since Chilcot is likely to accuse him of major errors of judgment, it is better for him to volunteer an apology now, rather than be forced to do so if, as seems certain, Chilcot’s damning assessment gives him little choice. The former Prime Minister’s decision to make his apology in the US, as opposed to the UK, is also significant.

Far from presenting his apology in a harsh critical light, CNN interviewer Zakaria, a personal friend of Blair, showers praise on him for being the only interviewee in the programme who ‘took responsibility for Iraq’ on camera.

Most of the others involved in the show, senior US political and military figures, blamed each other.

The Colin Powell memo – which this newspaper found among declassified US State Department documents while searching through a cache of Hillary Clinton’s recently released emails – was written in March 2002, a week before Mr Blair met Mr Bush for a summit at his ranch in Crawford, Texas.

In our report, which made headlines around the world, we revealed that Powell had said Blair ‘will be with us’ should the US take military action in Iraq and that the ‘UK will follow our lead’.

Blair would handle ‘public affairs lines’ for persuading people that Saddam posed a real threat – in fact, after the war, it was discovered Blair’s claims following the Crawford summit about Iraq’s ‘weapons of mass destruction’ were false.

Lord Blunkett told The Mail on Sunday yesterday how he challenged Blair during Cabinet meetings prior to the war about the level of post-conflict planning for Iraq.

As one of Blair’s most loyal Ministers, Lord Blunkett said he repeatedly sought reassurances that the US had a coherent plan to govern Iraq after the fall of Saddam.

He added: ‘I did not receive that reassurance. Tony was not able to say what was going to happen when combat operations were over. He just decided to trust Cheney and Rumsfeld.

‘With the benefit of hindsight, we now know that they had decided to embark on the complete de-Ba’athification of Saddam’s Iraq by dismantling the entire Government infrastructure.

‘This led to the disintegration of any form of functioning government, creating a complete power vacuum. Terrorists infiltrated Iraq and stirred discontent.

‘I am not seeking to scapegoat Tony Blair; we were all collectively to blame for deluding ourselves into believing that we had much greater sway over Washington.’ Lord Blunkett echoed calls for Chilcot to release an interim copy of his findings immediately or ‘risk his entire exercise being entirely discredited’.

Significantly, in the CNN show, host Zakaria gives his own apology, telling viewers that he regrets his own initial support for the war.

He says he changed his mind after watching the post-war turmoil unfold and witnessing the bloody rise of IS. Viewers may draw the conclusion that Blair came to the same decision for the same reason.

Source*

Related Topics:

The Treasure at the Heart of Iraq

Former Prime Minister Tony Blair Subjected to Citizen’s Arrest*

A Bogus Translation Deceived Powell to OK War on Iraq*

The Official 7/7 London Bombing Story is a Lie*

Blair, Bush and Cameron: Deluded in their Hi-jack of God*

Tony Blair’s’blood for oil’ Speech*

Blair’s Next Leg of The Global leaders Silence on the Palestinian Holocaust and Piping Gas to the E.U.

Blair Paid Millions to Coach Despicable Leaders how to Lie*

How Blair Conspired with Whitehall for Ownership of Scottish Oil Fields*

The Brothers who Funded Blair, Israeli Settlements and Islamophobia*

Corbyn has War Criminal Blair Running Scared*

Purge of Jeremy Corbyn Voters Unmasks Britain’s Blair’s Labour Party*

Zionists Argue for the Boycott of Israel*

Zionists Argue for the Boycott of Israel*

An Israeli soldier detains a Palestinian boy during a protest in the West Bank village of Nabi Saleh in August. (Mohamad Torokman/Reuters)

By Steven Levitsky, Glen Weyl

Steven Levitsky is a professor of government at Harvard University. Glen Weyl is an assistant professor of economics and law at the University of Chicago.

We are lifelong Zionists. Like other progressive Jews, our support for Israel has been founded on two convictions: first, that a state was necessary to protect our people from future disaster; and second, that any Jewish state would be democratic, embracing the values of universal human rights that many took as a lesson of the Holocaust. Undemocratic measures undertaken in pursuit of Israel’s survival, such as the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and the denial of basic rights to Palestinians living there, were understood to be temporary.

But we must face reality: The occupation has become permanent. Nearly half a century after the Six-Day War, Israel is settling into the apartheid-like regime against which many of its former leaders warned. The settler population in the West Bank has grown 30-fold, from about 12,000 in 1980 to 389,000 today. The West Bank is increasingly treated as part of Israel, with the green line demarcating the occupied territories erased from many maps. Israeli President Reuven Rivlin declared recently that control over the West Bank is “not a matter of political debate. It is a basic fact of modern Zionism.”

This “basic fact” poses an ethical dilemma for American Jews:

Can we continue to embrace a state that permanently denies basic rights to another people?

Yet it also poses a problem from a Zionist perspective: Israel has embarked on a path that threatens its very existence.

As happened in the cases of Rhodesia and South Africa, Israel’s permanent subjugation of Palestinians will inevitably isolate it from Western democracies. Not only is European support for Israel waning, but also U.S. public opinion — once seemingly rock solid — has begun to shift as well, especially among millennials. International pariah status is hardly a recipe for Israel’s survival.

At home, the occupation is exacerbating demographic pressures that threaten to tear Israeli society apart. The growth of the settler and ultra-orthodox populations has stoked Jewish chauvinism and further alienated the growing Arab population. Divided into increasingly irreconcilable communities, Israel risks losing the minimum of mutual tolerance that is necessary for any democratic society. In such a context, violence like the recent wave of attacks in Jerusalem and the West Bank is virtually bound to become normal.

Finally, occupation threatens the security it was meant to ensure. Israel’s security situation has changed dramatically since the 1967 and 1973 wars. Peace with Egypt and Jordan, the weakening of Iraq and Syria, and Israel’s now-overwhelming military superiority — including its (undeclared) nuclear deterrent — have ended any existential threat posed by its Arab neighbours. Even a Hamas-led Palestinian state could not destroy Israel. As six former directors of Israel’s internal security service, Shin Bet, argued in the 2012 documentary “The Gatekeepers,” it is the occupation itself that truly threatens Israel’s long-term security: Occupation forces Israel into asymmetric warfare that erodes its international standing, limits its ability to forge regional alliances against sectarian extremists and, crucially, remains the principal motive behind Palestinian violence.

In making the occupation permanent, Israel’s leaders are undermining their state’s viability. Unfortunately, domestic movements to avert that fate have withered. Thanks to an economic boom and the temporary security provided by the West Bank barrier and the Iron Dome missile defense system, much of Israel’s secular Zionist majority feels no need to take the difficult steps required for a durable peace, such as evicting their countrymen from West Bank settlements and acknowledging the moral stain of the suffering Israel has caused to so many Palestinians.

We are at a critical juncture. Settlement growth and demographic trends will soon overwhelm Israel’s ability to change course. For years, we have supported Israeli governments — even those we strongly disagreed with — in the belief that a secure Israel would act to defend its own long-term interests. That strategy has failed. Israel’s supporters have, tragically, become its enablers. Today, there is no realistic prospect of Israel making the hard choices necessary to ensure its survival as a democratic state in the absence of outside pressure.

For supporters of Israel like us, all viable forms of pressure are painful. The only tools that could plausibly shape Israeli strategic calculations are a withdrawal of U.S. aid and diplomatic support, and boycotts of and divestitures from the Israeli economy. Boycotting only goods produced in settlements would not have sufficient impact to induce Israelis to rethink the status quo.

It is thus, reluctantly but resolutely, that we are refusing to travel to Israel, boycotting products produced there and calling on our universities to divest and our elected representatives to withdraw aid to Israel. Until Israel seriously engages with a peace process that either establishes a sovereign Palestinian state or grants full democratic citizenship to Palestinians living in a single state, we cannot continue to subsidize governments whose actions threaten Israel’s long-term survival.

Israel, of course, is hardly the world’s worst human rights violator. Doesn’t boycotting Israel but not other rights-violating states constitute a double standard? It does. We love Israel, and we are deeply concerned for its survival. We do not feel equally invested in the fate of other states.

Unlike internationally isolated states such as North Korea and Syria, Israel could be significantly affected by a boycott. The Israeli government could not sustain its foolish course without massive U.S. aid, investment, commerce, and moral and diplomatic support.

We recognize that some boycott advocates are driven by opposition to (and even hatred of) Israel. Our motivation is precisely the opposite: love for Israel and a desire to save it.

Repulsed by the Afrikaners’ ethno-religious fanaticism in South Africa, Zionism founder Theodore Herzl wrote, “We don’t want a Boer state, but a Venice.” American Zionists must act to pressure Israel to preserve Herzl’s vision — and to save itself.

Source*

Related Topics:

Israeli Settler Attacks Rabbi*

Obama Administration is Cutting Aid to the Palestinians by $80mn*

Illuminati, Nazis & The Illegal State of Israel

Palestine Ends Two-State System, Returns to Occupied Status*

Threats from the U.S. as Palestine Submits Formal Complaint to ICC*

Israeli Settlers’ Seize Palestinian Hospital*

Not in our Name: 225 Jewish Survivors of Nazi Genocide Condemn Israel*

Israel Changes Bar Code To Avoid Boycott*