Tag Archive | Middle East

U.S. Admits Using Radioactive Weapons in Syria that Left Thousands of Iraqi Babies Deformed*

U.S. Admits Using Radioactive Weapons in Syria that Left Thousands of Iraqi Babies Deformed*

By Matt Agorist

One of the least talked about war crimes committed by the United States is the use of depleted uranium — a highly controversial radioactive waste that’s been dumped into Iraq by the ton. In spite of multiple international watchdog groups and health organizations pointing out the dangers of using DU, and in spite of the Pentagon claiming they wouldn’t use it, the United States just admitted to using it in Syria.

For those that aren’t familiar with the radioactive waste that is DU, it is the byproduct of the production of enriched uranium for use as fuel in nuclear reactors and in the manufacture of nuclear weapons. It is also the U.S. military’s preferred material to use for armour plating and armour-piercing projectiles.

In the first three weeks of the conflict in Iraq in 2003, the U.S. Military dumped more than 2,000 tons of this chemically toxic and radioactive waste onto the Iraqi people.

Because the half-life of DU is millions of years, the massive quantities dropped in Iraq over the course of the invasion continue to pose a serious health risk to those exposed to it. Amounts in bullets, shells, and bombs vary from 300 grams to 7 tons in the bunker-busters missiles — which rained down from the skies over Iraq — for years.

In the course of the two U.S.-led wars in Iraq, it is estimated that tens of thousands of tons of DU have dropped from the sky onto the people.

The admitted use of DU is solely reserved to the United States and the United Kingdom. Since its adverse effects first began appearing, there’s been a massive effort to conceal the true and horrifying impact it’s had.

However, on Monday, a spokesman for the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) told Foreign Policy that 5,265 armor-piercing DU rounds were used in November 2015, during two air raids against Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) oil tanker convoys in the Deir ez-Zor and Hasakah provinces in eastern Syria.

Officials confirm the US used depleted uranium weapons on the battlefield in Iraq and Syria: https://t.co/oCtsYgFpXq

— Stars and Stripes (@starsandstripes) February 14, 2017

A-10 ground attack aircraft fired the projectiles from their 30mm rotating cannons, destroying about 350 tanker trucks, according to CENTCOM spokesman Major Josh Jacques.

This admission by the U.S. that it used DU comes in contrast to a March 2015 statement from the coalition spokesman who had explicitly ruled out its use in Syria, saying, “U.S. and coalition aircraft have not been and will not be using depleted uranium munitions in Iraq or Syria during Operation Inherent Resolve.”

While the U.S. loves to tout the exceptional toughness of DU, they continue to ignore, and, in fact, have covered up and denied the contamination of ground and water, and the significant risk of toxicity, birth defects, and cancer when inhaled or ingested by humans or animals.

Not only does DU pose a significant risk to those who live in the areas where the U.S. has dumped it but it is also linked to tens of thousands of potential cancer cases among American troops.

However, those numbers are only estimated because immediately after the U.S. began dumping tons of it in Iraq, the Veteran’s Administration began blocking medical journals from accessing cancer stats in its registry.

In spite of horrific cases of cancer among us troops — who were proven to test positive for DU in their urine AFTER coming back stateside — the DoD continues to claim it is safe.

The World Health Organization (WHO) even got on board with the cover-up in 2013.

“The rates for spontaneous abortion, stillbirths and congenital birth defects found in the study are consistent with or even lower than international estimates. The study provides no clear evidence to suggest an unusually high rate of congenital birth defects in Iraq,” wrote the WHO in their summary findings of birth defects related to DU in Iraq.

However, this was in stark contrast to the findings from Iraqi Ministry of Health officials, who were involved in the same study. Doctors at the Basra maternity hospital in southern Iraq have told the BBC that they have seen a 60% rise in birth defects since 2003, according to the BBC.

The MOH officials confirmed that the joint report would furnish “damning evidence” that rates of birth defects are higher in areas experiencing heavy fighting in the 2003 war. In an early press release, WHO similarly acknowledged “existing MOH statistics showing high number of CBD cases” in the “high risk” areas selected for study, as reported by the Guardian.

However, none of that happened.

In spite of this cover-up in the West, Iraqi doctors and multiple peer-reviewed studies have documented a dramatic increase in infant mortality, cancer and leukaemia in the aftermath of U.S. military bombardment. In Fallujah, doctors are witnessing a “massive unprecedented number” of heart defects, and an increase in the number of nervous system defects, according to the Guardian. 

Analysis of pre-2003 data compared to now showed that “the rate of congenital heart defects was 95 per 1,000 births – 13 times the rate found in Europe.”

Official Iraqi government statistics show that, prior to the outbreak of the First Gulf War in 1991, the rate of cancer cases in Iraq was 40 out of 100,000 people. By 1995, it had increased to 800 out of 100,000 people, and, by 2005, it had doubled to at least 1,600 out of 100,000 people. Current estimates show the increasing trend continuing.

In a 2010 International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health article, Busby and two colleagues, Malak Hamden and Entesar Ariabi, reported a 38-fold increase in leukemia, a 10-fold increase in breast cancer, and infant mortality rates eight times higher than in neighboring Kuwait.

These numbers are also likely far greater than reported as women in Iraq who give birth to babies with deformities feel stigmatized and often don’t report them according to Mozhgan Savabieasfahani, a Michigan-based environmental toxicologist who won the 2015 Rachel Carson Award.

It is also estimated that the rate of congenital malformations among newborn babies is 14 times higher than that of Japan — immediately following the detonation of two atomic bombs.

And now, the people of Syria will begin their horrifying journey down the deadly path to the same fate as Iraq.

As the disturbing images in the video below from Democracy Now illustrate — War is hell.

Source*

Related Topics:

British Queen Profiting in Depleted Uranium*

Iraqi Engineering Students Share their Graduation Ceremony with Iraq’s Orphans*

U.S. Rape and Sodomy of Iraqi Women and Children*

72 ISIS Mass Graves Containing up to 15,000 Discovered in Iraq and Syria*

Cover-up of U.K.’s Role in Iraq Atrocities*

Former Iraqi PM Slams the 60 nations in the U.S. –Led ‘anti’ ISIS Coalition*

Radiation from Iraq War Detected In U.K. Atmosphere*

Netanyahu Steps down as Israel’s Communications Minister Amidst Charges of Corruption*

Netanyahu Steps down as Israel’s Communications Minister Amidst Charges of Corruption*

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Friday he would shelve his additional role as communication minister after police questioned him over allegations he negotiated a deal for good coverage with a newspaper owner.

Police have questioned Netanyahu three times in two criminal cases in which he is suspected of abuse of office. If charges are brought, political upheaval would likely ensue with pressure on Netanyahu to step down. He denies any wrongdoing.

The first case involves gifts given to Netanyahu and his family by businessmen and the second is related to conversations he held with the publisher of Israel’s largest selling newspaper, Yedioth Ahronoth.

Netanyahu said he would appoint Tzachi Hanegbi, a confidant from his right-wing Likud party, as a stand-in running the communications ministry for three months, “and then we’ll see”, he said in a statement.

Netanyahu did not specify the reason for the move.

Opposition leader Isaac Herzog, the head of the Zionist Union party, had appealed to Israel’s Supreme Court last month to order Netanyahu to step down as communications minister over the police investigation.

The liberal daily Haaretz and Channel 2 television reported in January that Netanyahu discussed with Yedioth Ahronoth’s owner a deal for better coverage in return for curbs on competition from a free paper owned by U.S. casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, a staunch supporter of the veteran prime minister.

Haaretz said the conversations were recorded in the run-up to the March 2015 election at Netanyahu’s request by a then-staff member, and the tapes were seized by police in a separate investigation.

According to excerpts leaked to Channel Two from a transcript of the conversations, the prime minister told the newspaper publisher:

“We’re talking about moderation, about reasonable reporting, to lower the level of hostility towards me from 9.5 to 7.5.”

It quoted the publisher, Arnon Mozes, as replying:

“We have to make sure that you’re prime minister.”

Netanyahu is not the first Israeli leader to have faced criminal investigation. Former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was convicted of breach of trust and bribery in 2014 and Ariel Sharon, premier from 2001-2006, was questioned while in office over allegations of bribery and campaign-financing illegalities.

In the past, Israeli prime ministers have stayed in office long after being put under investigation, and officials who support Netanyahu, now in his fourth term, believe the prospect of charges remains remote.

Netanyahu has often accused Israeli media of being biased against him and in recent weeks accused it of being part of a left-wing plot to overthrow his right-wing government.

Source*

Related Topics:

As Netanyahu and May Chat, a Large Nest of Israeli Spies in London Exposed*

Netanyahu’s Former Driver gets 27 years for Raping Minors*

Netanyahu Boasts of Israel’s War on Africans*

Netanyahu Now under two Criminal Investigations*

Netanyahu halts Israeli Funding of 5 U.N. Bodies in Revenge for Settlement Freeze Demand*

Netanyahu Sues Own Office to Prevent Airing of Dirty Laundry*

Who is Netanyahu?*

Who’s Paying Amnesty Int’l to Lie about Syria?*

Who’s Paying Amnesty Int’l to Lie about Syria?*

cd44d-syriawar-genocidalmass-murderousjewsbehindusgovtusingalqaedaterroriststokillsyrianspast2years

By Tim Hayward

Most of us living outside Syria know very little of the country or its recent history. What we think we know comes via the media. Information that comes with the endorsement of an organisation like Amnesty International we may tend to assume is reliable. Certainly, I always trusted Amnesty International implicitly, believing I understood and shared its moral commitments.

As a decades-long supporter, I never thought to check the reliability of its reporting. Only on seeing the organisation last year relaying messages from the infamous White Helmets did questions arise for me. Having since discovered a problem about the witness testimonies provided by Doctors Without Borders (MSF), I felt a need to look more closely at Amnesty International’s reporting. Amnesty had been influential in forming public moral judgements about the rights and wrongs of the war in Syria.

What if Amnesty’s reporting on the situation in Syria was based on something other than verified evidence?

What if misleading reports were instrumental in fuelling military conflicts that might otherwise have been more contained, or even avoided?

Amnesty International first alleged war crimes in Syria, against the government of President Bashar Al-Assad, in June 2012. If a war crime involves a breach of the laws of war, and application of those laws presupposes a war, it is relevant to know how long the Syrian government had been at war, assuming it was. The U.N. referred to a ‘situation close to civil war’ in December 2011. Amnesty International’s war crimes in Syria were therefore reported on the basis of evidence that would have been gathered, analysed, written up, checked, approved and published within six months. That is astonishingly – and worryingly – quick.

The report does not detail its research methods, but a press release quotes at length, and exclusively, the words of Donatella Rovera who ‘spent several weeks investigating human rights violations in northern Syria.’ As far as I can tell, the fresh evidence advertised in the report was gathered through conversations and tours Rovera had in those weeks. Her report mentions that Amnesty International ‘had not been able to conduct research on the ground in Syria’.

I am no lawyer, but I find it inconceivable that allegations of war crimes made on this basis would be taken seriously. Rovera herself was later to speak of problems with the investigation in Syria: in a reflective article published two years afterwards, she gives examples of both material evidence and witness statements that had misled the investigation.  Such reservations did not appear on Amnesty’s website; I am not aware of Amnesty having relayed any caveats about the report, nor of its reviewing the war crimes allegations.  What I find of greater concern, though, given that accusations of crimes already committed can in due course be tried, is that Amnesty also did not temper its calls for prospective action.  On the contrary.

In support of its surprisingly quick and decisive stance on intervention, Amnesty International was also accusing the Syrian government of crimes against humanity. Already before Deadly Reprisals, the report Deadly Detention had alleged these. Such allegations can have grave implications because they can be taken as warrant for armed intervention. Whereas war crimes do not occur unless there is a war, crimes against humanity can be considered a justification for going to war. And in war, atrocities can occur that would otherwise not have occurred.

I find this thought deeply troubling, particularly as a supporter of Amnesty International at the time it called for action, the foreseeable consequences of which included fighting and possible war crimes, by whomsoever committed, that might otherwise never have been. Personally, I cannot quite escape the thought that in willing the means to an end one also shares some responsibility for their unintended consequences.

If Amnesty International considered the moral risk of indirect complicity in creating war crimes a lesser one than keeping silent about what it believed it had found in Syria, then it must have had very great confidence in the findings. Was that confidence justified?

If we go back to human rights reports on Syria for the year 2010, before the conflict began, we find Amnesty International recorded a number of cases of wrongful detention and brutality.  In the ten years Bashar Al-Assad had been president, the human rights situation seemed to Western observers not to have improved as markedly as they had hoped. Human Rights Watch spoke of 2000-2010 as a ‘wasted decade’. The consistent tenor of reports was disappointment: advances achieved in some areas had to be set against continued problems in others. We also know that in some rural parts of Syria, there was real frustration at the government’s priorities and policies. An agricultural economy hobbled by the poorly managed effects of severe drought had left the worst off feeling marginalized. Life may have been good for many in vibrant cities, but it was far from idyllic for everyone, and there remained scope to improve the human rights record. The government’s robust approach to groups seeking an end to the secular state of Syria was widely understood to need monitoring for reported excesses. Still, the pre-war findings of monitors, are a long way from any suggestion of crimes against humanity. That includes the findings of Amnesty International Report 2011: the state of the world’s human rights.

A report published just three months later portrays a dramatically different situation. In the period from April to August 2011, events on the ground had certainly moved quickly in the wake of anti-government protests in parts of the country, but so had Amnesty.

In promoting the new report, Deadly Detention, Amnesty International USA notes with pride how the organisation is now providing ‘real-time documentation of human rights abuses committed by government forces’. Not only is it providing rapid reporting, it is also making strong claims. Instead of measured statements suggesting necessary reforms, it now condemns Assad’s government for ‘a widespread, as well as systematic, attack against the civilian population, carried out in an organized manner and pursuant to a state policy to commit such an attack.’ The Syrian government is accused of ‘crimes against humanity’.

The speed and confidence – as well as the implied depth of insight – of the report are remarkable. The report is worrying, too, given how portentous is its damning finding against the government: Amnesty International ‘called on the U.N. Security Council to not only condemn, in a firm and legally binding manner, the mass human rights violations being committed in Syria but also to take other measures to hold those responsible to account, including by referring the situation in Syria to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court. As well, Amnesty International continues to urge the Security Council to impose an arms embargo on Syria and to immediately freeze the assets of President al-Assad and other officials suspected of responsibility for crimes against humanity.’ With such strongly-worded statements as this, especially in a context where powerful foreign states are already calling for ‘regime change’ in Syria, Amnesty’s contribution could be seen as throwing fuel on a fire.

Since it is not just the strength of the condemnation that is noteworthy, but the swiftness of its delivery – in ‘real-time’ – a question that Amnesty International supporters might consider is how the organisation can provide instantaneous coverage of events while also fully investigating and verifying the evidence.

Amnesty International’s reputation rests on the quality of its research. The organisation’s Secretary General, Salil Shetty, has clearly stated the principles and methods adhered to when gathering evidence:

we do it in a very systematic, primary, way where we collect evidence with our own staff on the ground. And every aspect of our data collection is based on corroboration and cross-checking from all parties, even if there are, you know, many parties in any situation because of all of the issues we deal with are quite contested. So it’s very important to get different points of view and constantly cross check and verify the facts.’

Amnesty thus sets itself rigorous standards of research, and assures the public that it is scrupulous in adhering to them. This is only to be expected, I think, especially when grave charges are to be levelled against a government.

Did Amnesty follow its own research protocol in preparing the Deadly Detention report? Was it: systematic, primary, collected by Amnesty’s own staff, on the ground, with every aspect of data collection verified by corroboration and by cross-checking with all parties concerned?

In the analysis appended here as a note I show, point by point, that the report admits failing to fulfil some of these criteria and fails to show it has met any of them.

Given that the findings could be used to support calls for humanitarian intervention in Syria, the least to expect of the organization would be application of its own prescribed standards of proof.

Lest it be thought that focusing on the technicalities of research methodology risks letting the government off the hook for egregious crimes, it really needs to be stressed – as was originally axiomatic for Amnesty International – that we should never make a presumption of guilt without evidence or trial. Quite aside from technical questions, getting it wrong about who is the perpetrator of war crimes could lead to the all too real consequences of mistakenly intervening on the side of the actual perpetrators.

Suppose it nevertheless be insisted that the evidence clearly enough shows Assad to be presiding over mass destruction of his own country and slaughter in his own people: surely the ‘international community’ should intervene on the people’s behalf against this alleged ‘mass murderer’? In the climate of opinion and with the state of knowledge abroad at the time, that may have sounded a plausible proposition. It was not the only plausible proposition, however, and certainly not in Syria itself. Another was that the best sort of support to offer the people of Syria would lie in pressing the government more firmly towards reforms while assisting it, as was becoming increasingly necessary, in ridding the territory of terrorist insurgents who had fomented and then exploited the tensions in the original protests of Spring 2011. For even supposing the government’s agents of internal security needed greater restraint, the best way to achieve this is not necessarily to undermine the very government that would be uniquely well-placed, with support and constructive incentives, to apply it.

I do not find it obvious that Amnesty was either obliged or competent to decide between these alternative hypotheses. Since it nevertheless chose to do so, we have to ask why it pre-emptively dismissed the method of deciding proposed by President Al-Assad himself. This was his undertaking to hold an election to ask the people whether they wanted him to stay or go.

Although not widely reported in the West, and virtually ignored by Amnesty – a presidential election was held in 2014, with the result being a landslide victory for Bashar Al-Assad. He won 10,319,723 votes – 88.7% of the vote – with a turnout put at 73.42%.

Western observers did not challenge those numbers or allege voting irregularities, with the media instead seeking to downplay their significance. ‘This is not an election that can be analysed in the same way as a multi-party, multi-candidate election in one of the established European democracies or in the U.S., says the BBC’s Jeremy Bowen in Damascus. It was an act of homage to President Assad by his supporters, which was boycotted and rejected by opponents rather than an act of politics, he adds.’ This homage, nonetheless, was paid by an outright majority of Syrians. To refer to this as ‘meaningless’, as U.S. Secretary of State, John Kerry did, reveals something of how much his own regime respected the people of Syria. It is true that voting could not take place in opposition-held areas, but participation overall was so great that even assuming the whole population in those areas would have voted against him, they would still have had to accept Assad as legitimate winner – rather as we in Scotland have to accept Theresa May as U.K. prime minister. In fact, the recent liberation of eastern Aleppo has revealed Assad’s government actually to have support there.

We cannot know if Assad would have been so many people’s first choice under other circumstances, but we can reasonably infer that the people of Syria saw in his leadership their best hope for unifying the country around the goal of ending the bloodshed. Whatever some might more ideally have sought – including as expressed in the authentic protests of 2011 – the will of the Syrian people quite clearly was, under the actual circumstances, for their government to be allowed to deal with their problems, rather than be supplanted by foreign-sponsored agencies.

(I am tempted to add the thought, as a political philosopher, that BBC’s Jeremy Bowen could be right in saying the election was no normal ‘act of politics’: Bashar Al-Assad has always been clear in statements and interviews that his position is inextricably bound up with the Syrian constitution.  He didn’t choose to give up a career in medicine to become a dictator, as I understand it; rather, the chance event of his older brother’s death altered his plans. Until actual evidence suggests otherwise, I am personally prepared to believe that Assad’s otherwise incomprehensible steadfastness of purpose does indeed stem from a commitment to defending his country’s constitution. Whether or not the people really wanted this person as president is secondary to the main question whether they were prepared to give up their national constitution to the dictates of anybody other than that of the Syrian people. Their answer to this has a significance, as Bowen inadvertently notes, that is beyond mere politics.)

Since the Syrian people had refuted the proposition that Amnesty had been promoting, serious questions have be asked. Among these, one – which would speak to a defence of Amnesty – is whether it had some independent justification – coming from sources of information other than its own investigations – for genuinely believing its allegations against the Syrian government well-founded. However, since an affirmative answer to that question would not refute the point I have sought to clarify here I shall set them aside for a separate discussion in the next episode of this investigation.

My point for now is that Amnesty International itself had not independently justified its own advocacy position. This is a concern for anyone who thinks it should take full responsibility for the monitoring it reports. Further discussion has also to address concerns about what kinds of advocacy it should be engaged in at all.

Source*

Related Topics:

Amnesty International in Spirit No Longer Exists*

“Dirty Players in Geopolitics”: Letter to “Doctors Without Borders” (MSF)*

A Flemish Priest in Syria, “Putin and Assad saved my life”*

Clean Water Returns to Damascus as Syria Reclaims Key Water Source from Terrorists*

U.S. Coalition Airstrikes Killed More Civilians in Syria*

ISIS, Al-Qaeda and the U.S. Waging War on Syria’s Public Utilities*

Pentagon Re-Packages Al-Qaeda as ‘Khorasan Group’ to Sell Attack on Syria*

U.S.-U.K. Paid “White Helmets” Help to Block Water to 5 Million Thirsty Syrians*

Nationwide Truce Reached Between Syria Army, Opposition Groups*

Syrian Elections 2016: US, NATO Criminals Failed Attempt to Deny the Will of the Syrian People*

Israel Bombs Syrian Military Airport near Assad’s Presidential Palace*

U.S. Intensifies Operations in Syria and Iraq amidst Syrian Truce*

U.S. Moves to Arm Terrorists in Syria with Anti-Aircraft Weapons*

British Generals Arrive in Syria to Recruit Aleppo Terrorists*

14+ U.S. Coalition Military Officers Captured by Syrian Special Forces in East Aleppo Bunker*

$17k per Month for Journalists Could Have Spent on the NHS was used for Fake News on Syria*

Palestinian Factions Fatah and Hamas unite in Moscow*

Palestinian Factions Fatah and Hamas unite in Moscow*

It serves Israel for them to be divided, so we’ll see what happens when they return home to Palestine…

By Adam Garrie

The implications of today’s agreement are far reaching and confirm Moscow’s leading role as an even-handed geo-political peace broker.

Leaders of the two main rival Palestinian political groups, Fatah and Hamas have met in Moscow where they agreed to form a unity ‘all-Palestine’ government.

Although many symbolic talks between Fatah and Hamas have resulted in meaningless deadlock, today’s agreement could pave the way for a future peace conference between a united Palestine and Israel.

In a further blow to U.S. regional prestige, it is clear that in respect of Palestine both main factions as well as smaller Palestinian parties see Moscow’s approach to the conflict as one that offers an even hand with a pragmatic goal; a penultimate resolution to this seemingly never ending conflict.

For Israel’s part, Tel Aviv has numerous trade deals with Russia, the importance of which has only been strengthened by anti-Russian E.U. sanctions. With Moscow seen as a crucial partner but importantly, also an impartial arbiter by both sides, there may be a chance to reach a meaningful settlement that thus far the U.S. has only made increasingly unworkable.

Palestinian sources cite Donald Trump’s recent election as one of the motivations to create a united front. However, in spite of Donald Trump’s rhetorically unambiguous support of Israel, like with many things concerning Trump, his business acumen and pragmatic approach to geo-political conflicts, could work in the best interests of all sides in the conflict.

An important parallel can be derived from an understanding of the trilateral peace conference for Syria, which is about to take place in Astana. There, Russia, Iran and Turkey set out clear goals to create a lasting peace in Syria. In spite of Turkey’s well known support of jihadist terrorist groups in Syria, Ankara too – at least on paper – has signed up to the common pledge to respect Syria’s territorial integrity and her legitimate government.

Were Moscow to organise a peace conference on the Israel-Palestine conflict, as Russia has wanted to do for some time, one could envisage a similar scenario.

In such a situation, there could be a Russian drafted agreement signed off for by a united Palestinian leadership and an Israeli government, with the US more or less agreeing to the terms without having an active hand in overseeing let alone enforcing the agreement.

Not only is this now plausible under a Trump Presidency, but it would help legitimise the agreement in the eyes of most Palestinians and even many Israelis who have felt equally let down by the Obama administration.

The template is there, and Russia’s role as a leading geo-political mediator is now beyond doubt.

Will the U.S. impede or accept this new reality?

This is in the hands of Donald Trump, a pragmatist far more trustworthy than Obama the ideologue.

Source*

Related Topics:

70 Nations in Paris to Discuss Two-state Solution without Palestine and Israel*

Abbas Rejected Biden’s New U.S. Peace Initiative, which Makes Palestine Jewish*

Why has Abbas Refused to sign the Rome Statute?

Hamas Asks Russia to Help Stop Israeli Aggression*

Former Israeli Foreign Minister, Livni, Reveals Israel – Egypt Pact to Strangle Hamas*

Operation Protective Edge: The Dead Have Names*

The Israeli Invasion and Gaza’s Offshore Gas Fields*

Condemnation of Unelected Palestinian Leadership

On Gaza, Gaza, Defense Minister Says ‘Next War Will Be The Last’*

Netanyahu halts Israeli Funding of 5 U.N. Bodies in Revenge for Settlement Freeze Demand*

#Arabs4BlackPower Releases Movement for Black Lives Solidarity Statement*

 

German Newspaper Editor Who Exposed CIA Found Dead*

German Newspaper Editor Who Exposed CIA Found Dead*

By Gordon Logan

Director of Central Intelligence, John Brennan, and Barack Obama used to hold meetings on Tuesday mornings in order to review the week’s list of victims to be droned or otherwise eliminated. Even wedding guests in Pakistan were murdered en masse. This article describes another death that can be laid at the door of the usual suspects. I survived two plans to kill me, in 2002 and 2005. Both were initiated by an American colleague for implementation by MI6. So this sort of thing is fairly commonplace. Read this article and find out why the British press and TV are crap. – Gordon Logan.

The former editor of Frankfurter Algemeine Zeitung, the largest newspaper in Germany, revealed that the CIA pays journalists in Germany, France, Britain, Australia and New Zealand to plant fake stories – and the CIA is trying to bring war to Russia

By Baxter Dmitry

Dr Udo Ulfkotte, the former German newspaper editor whose bestselling book exposed how the CIA controls German media, has been found dead. He was 56

Ulfkotte was an editor at Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, one of the largest newspapers in Germany, when he published Bought Journalists, the bestselling book that cost him his job and perhaps his life.

German media, who were banned from reporting on his work in recent years, are reporting he died of “heart failure”.

Acknowledging that his life was under threat, Ulfkotte explained that he was in a better position than most journalists to expose the truth because he didn’t have any children who could be threatened.

Speaking to the Russian newspaper Russian Insider, Ulkfotte said:

When I told the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (Ulfkotte’s newspaper) that I would publish the book, their lawyers sent me a letter threatening with all legal consequences if I would publish any names or secrets – but I don’t mind. You see, I don’t have children to take care of.

His fears for a war in Europe, lead him to his decision to tell the truth about corporate media being controlled by intelligence services on behalf of the financial class.

I’ve been a journalist for about 25 years, and I’ve been educated to lie, to betray, and not to tell the truth to the public,” Ulfkotte told Russia Today.

I was supported by the Central Intelligence Agency, the CIA. Why? Because I am pro-American.

The German and American media tries to bring war to the people in Europe, to bring war to Russia. This is a point of no return, and I am going to stand up and say… it is not right what I have done in the past, to manipulate people, to make propaganda against Russia.”

Ulfkotte said most corporate media journalists in the United States and Europe are “so-called non-official cover,” meaning that they work for an intelligence agency.

I think it is especially the case with British journalists, because they have a much closer relationship. It is especially the case with Israeli journalists. Of course with French journalists. … It is the case for Australians, [with] journalists from New Zealand, from Taiwan, well, there is many countries,” he said.

Ulfkotte’s book Bought Journalists became a bestseller in Germany but, in a bizarre twist which Ulfkotte says characterizes the disconnect caused by CIA control of the western media, the book cannot be reported on by the German press.

Ulfkotte said: “No German mainstream journalist is allowed to report about [my] book. Otherwise he or she will be sacked. So we have a bestseller now that no German journalist is allowed to write or talk about.

Among the stories Ulfkotte says he was ordered by the CIA to plant in his newspaper was a fake story that Libyan President Moammar Gaddafi was building poison gas factories in 2011.

The German and American media tries to bring war to the people in Europe, to bring war to Russia,” he told RT.

This is a point of no return, and I am going to stand up and say … it is not right what I have done in the past, to manipulate people, to make propaganda against Russia, and it is not right what my colleagues do, and have done in the past, because they are bribed to betray the people not only in Germany, all over Europe. … I am very fearful of a new war in Europe, and I don’t like to have this situation again, because war is never coming from itself, there is always people who push for war, and this is not only politicians, it is journalists too. … We have betrayed our readers, just to push for war. … I don’t want this anymore; I’m fed up with this propaganda. We live in a banana republic, and not in a democratic country where we have press freedom.

Source*

Related Topics:

Top German Journalist: We All Lie For the CIA*

Russian Ambassador Murderer Tracked To CIA Base in Iraq*

NATO Auditor Who Discovered U.S. Funds ISIS Found Murdered*

Assassination Hit list Revealed in Hillary Clinton’s Emails*

NSA’s Medical Intelligence Hit List*

‘Google is Doing Things the CIA Cannot*

There Were 88 Media Companies & Now There Are 6 which get their News from Rothschild*

As Rothschilds Did to China, the CIA is Drug Running in the Philippines*

CIA Covert Operations in Tibet*

FBI not Allowed in Iceland!

U.S. Promises $3mn to Family of Innocent Killed by CIA Drones*

How the CIA Used LSD to Destroy the New Left*

CIA “Journalist” Spy with Al-Qaeda Arrested In Turkey*

CIA Pays each Terrorist in Syria $1000*

Inside the Hotbed of Israeli Settler Terrorism*

Inside the Hotbed of Israeli Settler Terrorism*

Related Topics:

When Palestine was 85% Arab, 15% Israeli and U.K. and U.S. Paid the Jews from the Caucasus to Live There*

Netanyahu halts Israeli Funding of 5 U.N. Bodies in Revenge for Settlement Freeze Demand*

Israeli Prepares to Build Illegal Settlement that would Split West Bank in Two*

Israeli Manufacturers Move Factories from Settlements to Avoid E.U. Labelling*

Lawsuit Seeks Billions in Damages from Americans Who Fund Israeli Settlements*

Brazil Forces Israel to Withdraw Settler Extremist Ambassador*

Israeli Settlers’ Seize Palestinian Hospital*

While Waging War on Gaza Israel Expands Settlement Construction on West Bank and Jerusalem*

Were the Three Settler Kidnappings an Israeli “False Flag” Operation?*

The Brothers who Funded Blair, Israeli Settlements and Islamophobia*

Israel Takes Advantage of Syrian Civil War to Expand Illegal Golan Heights Settlements*

Pentagon Re-Packages Al-Qaeda as ‘Khorasan Group’ to Sell Attack on Syria*

Pentagon Re-Packages Al-Qaeda as ‘Khorasan Group’ to Sell Attack on Syria*

Army Lt. Gen. William Mayville speaks about US operations in Syria, following U.S. military strikes against 17 separate targets connected to an al-Qaida cell in Syria known as the Khorasan Group, U.S. officials say, Sept. 23, 2014. (AP/Cliff Owen)

Army Lt. Gen. William Mayville speaks about US operations in Syria, following U.S. military strikes against 17 separate targets connected to an al-Qaida cell in Syria known as the Khorasan Group, U.S. officials say, Sept. 23, 2014. (AP/Cliff Owen)

By Dan Wright

United States officials misled the public about a Syrian terrorist group, the Khorasan Group, in the run up to air strikes in the country in 2014. The group was not new, as officials suggested, but essentially a group of reinforcements for the country’s Al Qaeda affiliate.

In September 2014, just prior to a United States military strike in Syria, the mainstream media began reporting on the Khorasan Group.

Even close observers of the U.S. War on Terror were unaware such a group existed, let alone that it was so powerful as to “pose a more direct and imminent threat to the United States” than ISIS, as was attributed to anonymous U.S. government national security officials speaking to the Associated Press

The rest of the mainstream media echoed the AP in their reporting, and, suddenly, the homeland was facing a new existential threat. But, after the U.S. strikes in Syria against the Khorasan Group, national security officials began offering a “more nuanced picture” on the threat that verged on being outright defensive.

Both FBI Director James Comey and Pentagon Spokesman John Kirby admitted their intelligence in Syria was weak, but stood by the claim that the group existed. Comey said,

“What I could see concerned me very much that they were working toward an attack.” Kirby gave a better safe than sorry rationale for the attack:

“We hit them. And I don’t think we need to throw up a dossier here to prove that these are bad dudes.”

Journalists began calling bullshit and wondering if the group even existed, let alone posed such an imminent and serious threat to the United States.

A recent interview conducted by Shadowproof brought back up some old questions about U.S. military operations in Syria and the Khorasan Group.  In our interview with veteran war reporter and terrorism expert Elijah Magnier, we asked if such a group existed and if they mattered. Magnier responded (around 42:15):

Shadowproof: Do you remember when Obama launched this bombing he talked about something called The Khorasan Group? […] Many experts were scratching their heads. […] Did you know who that group was? Are they still active?

Elijah Magnier: The Khorasan Group is, basically, the group that came from Khorasan. This is where Ayman al-Zawahiri is believed to be based and they form the old core of Al Qaeda who joined the emir of Jabhat al-Nusra—or Al Qaeda in Syria—following the request of Ayman al-Zawahiri himself, who asked all of Al Qaeda to join Julani, to support him and to support Al Qaeda in Syria.

So the core group of Al Qaeda, many elements of the core group, form what is called the Khorasan Group and this is what the United States was targeting. Yes, they were targeting genuine targets there and they were targeting elements that have a long list of activity against the West, against the United States and Europe and that were involved in different kinds of relationships with at the time with Bin Laden, Zawahiri, and in Yemen, and in other parts of the Middle East. So yes, they exist.

These details were completely left out of the explanation during the run up to the 2014 U.S. strikes in Syria. Rather than being a new separate, menacing group, the Khorasan Group were essentially seasoned reinforcements for the Al Qaeda affiliate in Syria, known as Jabhat al-Nusra (recently rebranded as Jabhat Fateh al-Sham).

Now, in 2017, the U.S. has changed course and is arming groups in alliance with the Al Qaeda affiliate. And, again, the U.S. mainstream press is mindlessly repeating government talking points. The only constant is bad journalism.

 

Source*

Related Topics:

U.S.-U.K. Paid White Helmets Help to Block Water to 5 Million Thirsty Syrians*

Nationwide Truce Reached Between Syria Army, Opposition Groups*

U.S. Moves to Arm Terrorists in Syria with Anti-Aircraft Weapons*

British Generals Arrive in Syria to Recruit Aleppo Terrorists*

Cuba Delivers Vaccines against Meningitis to Syrian People*

U.S and its Partners in Crime Suffer ‘Meltdown of Sanity’ over Syria’s Aleppo Victory*

14+ U.S. Coalition Military Officers Captured by Syrian Special Forces in East Aleppo Bunker*

$17k per Month for Journalists Could Have Spent on the NHS was used for Fake News on Syria*

Israelis Trafficking in Syrian Children’s Body Organs*

Syria Raps U.N.’s Security Council for Meeting in Support of Terrorists*