Showing posts with label war crimes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label war crimes. Show all posts

Wednesday, February 17, 2016

Most Americans don't understand what is going on in Syria, and those who think they know believe its citizens are trying to overthrough the (supposidly) represive government headed by (the democraticlly-elected) Assad ...and that the Russians have been bombing the supposed freedom fighters. All of this is propaganda spread by the crazed Americal neoconsevatives who literally own the U.S. government and plan to dominate the rest of the world ...or die destroying it (together with all the rest of us) in a nuclear holocaust. Below, Paul Craig Roberts explains what is REALLY going on in Syria and who is actually attacking it. Hint: not Russia, who to the contrary is defending it from ISIS/ISIL/Islamist State/ Daesh plus their providers, Washington, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. Read the history below to learn where things are heading now.


The Neoconservatives Are Brewing A Wider War In Syria — Paul Craig Roberts

February 14, 2016 | Original Here                                            Go here to sign up to receive email notice of this news letter

The Neoconservatives Are Brewing A Wider War In Syria

Paul Craig Roberts

While you are enjoying your Sunday, the insane neoconservatives who control Western foreign policy and their Turkish and Saudi Arabian vassals might be preparing the end of the world.

Any person who relies on Western media has no accurate idea of what is happening in Syria.
 

I will provide a brief summary and then send you to two detailed accounts.

The neoconservative Obama regime set-up the Syrian government headed by Assad for overthrow. A long propaganda campaign conducted in Washington’s behalf by the Western media portrayed the democratically-elected Assad as a “brutal dictator who uses chemical weapons against his own people.” Washington organized and supported a front group posing as democrats and involved them in conflict with the Syrian military.

With conflict underway, Washington began predicting that something had to be done to overthrow Assad before he used “chemical weapons against his own people.” Obama turned these predictions into a “red line.” When Assad used chemical weapons against Washington’s puppets, the US would invade Syria.

With the “red line” drawn, a false flag chemical weapons attack was staged, or an accident occurred, that Washington used to say that Assad, despite the US warning, had crossed the “red line.”

Preparations for an invasion began, but hit two roadblocks. David Cameron, Washington’s puppet prime minister of Great Britain was unable to deliver British support for the invasion as the Parliament voted it down. This left Washington uncovered and vulnerable to the charge of naked aggression, a war crime.

Russian diplomacy threw up the other road block by securing the removal of all chemical weapons from Syria.

Their invasion plan frustrated, the neoconservatives sent the jihadists they had used to overthrow Gaddafi in Libya to overthrow Assad. Initially known as ISIS, then ISIL, then the Islamist State, and now Daesh, a term that can be interpreted as an insult. Perhaps the intention of the name changes is to keep the Western public thoroughly confused about who is who and what is what.

Washington now pretends that it is fighting the Islamist State, but Washington is doing its best to frustrate the success of the Russian/Syrian alliance that is defeating the Islamist State..

Washington’s support of the Islamist State is the cause of the war in Syria. General Michael Flynn, the recently retired head of the US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) has stated publicly that it was a “willful decision” of the Obama regime to support ISIS. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/08/10/former_dia_chief_michael_flynn_says_rise_of_isis_was_willful_decision_of_us_government.html
See also: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/iraq-war-isis-michael-flynn_us_565c83a9e4b079b2818af89c

The neoconservative insistence that “Assad must go” comprises a threat to the security of Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Hezbollah is the Lebanese force that has twice defeated Israel’s attempt to annex southern Lebanon for its water resources. Hezbollah is dependent on Syrian and Iranian support for its arms and financing. Israel wants rid of Hezbollah.

The Islamic State that Washington is trying to create in Syria would provide Washington with a means of destabilizing Iran and Russia by exporting jihadism into those countries. The Russian Federation has Muslim populations as do former provinces of the Soviet Union that now cooperate with Russia. By bogging down Russia in internal conflicts, Washington can move Russia out of the way of Washington’s exercise of hegemony. Similarly, non-Persian populations in Iran could be radicalized by jihadism and used to destabilize Iran.

In order to protect themselves, Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah have come to the support of Syria.
 

The Russians are there legally at the invitation of the Syrian government. The US is there illegally.

Russian air power in support of the Syrian Army has turned the tide against the Islamist State.

The invaders are being driven out. The neoconservatives cannot accept this defeat.

Washington is preparing a Syrian invasion by Turkey and Saudi Arabia, the purpose of which is to split Syria in half with Washington controlling the eastern part with the oil fields.

Possibly this is a bluff to get Russia to accept a Syrian settlement less favorable to Russian, Iranian, and Syrian interests. However, the Russian government cannot risk that it is only a bluff. If a US/Turkish/Saudi force were to arrive first in Raqqa and Deir Ezzor, Syria would be dismembered.

The Russians can get there first by dropping in paratroopers. In other words, what the insane neoconservatives are doing is giving the Russian government a big incentive to introduce Russian ground troops into the conflict. Once those troops are there, you can safely bet that the insane neoconservatives will cause conflict between them and US/Turkish forces. A wider war will have begun from which neither side can back down.

Here is a description of the race to Raqqa: http://www.moonofalabama.org/2016/02/the-race-to-raqqa-is-on-to-keep-its-unity-syria-must-win-.html

Here is The Saker’s take on the seriousness of the situation: http://thesaker.is/week-eighteen-of-the-russian-intervention-in-syria-a-dramatic-escalation-appears-imminent/



Sunday, December 28, 2014

PBS NewsHour's Judy Woodruff and Gwen Ifill are sweethearts, but they keep their jobs only by promulgating U.S. government propaganda, including outright lies regarding today’s Russia. In contrast you will watch here Russian moderator Oksana Boyco, of the same caliber, but with no government restrictions, interviewing Hanne Stine Nabintu Herland, a Norwegian author and debater educated as a historian of religions at the University of Oslo. I watched this video three times, discovering that I missed a lot on my first two passes. One thing I learned was that a large majority of the German people are strongly opposed to any kind of war or conflict with Russia. So it would seem that only Chancellor Merkel is owned by Washington. How great it would be if the American people could match the German people and thereby prevent World War III. Even Henry Kissinger, reviled by the American left, has come out in favor of common-sense detent. Unfortunately, however, by watching only American TV most Americans will be suckered into welcoming the nuclear end of the human race.



http://youtu.be/JAbdtSsy_dE

‘Bomb something that looks valuable’ - Norwegian NATO pilots told in Libya - historian

RT




Published on Dec 26, 2014
Liberalism and secularism are considered to be cornerstones of Western civilization, though many feel that their overemphasis has led away from traditional values and ethics into exceptionalism, intolerance and aggression. How have these factors influenced Western political thought, and can history's lessons help us avoid major confrontation in such a turbulent geopolitical environment? Oksana is joined by Hanne Nabintu Herland, author and historian of religions, to reflect on these issues.

Follow Worlds Apart on Twitter http://twitter.com/WorldsApart_RT
Like Apart on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/WorldsApart.RT
+1 Worlds Apart on Google+ https://www.google.com/+WorldsApartRT

RT LIVE http://rt.com/on-air

Subscribe to RT! http://www.youtube.com/subscription_c...

Like us on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/RTnews
Follow us on Twitter http://twitter.com/RT_com
Follow us on Instagram http://instagram.com/rt
Follow us on Google+ http://plus.google.com/+RT
Listen to us on Soundcloud: https://soundcloud.com/rttv

RT (Russia Today) is a global news network broadcasting from Moscow and Washington studios. RT is the first news channel to break the 1 billion YouTube views benchmark.

Monday, September 01, 2014

I was vectored to this by Paul Craig Roberts. It makes sense to me...


Sign up for our FREE Daily Email Newsletter

How Can You Tell Whether Russia has Invaded Ukraine?

By Dmitry Orlov


September 01, 2014 "ICH" -  Last Thursday the Ukrainian government, echoed by NATO spokesmen, declared that the the Russian military is now operating within Ukraine's borders. Well, maybe it is and maybe it isn't; what do you know? They said the same thing before, most recently on August 13, and then on August 17, each time with either no evidence or fake evidence. But let's give them the benefit of the doubt.

You be the judge. I put together this helpful list of top ten telltale signs that will allow you to determine whether indeed Russia invaded Ukraine last Thursday, or whether Thursday's announcement is yet another confabulation. (Credit to Roman Kretsul).

Because if Russia invaded on Thursday morning, this is what the situation on the ground would look like by Saturday afternoon.

1. Ukrainian artillery fell silent almost immediately. They are no longer shelling residential districts of Donetsk and Lugansk. This is because their locations had been pinpointed prior to the operation, and by Thursday afternoon they were completely wiped out using air attacks, artillery and ground-based rocket fire, as the first order of business. Local residents are overjoyed that their horrible ordeal is finally at an end.

2. The look of military activity on the ground in Donetsk and Lugansk has changed dramatically. Whereas before it involved small groups of resistance fighters, the Russians operate in battalions of 400 men and dozens of armored vehicles, followed by convoys of support vehicles (tanker trucks, communications, field kitchens, field hospitals and so on). The flow of vehicles in and out is non-stop, plainly visible on air reconnaissance and satellite photos. Add to that the relentless radio chatter, all in Russian, which anyone who wants to can intercept, and the operation becomes impossible to hide.

3. The Ukrainian military has promptly vanished. Soldiers and officers alike have taken off their uniforms, abandoned their weapons, and are doing their best to blend in with the locals. Nobody thought the odds of the Ukrainian army against the Russians were any good. Ukraine's only military victory against Russia was at the battle of Konotop in 1659, but at the time Ukraine was allied with the mighty Khanate of Crimea, and, you may have noticed, Crimea is not on Ukraine's side this time around.

4. There are Russian checkpoints everywhere. Local civilians are allowed through, but anyone associated with a government, foreign or domestic, is detained for questioning. A filtration system has been set up to return demobilized Ukrainian army draftees to their native regions, while the volunteers and the officers are shunted to pretrial detention centers, to determine whether they had ordered war crimes to be committed.

5. Most of Ukraine's border crossings are by now under Russian control. Some have been reinforced with air defense and artillery systems and tank battalions, to dissuade NATO forces from attempting to stage an invasion. Civilians and humanitarian goods are allowed through. Businessmen are allowed through once they fill out the required forms (which are in Russian).

6. Russia has imposed a no-fly zone over all of Ukraine. All civilian flights have been cancelled. There is quite a crowd of US State Department staffers, CIA and Mossad agents, and Western NGO people stuck at Borispol airport in Kiev. Some are nervously calling everyone they know on their satellite phones. Western politicians are demanding that they be evacuated immediately, but Russian authorities want to hold onto them until their possible complicity in war crimes has been determined.

7. The usual Ukrainian talking heads, such as president Poroshenko, PM Yatsenyuk and others, are no longer available to be interviewed by Western media. Nobody quite knows where they are. There are rumors that they have already fled the country. Crowds have stormed their abandoned residences, and were amazed to discover that they were all outfitted with solid gold toilets. Nor are the Ukrainian oligarchs anywhere to be found, except for the warlord Igor Kolomoisky, who was found in his residence, abandoned by his henchmen, dead from a heart attack. (Contributed by the Saker.)

8. Some of the over 800,000 Ukrainian refugees are starting to stream back in from Russia. They were living in tent cities, many of them in the nearby Rostov region, but with the winter coming they are eager to get back home, now that the shelling is over. Along with them, construction crews, cement trucks and flatbeds stacked with pipe, cable and rebar are streaming in, to repair the damage from the shelling.

9. There is all sorts of intense diplomatic and military activity around the world, especially in Europe and the US. Military forces are on highest alert, diplomats are jetting around and holding conferences. President Obama just held a press conference to announce that “We don't have a strategy on Ukraine yet.” His military advisers tell him that his usual strategy of “bomb a little and see what happens” is not likely to be helpful in this instance.

10. Kiev has surrendered. There are Russian tanks on the Maidan Square. Russian infantry is mopping up the remains of Ukraine's National Guard. A curfew has been announced. The operation to take Kiev resembled “Shock and Awe” in Baghdad: a few loud bangs and then a whimper.

Armed with this list, you too should be able to determine whether or not Russia has invaded Ukraine last Thursday.


Dmitry Orlov is a Russian-American engineer and a writer on subjects related to "potential economic, ecological and political decline and collapse in the United States," something he has called “permanent crisis”. http://cluborlov.blogspot.com

Tuesday, July 29, 2014

The Palestinian death toll in Gaza has surpassed 1,000 and many thousands more are injured, while hospitals and schools are being shelled. In the meanwhile, the Israeli govenment tells its citizens that the war is against Hamas, whereas in reality 80% of the killed and wounded have been civilians ...and President Obama has told Israel to keep on killing. I think this is genocide. What do you think?


                                                                                       Original Here










Despite Growing International Condemnation, No End to Gaza Violence in Sight As the death toll in Gaza passes 1,000
Lia Tarachansky and Phyllis Bennis respond to a poll which found 86% of Israelis reject a ceasefire, while a growing number of Americans want the Israeli offensive to stop - July 28, 2014


More at The Real News

Bio                                                                                            
Lia Tarachansky is an Israeli-Russian journalist with The Real News Network reporting on Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories. Born in the Soviet Union, Tarachansky grew up in a settlement in the occupied West Bank. She is the director of On the Side of the Road, a documentary on Israel's biggest taboo - the events of 1948 when the state was created. Tarachansky previously worked as a Newsroom Producer in The Real News' Washington D.C. and Toronto Headquarters, and her work appeared on BBC, Al Jazeera, USA Today, Canadian Dimension Magazine and others.

Phyllis Bennis is a Fellow and the Director of the New Internationalism Project at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington DC. She is the author of Understanding the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict: A Primer, Before and After: US Foreign Policy and the September 11 Crisis , Ending the US War in Afghanistan: A Primer and Understanding the US-Iran Crisis: A Primer.

Sunday, July 27, 2014

If the U.S. and its vassals truly wanted to know what dastardly deeds Russia is pulling against "innocent" Ukraine, they would either send observers ...or take advantage of unbiased observers such as Human Rights Watch. Here below Human Rights Watch members on the spot have not only found no Russian troops in the Russian-speaking province of Donetsk, or firing across the Russia-Donetsk border at these innocent civilians (as the U.S. alleges), but they have painstakingly determined that rockets that have been destroying buildings and murdering inhabitants of Donetsk have been fired from areas under the control of the neocon/neo-Nazi Ukrainian government (which the U.S. supports). Clearly Russia is innocent of what the U.S. and its vassals allege justifies nuclear war against Russia. Is all human life on earth to be eradicated due to the lies of Washington as promulgated by the despicable "mainstream media" and blindly accepted by the gullible American people?


Stop Use of Grads in Populated Areas
JULY 24, 2014                                                                                                   Original Here

(Donetsk) – Unguided Grad rockets launched apparently by Ukrainian government forces and pro-government militias have killed at least 16 civilians and wounded many more in insurgent-controlled areas of Donetsk and its suburbs in at least four attacks between July 12 and 21, 2014, Human Rights Watch said today.

The use of indiscriminate rockets in populated areas violates international humanitarian law, or the laws of war, and may amount to war crimes.

Grads are unguided rockets that cannot be targeted accurately, and are often fired in salvos from multi-barrel rocket launchers to saturate a wide area. Human Rights Watch called on all parties to the conflict in eastern Ukraine, particularly Ukrainian government forces, to stop using Grad rockets in or near populated areas because of the likelihood of killing and wounding civilians. Insurgent forces should minimize the risk to civilians under their control by avoiding deploying forces and weapons in densely populated areas.

“Grad rockets are notoriously imprecise weapons that shouldn’t be used in populated areas,” said Ole Solvang, senior emergencies researcher at Human Rights Watch. “If insurgent and Ukrainian government forces are serious about limiting harm to civilians, they should both immediately stop using these weapons in populated areas.”



Anti-Kiev insurgent forces started asserting control over Donetsk, a city in eastern Ukraine with a population of almost one million, in April. Because of security concerns, Human Rights Watch was unable to determine first-hand the impact of the Grad attacks on insurgent forces and installations.

Both Ukrainian government and insurgent forces have recently used Grad rockets. Although Ukrainian government officials and the press service of the National Guard have denied using Grad rockets in Donetsk, a Human Rights Watch investigation on the ground strongly indicates that Ukrainian government forces were responsible for the attacks that occurred between July 12 and 21.

The four attacks took place close to the front line between insurgent and government forces. Impact craters on the ground and on buildings investigated by Human Rights Watch were characteristic of rocket attacks, not shelling. In all four cases, the angle and shape of the craters, and the fact that they were on the side of buildings facing the front line, strongly suggests that the rockets came from the direction of Ukrainian government forces or pro-Kiev armed groups. The attacks’ proximity to the front line also makes it unlikely, and in some cases impossible, that insurgent forces were responsible for the attacks. In two of the attacks, rockets hit on or near insurgent bases and checkpoints at the same time as they hit residential areas, indicating government forces were responsible.

In the July 21 attack, three civilians died when Grad rockets hit a residential area near the Donetsk train station. Ongoing fighting made it difficult for Human Rights Watch to determine whether there were additional casualties, but what could be identified as Grad rockets by their distinctive sound could be heard throughout the day.

On July 19, at least five rockets struck a residential area in the Kuibyshivskyi district in western Donetsk, injuring at least four civilians.

Human Rights Watch documented multiple rocket impacts on July 12 on a residential area in the Petrovskyi district on the western outskirts of Donetsk that killed at least seven civilians.

Also on July 12, multiple rockets struck a residential area in Maryinka, a village just outside of Donetsk, close to the Petrovskyi district, killing at least six civilians.

Human Rights Watch was able to identify the rockets fired as unguided 122-millimeter surface-to-surface Grad artillery rockets launched from multi-barrel rocket launchers with up to 40 launch tubes. Most Grad rockets have a range of 1.5 to 20 kilometers. The rockets vary in length from 1.9 to 3.3 meters and weigh 45 to 75 kilograms.

Grad rockets use various types of warheads. The most common is a high explosive/fragmentation type, which contains approximately 6.4 kilograms of high explosives and is designed to produce 3,150 fragments, which can kill or injure within a radius of 28 meters. At its maximum range of some 20 kilometers, the most common rocket (9M22U) with the basic high explosive/fragmentation (M-21-OF) warhead is only accurate within a rectangle of 336 meters by 160 meters. In other words, from its aim point, the rocket could land anywhere within a rectangle of approximately 54,000 square meters.

The fighting in eastern Ukraine is governed by the laws of war, which apply to all parties to the conflict. Grad rockets cannot be targeted with sufficient precision to differentiate military targets, which may be attacked, from civilians and civilian structures, such as homes and schools not being used for military purposes, which are immune from attack. As such, their use in populated areas violates the laws-of-war prohibition against indiscriminate attacks. In addition, attacks not directed at valid military targets are also unlawfully indiscriminate.

Human Rights Watch said that insurgent forces have failed to take all feasible precautions to avoid deploying in densely populated areas, thereby endangering civilians in violation of the laws of war. In one case, separatist forces moved their base closer to the center of the town when Grad rockets struck their base and a nearby residential area. Violations of the laws of war by one side to the conflict do not justify violations by the other side.

Individuals who commit serious violations of the laws of war with criminal intent, that is intentionally or recklessly, are responsible for war crimes.

“Ukrainian authorities should order all their forces, including volunteer forces, to immediately stop using Grads in or near populated areas, and insurgent forces should avoid deploying in densely populated areas,” Solvang said. “Commanding officers on all sides should recognize that one day they could face legal consequences for their actions.”

Human Rights Watch called on Ukraine’s international supporters to urge the Ukrainian government to strictly adhere to international humanitarian law, including by ending all use of Grad rockets in populated areas.

For additional details about the attacks, please see below.

Attacks Near the Train Station, July 21
On July 21, Ukrainian government forces stationed on the northwest edge of Donetsk began a military offensive against insurgent forces in the area around and north of the train station. Because of contradictory statements by Ukrainian authorities, it was not immediately clear whether the offensive was conducted by government forces or pro-Kiev volunteer forces operating on their own.

Media reports quoted a spokesman for Ukraine’s military stating that the fighting around the train station was “a planned offensive ... to push rebels away from the airport,” but that “[a]viation and artillery are not aiming at civilian residences. Their only aim is to block the terrorists and fighters.” In a separate media report, Andriy Lysenko, a spokesman for Ukraine’s National Security Council, denied that government forces were involved in any fighting, but claimed that a small self-organized group of pro-Kiev forces were fighting insurgents.

Information collected by Human Rights Watch indicates that the Grad rockets killed at least three civilians during the attack.

Local residents told Human Rights Watch that several rockets had struck their neighborhood, just south of the train station, at about 10:30 a.m. They said one of the rockets struck the courtyard of an apartment complex, killing one woman and wounding a man. The woman did not live in the apartment complex so the neighbors did not know her name.

A Human Rights Watch visit to the site found an impact crater with blood next to it in the middle of the courtyard. There was also blood on the steps leading up to one of the nearby buildings. Neighbors said shrapnel from the same rocket had injured a man there and that he then tried to drag himself up the steps and into the building.

While the area is generally under insurgent control, as is most of Donetsk, local residents told Human Rights Watch that no insurgent forces or weapons had been in the area at the time of the attack.

Foreign journalists told Human Rights Watch that a second rocket killed two men near a school about 100 meters away from the rocket that killed the woman. A security expert working with the New York Times provided Human Rights Watch with the GPS coordinates of the strike that killed the two men and another strike in the immediate vicinity.

The security expert also provided Human Rights Watch with GPS coordinates for three impact sites, also in a residential area, located to the northeast of the train station. There was no information about casualties from that area.

Human Rights Watch heard what appeared to be salvos of Grad rockets being launched from multi-barrel launchers from the north of the city throughout the day, but ongoing fighting made it difficult to establish whether there were additional civilian casualties.

Attack on Kuibyshivskyi district, July 19
Human Rights Watch documented five impact sites in Pervaya Ploshchad, a residential area of mostly three- to five-story buildings on the western edge of Donetsk, caused by a rocket attack at about 4 p.m. on July 19.

One of the rockets struck a five-story residential building at 6 Tumanyana Street. Valentina Fedorovna, 77, who lives on the ground floor, told Human Rights Watch:
I was just about to turn on the TV when I heard a loud whistling noise and a big bang. Then I don’t remember anything more until somebody shouted “Is there anybody alive in here?” Then a young man came and pulled me out. I was completely in shock.
Another resident, who was injured by a piece of shrapnel that went through her arm and a smaller one lodged in her chest, told Human Rights Watch:
All of a sudden I felt an explosion that pushed back so I hit my head. I didn’t even notice that I was wounded. All the windows shattered. People were screaming.
A Human Rights Watch examination of the site found that the rocket had entered through the second floor of the building, continued through the kitchen and bathroom of Valentina Fedorovna’s apartment on the ground floor, and went farther down to the basement.” If the rocket had hit two meters to the left it would have gone through the living room where I was sitting instead of the kitchen,” Valentina Fedorovna said.

Another rocket, which hit the courtyard about 20 meters from Valentina Federovna’s building, wounded four people, who were taken to the hospital. Neighbors said one woman was seriously injured by a piece of shrapnel that lodged in her chest.

A third rocket struck the playground of School 71; a fourth hit the road outside the local church, shattering most of the windows; and a fifth hit a single-story house that was empty at the time.

Both the flight direction of the rockets and circumstances of the attack indicate that Ukrainian government forces were responsible. The rocket striking 6 Tumanyana Street hit its western façade. The crater in the soft ground in the school playground also showed that the rockets came from a western direction. At the time of the attack, the front line between insurgent and Ukrainian government forces was several kilometers farther west, according to local residents.

Insurgent forces manning a checkpoint about three kilometers west of the Pervaya Ploshchad area told Human Rights Watch that Grad rockets had also hit their checkpoint and the area between the checkpoint and the residential area in the same attack. Human Rights Watch observed craters, marks on the asphalt, and remnants of Grad rockets near the checkpoint and between the checkpoint and the residential area that were consistent with this account.

Attack on Petrovskyi district, July 12
At about 4 p.m. on July 12, multiple Grad rockets hit a residential area in Petrovskyi district in the western part of Donetsk. The area that was hit is several kilometers north of a road that demarcates the front line between insurgent and Ukrainian government forces.

Human Rights Watch examined 19 impact craters in an area about 600 meters wide. Local residents also showed Human Rights Watch remnants from Grad rockets that they said had hit their gardens or houses.

In one case, a rocket struck the house and garage at 2 Chugaeva Street, killing an entire family of two adults and two children.

Liudmila, 62, was at home in Chugaeva Street when the attack happened. She told Human Rights Watch:
I was in my room when I first heard a whistling sound. The walls and windows started to shake and then there were many loud bangs. My son was in the kitchen. He came running when the attack started, probably trying to save me, but a shrapnel hit him in the leg. What’s here that they wanted to attack? There is no factory here, no fighters, just poor houses.
Liudmila’s car was destroyed in the attack and Human Rights Watch observed significant damage to her house. Her son was recovering.



An officer on duty in the local police station showed Human Rights Watch the logbook from July 12 and provided Human Rights Watch with addresses where people had died during the attack. The police had registered seven deaths, including the four people mentioned above.

Craters and marks on buildings showed that the rockets had been launched from a location to the southeast. The likely launch area is located south of the southern-most checkpoint manned by insurgent forces.

Several of the impact craters indicated that the rockets had come from a southern direction. Local residents said that there had been no insurgent forces or weapons in the area before the attack.

Attack on Maryinka, July 12
At about 10 p.m. on July 12, multiple Grad rockets struck an area in the southeastern part of the village of Maryinka, which consists of fields, an industrial zone, and a residential area, clustered around a milk factory.

Maryinka has about 10,000 inhabitants and is just outside the western edge of Donetsk, adjacent to the Petrovskyi district. It consists mainly of three- to five-story buildings. 

A 25-year-old taxi driver told Human Rights Watch:
I was at home when the attack started. I ran to the basement immediately, but the attack was over in about 40 seconds. There was no warning. Nothing had happened here before. I only came out from the basement when the [insurgents] came to evacuate us. Everything was burning and there was debris everywhere. I never thought that something like this could happen here.
The local department for housing and utilities, which documented the effects of the strike, provided Human Rights Watch with the names of six people who died in that attack. All of those killed were between the ages of 45 and 60. Fifteen people were taken to the hospital, a department employee said, most with light injuries such as concussions.

Human Rights Watch documented multiple Grad rocket impacts in the residential area. Several buildings had been hit directly, and most buildings in the area had broken windows. According to the housing and utilities department, at least 12 apartment buildings had direct rocket hits. Human Rights Watch discovered remnants of Grad rockets in multiple locations in the area that was hit, including inside destroyed apartments.

At the time of the attack, insurgent forces manned a checkpoint about 800 meters southwest of the edge of the village, and an unknown number of insurgent forces were deployed on the opposite side of the road, between the checkpoint and the residential area that was hit. The base commander said that both the checkpoint and the base were struck at the same time as the residential area and that 22 rockets landed on the territory of his base. There were additional Grad attacks against the same area in at least the two following days, residents and the commander said, but most civilians evacuated immediately after the initial attack. Following the attacks, the insurgent base relocated closer to the center of Maryinka, the commander said.

Ukrainian government forces appear responsible for the attacks. All the rockets that had struck buildings hit walls facing southwest, indicating that the rockets came from there. Insurgent force personnel told Human Rights Watch that none of their troops were located farther southwest beyond the checkpoint 800 meters from the residential part of Maryinka, which, if true, would not have made it possible for them to have carried out the attack. A journalist who travelled to some of the villages southeast of Maryinka two days after the attack told Human Rights Watch that he saw no insurgent forces in that area at that time.

The journalist told Human Rights Watch that pro-Kiev forces in non-standard uniforms in Novomikhaylivka, a village southwest of Maryinka, had boasted to him the following day that they had a Grad rocket system and that they were firing on insurgent forces. The soldiers told the journalist that their aiming was accurate because they had scouts that helped them direct the fire.

A resident of Maryinka who fled to another village after the attack told Human Rights Watch that he saw Grad rockets being launched twice from a village farther southwest, which was under the control of Ukrainian forces on July 13.

Saturday, November 16, 2013

Did you know that the cost of keeping US soldiers in Afghanistan is $1.3 to $2.1 million per soldier? Or that it cost US taxpayers $50 million to kill one Taliban soldier? Or that the cost of the Afghan and Iraq wars is at least $6 trillion (twice the entire Social Security trust fund), thus explaining the explosion of the US public debt?



What Is The Real Agenda Of The American Police State? — Paul Craig Roberts

November 13, 2013 | Original Here                                             Go here to sign up to receive email notice of this news letter

What Is The Real Agenda Of The American Police State?

Paul Craig Roberts

In my last column I emphasized that it was important for American citizens to demand to know what the real agendas are behind the wars of choice by the Bush and Obama regimes. These are major long term wars each lasting two to three times as long as World War II.

Forbes reports that one million US soldiers have been injured in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. http://www.forbes.com/sites/rebeccaruiz/2013/11/04/report-a-million-veterans-injured-in-iraq-afghanistan-wars/

RT reports that the cost of keeping each US soldier in Afghanistan has risen from $1.3 million per soldier to $2.1 million per soldier. http://rt.com/usa/us-afghanistan-pentagon-troops-budget-721/

Matthew J. Nasuti reports in the Kabul Press that it cost US taxpayers $50 million to kill one Taliban soldier. That means it cost $1 billion to kill 20 Taliban fighters. http://kabulpress.org/my/spip.php?article32304 This is a war that can be won only at the cost of the total bankruptcy of the United States.

Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes have estimated that the current out-of-pocket and already incurred future costs of the Afghan and Iraq wars is at least $6 trillion.

In other words, it is the cost of these two wars that explain the explosion of the US public debt and the economic and political problems associated with this large debt.

What has America gained in return for $6 trillion and one million injured soldiers, many very severely?

In Iraq there is now an Islamist Shia regime allied with Iran in place of a secular Sunni regime that was an enemy of Iran, one as dictatorial as the other, presiding over war ruins, ongoing violence as high as during the attempted US occupation, and extraordinary birth defects from the toxic substances associated with the US invasion and occupation.

In Afghanistan there is an undefeated and apparently undefeatable Taliban and a revived drug trade that is flooding the Western world with drugs.

The icing on these Bush and Obama “successes” are demands from around the world that Americans and former British PM Tony Blair be held accountable for their war crimes. Certainly, Washington’s reputation has plummeted as a result of these two wars. No governments anywhere are any longer sufficiently gullible as to believe anything that Washington says.

These are huge costs for wars for which we have no explanation.

The Bush/Obama regimes have come up with various cover stories: a “war on terror,”
“we have to kill them over there before they come over here,” “weapons of mass destruction,” revenge for 9/11, Osama bin Laden (who died of his illnesses in December 2001 as was widely reported at the time).


None of these explanations are viable. Neither the Taliban nor Saddam Hussein were engaged in terrorism in the US. As the weapons inspectors informed the Bush regime, there were no WMD in Iraq. Invading Muslim countries and slaughtering civilians is more likely to create terrorists than to suppress them. According to the official story, the 9/11 hijackers and Osama bin Laden were Saudi Arabians, not Afghans or Iraqis. Yet it wasn’t Saudi Arabia that was invaded.

Democracy and accountable government simply does not exist when the executive branch can take a country to wars in behalf of secret agendas operating behind cover stories that are transparent lies.

It is just as important to ask these same questions about the agenda of the US police state. Why have Bush and Obama removed the protection of law as a shield of the people and turned law into a weapon in the hands of the executive branch? How are Americans made safer by the overthrow of their civil liberties? Indefinite detention and execution without due process of law are the hallmarks of the tyrannical state. They are terrorism, not a protection against terrorism. Why is every communication of every American and apparently the communications of most other people in the world, including Washington’s most trusted European allies, subject to being intercepted and stored in a gigantic police state database? How does this protect Americans from terrorists?

Why is it necessary for Washington to attack the freedom of the press and speech, to run roughshod over the legislation that protects whistleblowers such as Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden, to criminalize dissent and protests, and to threaten journalists such as Julian Assange, Glenn Greenwald, and Fox News reporter James Rosen? http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/22/opinion/another-chilling-leak-investigation.html?_r=0

How does keeping citizens ignorant of their government’s crimes make citizens safe from terrorists?

These persecutions of truth-tellers have nothing whatsoever to do with “national security” and “keeping Americans safe from terrorists.” The only purpose of these persecutions is to protect the executive branch from having its crimes revealed. Some of Washington’s crimes are so horrendous that the International Criminal Court would issue a death sentence if those guilty could be brought to trial. A government that will destroy the constitutional protections of free speech and a free press in order to prevent its criminal actions from being disclosed is a tyrannical government.

One hesitates to ask these questions and to make even the most obvious remarks out of fear not only of being put on a watch list and framed on some charge or the other, but also out of fear that such questions might provoke a false flag attack that could be used to justify the police state that has been put in place.

Perhaps that was what the Boston Marathon Bombing was. Evidence of the two brothers’ guilt has taken backseat to the government’s claims. There is nothing new about government frame-ups of patsies. What is new and unprecedented is the lockdown of Boston and its suburbs, the appearance of 10,000 heavily armed troops and tanks to patrol the streets and search without warrants the homes of citizens, all in the name of protecting the public from one wounded 19 year old kid.

Not only has nothing like this ever before happened in the US, but also it could not have been organized on the spur of the moment. It had to have been already in place waiting for the event. This was a trial run for what is to come.

Unaware Americans, especially gullible “law and order conservatives,” have no idea about the militarization of even their local police. I have watched local police forces train at gun clubs. The police are taught to shoot first not once but many times, to protect their lives first at all costs, and not to risk their lives by asking questions. This is why the 13-year old kid with the toy rifle was shot to pieces. Questioning would have revealed that it was a toy gun, but questioning the “suspect” might have endangered the precious police who are trained to take no risks whatsoever.

The police operate according to Obama’s presidential kill power: murder first then create a case against the victim.

In other words, dear American citizen, you life is worth nothing, but the police whom you pay, are not only unaccountable but also their lives are invaluable. If you get killed in their line of duty, it is no big deal. But don’t you injure a police goon thug in an act of self-defense. I mean, who do you think you are, some kind of mythical free American with rights?

Further reading:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/11/clemency-for-torturers-but-not-for-edward-snowden/281142/
http://www.policestateusa.com/2013/innocent-man-given-anal-cavity-search-colonoscopy-after-rolling-through-a-stop-sign/
http://www.policestateusa.com/2013/police-tased-arrested-father-as-he-tried-to-save-his-3-year-old-son-from-house-fire/

http://www.policestateusa.com/2013/tube-fed-3-year-old-treated-like-terrorist-by-tsa-family-misses-flight/

http://www.policestateusa.com/2013/john-geer-shot-by-police/

http://www.policestateusa.com/2013/300-pound-officer-shoots-12-pound-terrier-claims-it-threatened-his-life/

http://www.policestateusa.com/2013/innocent-citizens-held-at-gunpoint-in-terrifying-california-checkpoints/

http://www.policestateusa.com/2013/police-perform-simulated-drug-raid-on-5th-graders-child-attacked-by-police-dog/

http://www.policestateusa.com/2013/john-pike-gets-compensation-for-emotional-suffering/

http://www.policestateusa.com/2013/13-year-old-shot-death-police-open-carrying-toy-rifle/

http://www.policestateusa.com/2013/dallas-police-opened-fire-on-unarmed-man-as-he-stood-in-his-doorway/

http://on.rt.com/6w2jqo

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article36833.htm

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article36841.htm

Saturday, November 09, 2013

Extracts: "With the atmosphere of threat created by 9/11, the final destruction of the protective features of law was quickly achieved in the name of making us safe from terrorists. The fact that we are no longer safe from our own government did not register. This is how liberty was lost, and America with it." "Remember, the FBI has stated publicly that it has no evidence that Osama bin Laden was responsible for 9/11..." "Still today insouciant Americans sport [yellow ribbons] on their cars unaware that what they are supporting are the murder of foreign women, children and village elders, the death and physical and mental maiming of American soldiers, and the worldwide destruction of the reputation of the United States..."



How America Was Lost — Paul Craig Roberts

November 7, 2013 | Original Here                                             Go here to sign up to receive email notice of this news letter

How America Was Lost

Paul Craig Roberts

“No legal issue arises when the United States responds to a challenge to its power, position, and prestige.” Dean Acheson , 1962, speaking to the American Society of International Law.

Dean Acheson declared 51 years ago that power, position, and prestige are the ingredients of national security and that national security trumps law. In the United States democracy takes a back seat to “national security,” a prerogative of the executive branch of government.

National security is where the executive branch hides its crimes against law, both domestic and international, its crimes against the Constitution, its crimes against innocent citizens both at home and abroad, and its secret agendas that it knows that the American public would never support.

“National security” is the cloak that the executive branch uses to make certain that the US government is unaccountable.

Without accountable government there is no civil liberty and no democracy except for the sham voting that existed in the Soviet Union and now exists in the US.

There have been periods in US history, such as President Lincoln’s war to prevent secession, World War I, and World War II, when accountable government was impaired. These were short episodes of the Constitution’s violation, and the Constitution was reinstated in the aftermath of the wars. However, since the Clinton regime, the accountability of government has been declining for more than two decades, longer than the three wars combined.

In law there is the concept of adverse possession, popularly known as “squatters’ rights.” A non-owner who succeeds in occupying a piece of property or some one else’s right for a certain time without being evicted enjoys the ownership title conveyed to him. The reasoning is that by not defending his rights, the owner showed his disinterest and in effect gave his rights away.

Americans have not defended their rights conveyed by the US Constitution for the duration of the terms of three presidents. The Clinton regime was not held accountable for its illegal attack on Serbia. The Bush regime was not held accountable for its illegal invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. The Obama regime was not held accountable for its renewed attack on Afghanistan and its illegal attacks on Libya, Pakistan, and Yemen, and by its proxies on Syria.

We also have other strictly illegal and unconstitutional acts of government for which the government has not been held accountable. The Bush regimes’ acts of torture, indefinite detention, and warrantless spying, and the Obama regime’s acts of indefinite detention, warrantless spying, and murder of US citizens without due process. As the Obama regime lies through its teeth, we have no way of knowing whether torture is still practiced.

If these numerous criminal acts of the US government spread over the terms of three presidents pass into history as unchallenged events, the US government will have acquired squatters’ rights in lawlessness. The US Constitution will be, as President George W. Bush is reported to have declared, “a scrap of paper.”

Lawlessness is the hallmark of tyranny enforced by the police state. In a police state law is not a protector of rights but a weapon in the hands of government. [see Roberts & Stratton, The Tyranny of Good Intentions] The accused has no recourse to the accusation, which does not require evidence presented to a court. The accused is guilty by accusation alone and can be shot in the back of the head, as under Stalin, or blown up by a drone missile, as under Obama.

As a person aware of the long struggle against the tyrannical state, I have been amazed and disheartened by the acceptance not only by the insouciant American public, but also by law schools, bar associations, media, Congress and the Supreme Court of the executive branch’s claim to be above both law and the US Constitution.

As Lawrence Stratton and I show in our book about how the law was lost, liberals and conservatives chasing after their favorite devils, such as child abusers and drug pushers, and prosecutors, judges, and police devoted to conviction and not to justice, have gradually eroded over time the concept of law as a protection of the innocent. With the atmosphere of threat created by 9/11, the final destruction of the protective features of law was quickly achieved in the name of making us safe from terrorists.

The fact that we are no longer safe from our own government did not register.

This is how liberty was lost, and America with it.

Can liberty be regained? Probably not, but there is a chance if Americans have the necessary strength of character. The chance comes from the now known fact that the neoconservative Bush/Cheney regime took America and its puppet states to war in Afghanistan and Iraq entirely on the basis of lies. As all evidence proves, these wars were not the results of mistaken intelligence. They were the products of intentional lies.

The weapons inspectors told the Bush regime that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Despite this known fact, the Bush regime sent Secretary of State Colin Powell to the UN with fabricated evidence to convince the world that Saddam Hussein had “weapons of mass destruction” and was a threat to the world. Even if such weapons had existed in Iraq, many countries have them, including the US and Israel, and the presence of weapons does not under the Nuremberg Laws justify unprovoked aggression against the possessor. Under the Nuremberg Laws, unprovoked military aggression is a war crime, not the possession of weapons that many countries have. The war crime was committed by the US and its “coalition of the willing,” not by Saddam Hussein.

As for the invasion of Afghanistan, we know from the last video of Osama bin Laden in October 2001, attested by experts to be the last appearance of a man dying of renal failure and other diseases, that he declared that he had no responsibility for 9/11 and that Americans should look to their own government. We know as a reported fact that the Afghan Taliban offered to turn over Osama bin Laden to Washington if the Bush regime would provide the evidence that indicated bin Laden was responsible. The Bush regime refused to hand over the (non-existent) evidence and, with support of the corrupt and cowardly Congress and the presstitute media, attacked Afghanistan without any legal justification. Remember, the FBI has stated publicly that it has no evidence that Osama bin Laden was responsible for 9/11 and that that is why the crimes for which the FBI wanted bin Laden did not include responsibility for the 9/11 attack.

The war propaganda campaign was well prepared. Yellow ribbon decals were handed out for cars proclaiming “support the troops.” In other words, anyone who raises the obvious questions is not supporting the troops. Still today insouciant Americans sport these decals on their cars unaware that what they are supporting are the murder of foreign women, children and village elders, the death and physical and mental maiming of American soldiers, and the worldwide destruction of the reputation of the United States, with America’s main rival, China, now calling for a “de-Americanized world.”

A country with a population as insouciant as Americans is a country in which the government can do as it pleases.

Now that we have complete proof that the criminal Bush regime took our country to wars in Afghanistan and Iraq solely on the basis of intentional lies, how can the legal institutions, the courts, the American people possibly tolerate the Obama regime’s ignoring of the obvious crimes? How can America simply accept Obama’s statement that we mustn’t look back, only move ahead? If the US government, which has committed the worst crimes of our generation, cannot be held accountable and punished, how can federal, state, and local courts fill up American prisons with people who smoked pot and with people who did not sufficiently grovel before the police state.

Doubtless, the Obama regime, should it obey the law and prosecute the Bush regime’s crimes, would have to worry about being prosecuted for its own crimes, which are just as terrible. Nevertheless, I believe that the Obama regime could survive if it put all the blame on the Bush regime, prosecuted the Bush criminals, and desisted from the illegal actions that it currently supports. This would save the Constitution and US civil liberty, but it would require the White House to take the risk that by enforcing US law, US law might be enforced against its own illegal and unconstitutional acts by a succeeding regime.

The Bush/Cheney/John Yoo neoconservative regime having got rid of US law, no doubt the Obama regime thinks it is best to leave the situation as it is, rid of law.

Without accountability, America is finished. Not only will Americans live in a police state with no civil liberties, but the rest of the world is already looking at America with a jaundiced eye. The US is being reconstituted as an authoritarian state. All it takes is one failure of accountability for the police state to become entrenched, and we have had numerous failures of accountability. Does anyone really believe that some future government is going to make restitution to persecuted truth-tellers, such as Bradley Manning, Julian Assange, and Edward Snowdon, as was done for Japanese Americans?

Now that we know for a certain fact that the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were based on propaganda and lies, Congress and the world media should demand to know what was the real secret agenda. What are the real reasons for which Afghanistan and Iraq were invaded?

No truthful explanation for these wars exists.


Paul O’Neill, the Bush regime’s first Treasury Secretary, is on public record stating that at the very first cabinet meeting, long prior to 9/11, the agenda was a US attack on Iraq.

In other words, the Bush regime’s attack on Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11.

What was the Bush regime’s secret agenda, kept secret by the Obama regime, that required an illegal, war criminal, attack on a sovereign country, an action for which officials of Hitler’s government were executed? What is the real purpose of Washington’s wars?

It is totally and completely obvious that the wars have nothing to do with protecting Americans from terrorism. If anything, the wars stir up and create terrorists. The wars create hatred of America that never previously existed. Despite this, America is free of terrorists attacks except for the ones orchestrated by the FBI. What the fabricated “terror threat” has done is to create a thorough-going domestic police state that is unaccountable.

Americans need to understand that they have lost their country. The rest of the world needs to recognize that Washington is not merely the most complete police state since Stalinism, but also a threat to the entire world. The hubris and arrogance of Washington, combined with Washington’s huge supply of weapons of mass destruction, make Washington the greatest threat that has ever existed to all life on the planet. Washington is the enemy of all humanity.


Saturday, September 14, 2013

Two days ago, September 11th, was 40th anniversary of the coup in Chile that overthrew the democratically elected Allende government. This coup has long been known to have been orcestrated by Henry Kissinger, including the murder of a journalist, Charles Horman, who was going to expose the truth that the U.S. already had "boots on the ground." Was it a coincidence, or something more sinister, that on the very day of this anniversary John Kerry was getting advice from Kissinger, the war criminal.


  theREALnews                                                                           - Permalink -

What's behind Kerry and Kissinger's meeting? 

Michael Ratner: Despite being from different parties, the meeting between Kerry and Kissinger highlights the consistency of an American foreign policy based on imperialism - September 13, 13


More at The Real News

Bio

Michael Ratner is President Emeritus of the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) in New York and Chair of the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights in Berlin. He is currently a legal adviser to Wikileaks and Julian Assange. He and CCR brought the first case challenging the Guantanamo detentions and continue in their efforts to close Guantanamo. He taught at Yale Law School, and Columbia Law School, and was President of the National Lawyers Guild. His current books include "Hell No: Your Right to Dissent in the Twenty-First Century America," and “ Who Killed Che? How the CIA Got Away With Murder.” NOTE: Mr. Ratner speaks on his own behalf and not for any organization with which he is affiliated.

"John Pilger is the most important voice of our time." -- Paul Craig Roberts



The silent military coup that took over Washington
This time it's Syria, last time it was Iraq. Obama chose to accept the entire Pentagon of the Bush era: its wars and war crimes



The Guardian,




Children, many of whose deformities are believed to be the results of the chemical dioxin that the US used in the Vietnam war, play outside a hospital in Ho Chi Minh City. Photograph: Paula Bronstein/Getty Images























On my wall is the Daily Express front page of September 5 1945 and the words: "I write this as a warning to the world." So began Wilfred Burchett's report from Hiroshima. It was the scoop of the century. For his lone, perilous journey that defied the US occupation authorities, Burchett was pilloried, not least by his embedded colleagues. He warned that an act of premeditated mass murder on an epic scale had launched a new era of terror.

Almost every day now, he is vindicated. The intrinsic criminality of the atomic bombing is borne out in the US National Archives and by the subsequent decades of militarism camouflaged as democracy. The Syria psychodrama exemplifies this. Yet again we are held hostage by the prospect of a terrorism whose nature and history even the most liberal critics still deny. The great unmentionable is that humanity's most dangerous enemy resides across the Atlantic.

John Kerry's farce and Barack Obama's pirouettes are temporary. Russia's peace deal over chemical weapons will, in time, be treated with the contempt that all militarists reserve for diplomacy. With al-Qaida now among its allies, and US-armed coupmasters secure in Cairo, the US intends to crush the last independent states in the Middle East: Syria first, then Iran. "This operation [in Syria]," said the former French foreign minister Roland Dumas in June, "goes way back. It was prepared, pre-conceived and planned."

When the public is "psychologically scarred", as the Channel 4 reporter Jonathan Rugman described the British people's overwhelming hostility to an attack on Syria, suppressing the truth is made urgent. Whether or not Bashar al-Assad or the "rebels" used gas in the suburbs of Damascus, it is the US, not Syria, that is the world's most prolific user of these terrible weapons.

In 1970 the Senate reported: "The US has dumped on Vietnam a quantity of toxic chemical (dioxin) amounting to six pounds per head of population." This was Operation Hades, later renamed the friendlier Operation Ranch Hand – the source of what Vietnamese doctors call a "cycle of foetal catastrophe". I have seen generations of children with their familiar, monstrous deformities. John Kerry, with his own blood-soaked war record, will remember them. I have seen them in Iraq too, where the US used depleted uranium and white phosphorus, as did the Israelis in Gaza. No Obama "red line" for them. No showdown psychodrama for them.

The sterile repetitive debate about whether "we" should "take action" against selected dictators (ie cheer on the US and its acolytes in yet another aerial killing spree) is part of our brainwashing. Richard Falk, professor emeritus of international law and UN special rapporteur on Palestine, describes it as "a self-righteous, one-way, legal/moral screen [with] positive images of western values and innocence portrayed as threatened, validating a campaign of unrestricted political violence". This "is so widely accepted as to be virtually unchallengeable".

It is the biggest lie: the product of "liberal realists" in Anglo-American politics, scholarship and media who ordain themselves as the world's crisis managers, rather than the cause of a crisis. Stripping humanity from the study of nations and congealing it with jargon that serves western power designs, they mark "failed", "rogue" or "evil" states for "humanitarian intervention".

An attack on Syria or Iran or any other US "demon" would draw on a fashionable variant, "Responsibility to Protect", or R2P – whose lectern-trotting zealot is the former Australian foreign minister Gareth Evans, co-chair of a "global centre" based in New York. Evans and his generously funded lobbyists play a vital propaganda role in urging the "international community" to attack countries where "the security council rejects a proposal or fails to deal with it in a reasonable time".

Evans has form. He appeared in my 1994 film Death of a Nation, which revealed the scale of genocide in East Timor. Canberra's smiling man is raising his champagne glass in a toast to his Indonesian equivalent as they fly over East Timor in an Australian aircraft, having signed a treaty to pirate the oil and gas of the stricken country where the tyrant Suharto killed or starved a third of the population.

Under the "weak" Obama, militarism has risen perhaps as never before. With not a single tank on the White House lawn, a military coup has taken place in Washington. In 2008, while his liberal devotees dried their eyes, Obama accepted the entire Pentagon of his predecessor, George Bush: its wars and war crimes. As the constitution is replaced by an emerging police state, those who destroyed Iraq with shock and awe, piled up the rubble in Afghanistan and reduced Libya to a Hobbesian nightmare, are ascendant across the US administration. Behind their beribboned facade, more former US soldiers are killing themselves than are dying on battlefields. Last year 6,500 veterans took their own lives. Put out more flags.

The historian Norman Pollack calls this "liberal fascism": "For goose-steppers substitute the seemingly more innocuous militarisation of the total culture. And for the bombastic leader, we have the reformer manqué, blithely at work, planning and executing assassination, smiling all the while." Every Tuesday the "humanitarian" Obama personally oversees a worldwide terror network of drones that "bugsplat" people, their rescuers and mourners. In the west's comfort zones, the first black leader of the land of slavery still feels good, as if his very existence represents a social advance, regardless of his trail of blood. This obeisance to a symbol has all but destroyed the US anti-war movement – Obama's singular achievement.

In Britain, the distractions of the fakery of image and identity politics have not quite succeeded. A stirring has begun, though people of conscience should hurry. The judges at Nuremberg were succinct: "Individual citizens have the duty to violate domestic laws to prevent crimes against peace and humanity." The ordinary people of Syria, and countless others, and our own self-respect, deserve nothing less now.