Tag Archives: war on terror

People’s Lawyer Lynne Stewart Released From Prison

Posted on by
4

lynne_stewart_0

While most of us were celebrating New Year’s Eve last Tuesday, former activist lawyer Lynne Stewart and her family were celebrating her freedom. On December 31, she was granted a compassionate release from a prison in Fort Worth, Texas by a federal judge and the following day she was back home in Brooklyn.

In 2005 Lynne Stewart was found guilty of helping Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman (the client she was defending at the time) communicate with supporters. She was sentenced to 28 months in prison and later resentenced for 10 years. Prior to her conviction Stewart was an attorney who represented many economically disadvantaged and anti-establishment defendants such as members of the Weather Underground and Black Panthers.

In 2005, Stewart was also diagnosed with breast cancer and due to her sentencing, crucial and potentially life-saving surgery was delayed for 18 months. By the time she received treatment, her cancer reached Stage Four and had metastasized to the point that her operating physician commented that her condition was the worst he had seen. By December 2013 she was also diagnosed with anemia, high blood pressure, asthma and diabetes, and was likely to have only 18 months left to live according to her doctor.

Despite the fact that Lynne Stewart never should have served such a sentence for trumped up charges designed to hype the pointless “War on Terror” in the first place, it’s fortunate that such a courageous person deserving of respect won’t die alone in prison. Her release is a victory for her family, friends, and countless supporters who fought tirelessly for her cause, including Justice for Lynne Stewart, the Center for Constitutional Rights, the National Lawyers Guild, independent news outlets including Building Bridges Radio, Law and Disorder Radio, and Black Agenda Report, and public figures such as Desmond Tutu, William Pepper, Mark Lane, and Dick Gregory. In support of Stewart’s release, Gregory had this to say:

“The reason for the prosecution and persecution of Lynne Stewart is evident to us all. It was designed to intimidate the entire legal community so that few would dare to defend political clients whom the State demonizes and none would provide a vigorous defense. It also was designed to narrow the meaning of our cherished first amendment right to free speech, which the people of this country struggled to have added to the Constitution as the Bill of Rights.”

Unanswered Questions About Raids in Libya and Somalia

Posted on by
Reply

catch-and-release

Today marks the 12th anniversary of the Invasion of Afghanistan, so perhaps it’s no coincidence that there happens to be many news reports about two raids against alleged terrorists which took place over the weekend. The raid getting more attention took place in Libya and resulted in the capture of Abu Anas al-Liby, who is allegedly linked to the 1998 bombings of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Interestingly, al-Liby was reported captured at least twice in the past, once in the late 90s and a second time in January 2002.

The goal of the raid in Somalia was to capture a man named Ikrimah who, according to anonymous U.S. senior officials, claimed responsibility for the Westgate Mall massacre in Kenya. The force carrying out the mission was SEAL Team Six, the same team that allegedly killed Osama Bin Laden and has had a string of suspiciously bad luck ever since. According to other anonymous officials interviewed by the Washington Post and NYT:

[…]troops retreated after an intense gunfight unfolded, fearing that escalating it could result in civilian casualties.

[…]Witnesses described a firefight lasting over an hour, with helicopters called in for air support.

Read the full article here: http://allafrica.com/stories/201310070803.html

An early leaked report posted at the New York Times website on Saturday stated the SEAL team had succeeded in seizing a “senior leader” of al Shabaab. But 45 minutes later, the Times said officials had “backed off” that report.

According to yet another anonymous senior official quoted in a CNN report with the headline Official: Navy SEAL team pulled out when it couldn’t capture suspect alive :

Their mission was to capture him. Once it became clear we were not going to [be] able to take him, the Navy commander made the decision to withdraw.

[…]Another U.S. official told CNN the Navy SEALs reported seeing children at the compound, part of the reason the mission was stopped during the firefight.

It seems unlikely they withdrew due to safety concerns, but it’s also unusual that they attempted a live capture, given how quick they were to drone bomb alleged terrorist leaders (and innocent civillians including children) in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, etc.

Does the Government Only Label Bad Guys As Terrorists?

Posted on by
2

Perhaps, if one’s definition of a “bad guy” is so broad it becomes meaningless.

Among the findings in this must-read article recently posted at Washington’s Blog, Does the Government Only Label Bad Guys As Terrorists?, the following characteristics could get you labeled as a terrorist by the  government:

As you can see the list is pretty long, but sure to get longer as the government becomes even more corrupt, ineffectual, and fearful of revolt. Having such a loose definition of “terrorist” will do nothing to make anyone any safer (except perhaps the wealthy elite). In fact, it will only discourage dissent and encourage obedience to the corporate state which ultimately endangers the health of society.

fusion-center

Geopolitical Motives Behind Kenya Mass Shooting

Posted on by
Reply

Western corporate news has predictably portrayed the recent massacre in Kenya as a senseless terrorist attack by “Muslim fanatics” of Al Shabaab, a Somalian Al Qaeda franchise. If their motive was solely religious, perpetrating a large-scale slaughter drawing international condemnation would be a self-defeating act. Unfortunately, propaganda and mass social conditioning has led many in the West to accept that Muslim terrorists “hate us for our freedoms” and will do anything to wipe out everyone but themselves. Of course this is a stereotype and is no more true than saying fundamentalist Christian or Jewish terrorists want to kill all Muslims. The reality of terrorism is much more complex and convoluted (and often involves covert intelligence agencies).

Tony Cartalucci of Land Destroyer Report puts the Nairobi mall attack in context, describing how in 2011 the Kenyan military participated in attacks against Somalia with U.S. and French forces. But this wasn’t the first attack against Somalia the U.S. was involved in. According to Cartalucci:

Before using Kenya as a proxy for US aggression in Africa, and amidst two decades of unilateral, covert military operations, the US had backed two Ethiopian invasions into Somalia. The first US-backed invasion, under then US President George Bush, was carried out in 2006. USA Today reported in its 2007 article, “U.S. support key to Ethiopia’s invasion,” that:

The United States has quietly poured weapons and military advisers into Ethiopia, whose recent invasion of Somalia opened a new front in the Bush administration’s war on terrorism.

The second US-backed Ethiopian invasion of Somalia, under US President Barack Obama, was carried out in 2011 – coordinated with Kenya’s 2011 US-French-backed extraterritorial adventure into Somali territory. The UK Independent’s December 2011 article, “UN-backed invasion of Somalia spirals into chaos,” reported that:

Kenya’s invasion of Somalia, hailed by the West and the UN Security Council, was meant to deliver a knockout blow to the militant Islamist group al-Shabaab. Instead it has pulled Somalia’s regional rival Ethiopia back into the country, stirred up the warlords and rekindled popular support for fundamentalists whose willingness to let Somalis starve rather than receive foreign aid had left them widely hated.

It was in fact this US-backed military invasion that served as the alleged motivation of the Al Shabaab terrorists who attacked Kenya’s Westgate Mall this week.

In the same article, Cartalucci describes in detail how and why the same terrorists the U.S. is funding and arming in Syria are behind the massacre in Kenya. He also provides a concise description of what Al Qaeda really is and how they support the objectives of Western superpowers:

Al Qaeda: The Perfect Pretext to Invade, The Perfect Mercenary Army to Covertly Wage War

Al Qaeda, for the West, serves as the ultimate geopolitical tool. It can be used as a pretext to invade, as well as a nearly inexhaustible mercenary army to carry out ruthless terrorist campaigns and even full-scale war as seen in Syria and Libya, to achieve Western objectives. Additionally, the omnipresent, nebulous nature of Al Qaeda serves as justification to strip away the rights and liberties of people at home, across Western civilization – perpetuating a climate of fear within which the seeds of very profitable war can be sown and continuously reaped.

How profitable? A Harvard’s Kennedy School research paper titled, “The Financial Legacy of Iraq and Afghanistan,” places the total expenditures of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars alone somewhere between 4-6 trillion dollars. That isn’t 4-6 trillion dollars that went into a black hole. That is 4-6 trillion dollars that went to the Fortune 500 corporations that engineered and sold these conflicts to the American public in the first place.

Read the full article here: http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2013/09/kenyan-bloodbath-reaping-benefits-of-us.html#more

Message of Peace

Posted on by
Reply

Last Monday (Sept. 2), the White House received a letter calling for peace in Syria from Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro on behalf of Venezuela and “independent voices who love humanity”. Not surprisingly, no mention of the letter was made by corporate media but many of us are aware of it thanks to foreign and independent media such as the Venezuela News Agency and Axis of Logic. Though the letter seems to be speaking to the public persona of Obama and not the reality of who he really is, it could be interpreted as idealistic or ironic; a way of highlighting the differences between the two. Maduro also uses a number of memorable quotes to support his argument from activists such as Simon Bolivar, Susan Sontag, Malcolm X, John Lennon, Howard Zinn and Martin Luther King.

Via: Axis of Logic:

What we do in pursuit of lasting peace and stability of any nation on the planet will never be enough, because the wellbeing of a people exalts us while their pain diminishes us to the vilest inhumanity.

We, from the love of peace that the Venezuelan people cultivate, reject war and say no to bombs, desolation and death. That is our hope, the same that fed the soul of Martin Luther King when he said:”If I knew that the world would end tomorrow, I, today would still plant a tree”. This tree is the one we want to flourish in these tense and ominous times.

I aspire and hope that the call that I have made to you in this letter, Mr. President, doesn’t fall on empty ears. I aspire and hope that you rectify and proceed to stop the war machine that has already been set up. I aspire and I hope that you stop the beating of the funeral drums of war on Syria. I pray for it to be so.

Peace in Syria and the world!

No War!

Nicolas Maduro

Chavez lives, the homeland continues!

Read the complete letter here: http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_66001.shtml

The Real Reasons for War

Posted on by
Reply

Bev Conover, editor and publisher of Intrepid Report, just posted an important op-ed (in preparation for Obama’s war speech tomorrow) which dismantles the alleged moral arguments for war and provides a list of more likely reasons and the various groups who would benefit. Among the usual suspects:

  • Western Central Banks
  • Weapons Contractors
  • Energy Corporations
  • Geopolitical Allies Saudi Arabia and Israel
  • Powerful Elites

Via: Intrepid Report:

Then there is the matter of the red line, which Obama claimed, during last week’s visit to Sweden, “I didn’t set a red line. The world set a red line. The world set a red line when government’s representing 98 percent of the world’s populations said the use of chemical weapons is abhorrent.” But he said last year, “We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized, That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.” It’s hard keeping the lies straight, isn’t it?

Yes, the use of chemical weapons is abhorrent. The US should know as it’s used them eight times and, while not chemical weapons, used munitions coated with toxic depleted uranium Serbia, Iraq and Afghanistan, and dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan. (See 10 Chemical Weapons Attacks Washington Doesn’t Want You to Talk About)

So what are all the lies about the need for illegally attacking Syria, possibly setting the whole Middle East aflame or even starting World War III (or IV, depending on how you count) about? It’s about the elephants in the room they don’t want you to see.

Who are the elephants? One elephant is the Western banksters who profit from every war, regardless of whether it’s a win, lose or draw. The banksters make money from the loans they give to armament manufacturers and contractors who sell the necessary support supplies to the military. The banksters also have to make sure the US dollar stay as the world’s reserve currency.

– See more at: http://www.intrepidreport.com/archives/10770#sthash.4o6514Xe.dpuf

Then there is the matter of the red line, which Obama claimed, during last week’s visit to Sweden, “I didn’t set a red line. The world set a red line. The world set a red line when government’s representing 98 percent of the world’s populations said the use of chemical weapons is abhorrent.” But he said last year, “We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized, That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.” It’s hard keeping the lies straight, isn’t it?

Yes, the use of chemical weapons is abhorrent. The US should know as it’s used them eight times and, while not chemical weapons, used munitions coated with toxic depleted uranium Serbia, Iraq and Afghanistan, and dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan. (See 10 Chemical Weapons Attacks Washington Doesn’t Want You to Talk About)  So what are all the lies about the need for illegally attacking Syria, possibly setting the whole Middle East aflame or even starting World War III (or IV, depending on how you count) about? It’s about the elephants in the room they don’t want you to see.

Who are the elephants? One elephant is the Western banksters who profit from every war, regardless of whether it’s a win, lose or draw. The banksters make money from the loans they give to armament manufacturers and contractors who sell the necessary support supplies to the military. The banksters also have to make sure the US dollar stay as the world’s reserve currency.

Read the complete op-ed here: http://www.intrepidreport.com/archives/10770

If a U.S. attack on Syria is supposed to be a response for Assad gassing his own people on 8/21 as claimed, then why were U.S. and allied warships placed off the Syrian coast before that date? Michel Chossudovsky provides analysis and commentary on the pattern and timeline of weapons transports at Global Research:

If the chemical weapons attack is a justification for intervening, why was the order to launch an R2P “humanitarian” naval operation against Syria decided upon “Prior” to August 21? Was there advanced knowledge or intelligence regarding the timing and occurrence of the 21 August Chemical Weapons attack?
…With independent news reports providing firm evidence that the US sponsored Al Qaeda rebels (recruited and trained by Allied Special Forces) have chemical weapons in their possession, this delay does not favor the president’s political credibility.

Moreover, there is evidence that the US sponsored rebels used chemical weapons against civilians. (see image right)

In providing those chemical weapons to al Qaeda “rebels”, the US-NATO-Israel alliance is in violation of international law, not to mention their own anti-terrorist legislation.

Overtly supporting Al Qaeda has become the “New Normal”.

When the various pieces of evidence are put together, the picture which emerges is that of a covert “flag flag operation” carried out by the US sponsored “rebels” and special forces, intent upon blaming president Bashar Al Assad for killing his own people. As mentioned above, the naval deployment was decided upon ex ante, before the 21 August chemical Weapons attack.

This diabolical false flag attack which consists in killing civilians and blaming the Syrian government constitutes the justification for military intervention on “humanitarian grounds”.

Read the complete report here: http://www.globalresearch.ca/massive-naval-deployment-us-and-allied-warships-deployed-to-syrian-coastline-before-the-august-21-chemical-weapons-attack/5347766

Bill Hicks – Revelations

Video

Reply

The complete video of one of Bill Hick’s greatest shows. Filmed at the Dominion Theater, London in late 1992 (1:15):

Putin on Syria

Posted on by
Reply

Putin, like all world leaders, has done his share of morally dubious actions, but on the issue of Syria he has shown more integrity and wise judgement than U.S. heads of state.

Via: Veteran News Now :

He pulled no punches calling US foreign policy “very dangerous (in its) uncontained hyper-use of force – military force – in international relations, force that is plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts.”

US imperialism “overstep(s) national borders in every way.”

“(U)nilateral illegal actions have not resolved any single problem. They have become a hotbed of further conflicts.”

“We are seeing increasing disregard for the fundamental principles of international law.”

“No one feels safe! Because no one can feel that international law is like a stone wall that will protect them.”

“Of course, such a policy stimulates an arms race. The dominance of force inevitably encourages a number of countries to acquire weapons of mass destruction.”

Putin addressed America’s responsibility for a “unipolar world.” He called it one “in which there is one master, one sovereign.”

“And at the end of the day, this is pernicious not only for all those within this system, but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within.”

“We are constantly being taught about democracy. But for some reason those who teach us do not want to learn themselves.”

America deplores democracy. It does so at home and abroad. It’s intolerant of what it claims to support.

“As far as this incident is concerned,” he added, “it is well-known that the Syrian government turn(ed) to the world community with a request to inspect, what it thought (were) cases of using chemical weapons against civilians by militants.”

“Unfortunately, that did not happen.”

“Any unilateral use of force without the authorization of the UN Security Council, no matter how ‘limited’ it is, will be a clear violation of international law, will undermine prospects for a political and diplomatic resolution of the conflict in Syria and will lead to a new round of confrontation and new casualties.”