Yemeni Interior Ministry Confirms Death Of Ali Abdullah Saleh, Declares Full Cnontrol Over Capital

Donate

On Monday, the Yemeni Interior Ministry released an official statement confirming the death of the country’s former president Ali Abdullah Saleh. Earlier, photos and videos were released online showing what appear to be the corpse of the former president.

The ministry accused Saleh of creating “chaos” in the country, cooperating with “militias of aggression” and providing help to “extremist militias.”

According to the statement, the Houthis are now in control over the entire Yemeni capital, Sana’a.

Yemeni Interior Ministry Confirms Death Of Ali Abdullah Saleh, Declares Full Cnontrol Over Capital

“The Interior Ministry announces the end of the crisis of the treason militia and the killing of its leader and a number on his criminal partisans,” the statement reads adding that the tensions in Sana’a are over with the death of Saleh.

According to the Saudi-owned al-Arabiya television, Saleh was killed by sniper bullets. Another version suggests that he was killed in a RPG and gun attack. The previous version said that he died as a result of explosion of his house.

Donate

SouthFront

Do you like this content? Consider helping us!

  • FlorianGeyer

    This was not meant to happen :) The Saudi’s with their Israeli friends are ‘deeply deeply’ unhappy now :)

    • BMWA1

      Boo hoo!

    • What has this got to do with Israel? Iran remains Israel number one enemy with 200 guided small nukes trained at Tehran.

      • Rex drabble

        Go away fool

        • You are the fool without any useful comment, you could not even engage your brain for a meaningful comment. Like I said earlier Muppet, what has this got to do with Israel?

  • Zainab Ali

    zio wahabbi scumbags are being defeated by the houthis time and again

    • Lolsss, you Arabs don’t face reality even when it facks you all right up your rectum. Israel remains u defeated, read your Koran and it should tell you why all Muslim efforts have so far failed.

      • Rakean Jaya

        The Koran said, the evil will lose and the right will win. Evil or act of evil are stealing other properties (land), deception, killing innocent. So the alliance of Israel-Saudi (Zionism& Wahabism) is the evil and will lose, so rather just ‘lol’, better for you to leave your ‘precious Israel’ ASAP.

        • Brother Ma

          Koran also says Jesus will return and Mohammed will help Jesus propagate the religion brought about by Jesus.

        • The evil is Mohammed’s invading army just like ISIS. Israel has been winning, mention what time this century Arabs sissies defeated Israel?

          • Rakean Jaya

            There was no such ‘Israel’ things before 1948. They claim they were superior, but how come this superior clan just able to establish (illegal) state in 1948? I would like to ‘LOL: this logic but must be inappropriate. I should admit their special skill, ‘deception’, is very powerful. They bribe European establishment’s to agree with their plan and support it in the middle of chaos of WW2 aftermath. Israel create a many war then, all war by design, except 1973 and 2006, to expand their border. With help from some eastern/western militias/mercenaries, and modern arm supply from western including media cover (MSM) to spread their narratives (lies), all those Arab countries of course didn’t equal to Israel at that time. But for sure, their ends is nearing, in 5-10 years to come, Israel will gone, IF they continue their crimes behavior.

          • Rakean Jaya

            Israel’s butt was kicked out from Sinai in 1973 by Egypt (fyi, Egypt is Arab), if Kissinger didn’t jumped in timely, there would no Israel more right now.

          • Hahahaha, idiot just rewrote what ass whooping Arab army got during the Yum Kippor war, one tiny nation against the Arab and Muslim world but after all the smoke had settled they still remained standing taller than ever. The Egyptian army almost got annihilated, daddy USA had to step right in…Remember the 6days war? That was a real beating, shame on you Muppet!

          • Rakean Jaya

            Twisted logic, denial on its height. But it’s ok, your logic was constructed by western media narratives (Israel Propaganda actually), so the conclusion is Israel was kicked twice in this century, the last one they have been saved by Condi Rice. That’s all my answer for your stupid question. I didn’t have to answer actually, especially to near idiot ones.

      • Gary Sellars

        Lebanon 2006?

        So much for your credibility.

  • Kolarov

    Basically it’s Houthis vs the world now

    • Barba_Papa

      You fight your former ally, no matter how well deserved, you do end up alone.

      • Kolarov

        Being alone doesn’t seem to be a bad thing for them so far.

        And if you are so spineless that you wouldn’t fight the ones who betrayed you, you deserve the same fate as Saleh.

  • Barba_Papa

    Based on the pics in the previous article where they showed his dead body I’d say the sniper bullet was the most likely culprit.

  • General Surena

    Saudi arabia “the muslims enemy”….. no evolution wahabi killers… every bullets will back to Riyad.. WAİT AND SEE.

    • AlexanderAmproz

      Saudi don’t have any choices,
      they are NATO/Zionist Proxy
      or the US will do an Iraq
      for their Dollar “God” to blackmail the World !

  • John

    This was not in the KSA/UAE plan book. Back to square one for them.

  • Hodei

    Lo negativo de esto, es que ahora los militares prosaudies aprovecharan la división de los rebeldes para lanzar una ofensiva sobre Sana. La verdad esque Saleh fue un lider islamista, autoritario y reaccionario, pues fue el presidente del Yemen del Norte fundamentalista e impuso una colonización, y no unión, al Yemen del Sur socialista y popular!

    • Pavel Pavlovich

      Por otro lado, las fuerzas de la resistencia serán más unidas que nunca.
      O así lo me parece.

      • Hodei

        En eso tienes razón, ahora los Houthies son los que controlan los territorios rebeldes. Pero me da miedo que los milicianos de Saleh se pasan del lado de los grupos prosaudies y dictaduras del golfo.
        Por ello, los independentistas suristas tienen un papel muy importante en todo esto, ya que pueden poner en serio peligro la unidad de los prosaudies, y asi ayudar a los houthies. Que vuelva la Yemen del Sur socialista!

  • Hezbollah86

    Cool

  • AlexanderAmproz

    During the sixties,
    Yemen was one of the nicest and most hospitable Country,
    Afghanistan too…
    Colonialism is atrocious and Disgusting !

    • Hodei

      Your are right, South Yemen and Afganistan, with thier socialist partyes and governments, had a better economy, social justice, social state and the peoples control of the economy and the administration! But, unfortunately, EEUU, Saudi Arabia and the islamist groups have destroyed all the democratic and popular countryes

      • Serious

        What you have to know is that Americans hate when other people are free and happy.

        • Hodei

          Yes, but no Americans, only the riches class of United States

          • Serious

            Americans don’t like either. Above all if it’s a successful socialist country.

            They like to think that they are the better country with their ultra liberalism shit.

          • Rex drabble

            Their end is near,the world has had a gut full of their bullshit.

          • AlexanderAmproz

            Bill Gates alone is wealthier than 50% of the Americans,
            the poorest one !
            Democracy is the most sullied Word in Western Countries,
            Israel, and US NeoColonial Empire !
            Developed Europe and Switzerland excepted !

          • Serious

            At least, Bill Gates create something. Trump is rch but he creates absolutelty nothing. The money of Trump comes from the 9-5 workers that work for him in useless jobs.

          • AlexanderAmproz

            I am a rightist,
            but didn’t accept to favor Capitalism predators
            at any abuses cost !

          • Hodei

            You are right, the inequality of the capitalism system is absolutelly incredible. And capitalism, with their explotaition of the work class and the looting of the natural resources, are destroying our world

          • AlexanderAmproz

            https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/10/26/the-simulacra-democracy/

            The Simulacra Democracy

            by JOHN STEPPLING

            … a nation in which 87 percent of eighteen- to twenty-four year olds (according to a 2002 National Geographic Society/Roper Poll survey) cannot locate Iran or Iraq on a world map and 11 percent cannot locate the United States (!) is not merely “intellectually sluggish.” It would be more accurate to call it moronic, capable of being fooled into believing anything …”

            — Morris Berman

            I cannot remember U.S. culture ever being quite so compromised by ruling class control. Hollywood turns out one jingoistic and militaristic and racist film and TV show after another. Corporate news is completely controlled by the same forces that run Hollywood. It is the complete capitulation of the liberal class to the interests of the increasingly fascistic U.S. elite. And this didn’t start with Donald Trump. Certainly in its current incarnation it goes back at least to Bill Clinton, and really it goes back to the end of World War Two. The ideological trajectory was formed under the Dulles brothers and military industrial complex — representing U.S. business interests and exhibiting a demand for global hegemony. But once the Soviet Union collapsed, the project was accelerated and intensified.

            Another starting point might well be the 1960 Bay of Pigs fiasco, or the 1961 CIA (and MI6) assassination of Patrice Lumumba. Or Kennedy’s 1962 speech at American University calling for the end of Pax Americana. We know what happened to Kennedy soon after that. Pick any of these incidents. But it was the fall of the U.S.S.R. that signaled to the governing class, the proprietor class, that the last real obstacle to global domination had been removed. In the interim, one finds the Iran/Contra affair, and the invasion of Iraq. The real and the symbolic meaning of the Soviet Union is forgotten today, I think. Its meaning for the developing world, especially.

            The next conscious trial balloon was Clinton’s attack on the former Yugoslavia. A test run for expanding NATO. And it worked. The propaganda machine has never been as successful as it was when it demonized the Serbs and Milosevic. Then came 9/11. And the well honed PR machine spewed an endless barrage of hyper-patriotic rhetoric and disinformation. American exceptionalism was given full credibility. And remember Colin Powell and his cartoon visual teaching aids at the UN? Nobody was going to argue. Certainly not the white liberal class. And Hollywood upped its game in churning out military fantasies. And in just churning out fantasies. A genre that lent itself to obvious neo-colonial messages. By 2007, when Barack Obama announces he will run for President, the master narrative for America was firmly entrenched. The biggest hit from Hollywood in this period is Avatar (2009), a neo-colonial fable that fit seamlessly with Obama’s reconquest of Africa.

            Dan Glazebrook recently wrote:

            The year 2009, two years before Gaddafi’s murder, was a pivotal one for US-African relations. First, because China surpassed the US as the continent’s largest trading partner; and second, because Gaddafi was elected President of the African Union. The significance of both for the decline of US influence on the continent could not be clearer. Whilst Gaddafi was spearheading attempts to unite Africa politically, committing serious amounts of Libyan oil wealth to make this dream a reality, China was quietly smashing the West’s monopoly over export markets and investment finance. Africa no longer had to go cap-in-hand to the IMF for loans, agreeing to whatever self-defeating terms were on offer, but could turn to China – or indeed Libya – for investment. And if the US threatened to cut them off from their markets, China would happily buy up whatever was on offer. Western economic domination of Africa was under threat as never before.

            The US response was to increase base building, upgrade AFRICOM, and then murder Gadaffi. Hollywood hits from this period include The Hurt Locker and The Dark Knight. Meanwhile domestically Obama was giving the OK for militarizing of police departments across the country. On another front….Danny Haiphong wrote…

            What isn’t discussed often enough is how Obama has worked tirelessly to protect and fulfill the interests of the corporate healthcare system. In 2009, he collaborated with the monopoly health insurance industry and its pharmaceutical counterparts to repress the demand for single payer healthcare. The conditions at the time appeared ripe for a single payer system. Popular discontent with Republican Party rule was at its highest point. A relatively organized movement for single payer care was represented by organizations such as Healthcare Now. The Democratic Party possessed a majority in both the House and Senate.

            Obama came to power as Wall Street went into meltdown, 2008. But instead of hope and change we got almost 5 trillion dollars moving to the top 1% of the financial elite. Poverty increased every year under Obama, as did inequality. Social Network came out in 2010 and Wolf of Wall Street in 2013. Both were big hits. The message from Hollywood never changed. And part of that message is that wealth is its own justification and a symbol of virtue. Hollywood, and U.S. liberals just naturally gravitate toward the rich.

            Obama attacked Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Somalia, and Yemen. And it is perhaps that last venture that will prove to be his most significant. Arming, training, and coordinating the Saudi aggression (and now that has escalated to boots on the ground) against the helpless Yemen has resulted in the largest humanitarian catastrophe in five decades.

            The U.S. now has all but formally criminalized dissent, especially if that dissent is aimed at Israel.

            None of this is to create exact corollaries between political action and studio product. But rather that the overriding message of Hollywood in both film and TV is to validate U.S. exceptionalism. And to hedge criticism with faint token protest. But its not just Hollywood, its theatre and fiction and all the rest of the arts. The erasure of the working class is the most pronounced truth in American culture today. There are no Clifford Odets (a high school drop out) anymore; they have been replaced by a steady stream of well groomed compliant MFA grads. Mostly from elite and expensive schools. Hemingway and James Baldwin were not college grads, nor was Tennessee Williams, the son of a traveling shoe salesman. Even more recent authors such as Thomas Pynchon were college drop outs (to join the Navy), but the point is that today mass culture is carefully controlled. Dreiser was a college drop out, and Twain was a typesetters apprentice. Others like Faulkner, went to University, but also worked. In Faulkner’s case as a postman. Same profession as Henry Miller and Charles Bukowski. Stephen Crane and Hemingway worked as journalists, when that was an honorable profession.

            The decision makers in mass culture are mostly firmly entrenched in the Democratic Party ethos (witness stuff like House of Cards, Madame Secretary, or Veep). If one only gets one’s news from MSNBC or FOX or CNN then one will take away mostly pure propaganda. Rachel Maddow has a career based on craven parroting of DNC approved talking points and conclusions. Bill Maher, whose show is on HBO, is of late pimping for war. Sunday news talk shows do not invite radical voices, not ever. Michael Parenti isn’t on those shows, nor are Ajamu Baraka or Glen Ford Mike Whitney or Ed Curtin or Dan Glazebrook or Stephen Gowans. No, but there are plenty of retired generals and politicians. This is a media that exerts absolute control of message.

            The loss of the working class, of class diversity, has been a far bigger blow to the health of the culture than anything else. One might argue that culture has always been, in the modern era, a province of the bourgeoisie, and that’s true. But there is still a rather pronounced change that has taken place. But Americans are discouraged from thinking in terms of class. They see individualism and identity. Get me more women directors they cry….which would give us more versions of Zero Dark Thirty, I guess. Gender equality matters, something every single socialist country in history has emphasized. Something Chavez saw fit to write into the Bolivarian constitution on day one. Chavez, who liberal avatar Bernie Sanders dismissed as a “dead communist dictator”. Chavez, who feminist avatar Hillary Clinton worked overtime to oust from power.

            People are shocked…shocked I say…that US soldiers are killed in Niger. Darn that Donald Trump. When it is pointed out that it was Obama who sent troops there in his pivot to Africa, one is met with blank stares. The concern over U.S. soldiers dying is simply mind numbing in its hypocrisy and blinkered exceptionalism. I mean just count the numbers of dead civilians due to U.S. drone strikes from just one year. Pick any year you like.

            Under Obama, the US African Command (AFRICOM) has penetrated every African country but Zimbabwe and Eritrea. AFRICOM has locked African nations into military subservience. In 2014, the US conducted 674 military operations in Africa . According to a recent Freedom of Information Act request by Intercept, the US currently has Special Forces deployed in more than twenty African nations.

            Danny Haiphong

            People are terrified today lest they be called conspiracy theorists. No single pejorative term has exercised such disproportionate power. There is a subterranean subject position associated with this, too. A masculine identity that connects with the presentation of those accepting of the official version of things. It is ‘no nonsense, mature, and sort of tough guy’ pose. Only weak and muddled (feminine you see!) would bother to question official narratives of…well, anything. It is staggering, really, why so few ask why is it OK to assassinate people without due process? Why is it whistleblowers, truth tellers, are being locked away and shunned? Why are there 900 plus US military bases around the world. Why, given the growing poverty in the U.S. do we need an updated nuclear arsenal that will cost trillions? In fact why is the defense budget over 4 billion a day? The liberal educated class seem not to ask such questions. Let alone ask is the U.S. arming takfiri jihadists in Syria? Most of what people call conspiracy is just perfectly reasonable skepticism. Given a history that includes COINTELPRO, Operation Northwoods, Gladio, MKUltra, and Operation AJAX. This is also relevant in terms of the coming war on *fake news*. An idea put forward by Obama and now in enthusiastic Orwellian operation by Facebook, YouTube, and Google. In the U.K. Theresa May proudly announces the government SHOULD control what one can see on the internet. Censorship is pitched as protection.

            And then we come to NATO and Europe. Why does NATO even exist one might ask? I mean the USSR doesn’t exist anymore. Well, the answer has been under construction for a few years now, and that answer is the extraordinary anti Putin propaganda of the U.S. The “Russian Threat” is now an accepted trope in public discourse. Or the anti Iranian disinformation. In fact Iran is far more democratic and less a global threat (actually its NO global threat) than U.S. boon allies Israel and Saudi Arabia. Which brings us back to Yemen. The utter destruction of Yemen, poorest Arab country in the world, and now one with the largest Cholera outbreak in history, posed no threat to ANYONE. Certainly not to the United States. Are we to believe the House of Saud is worth supporting? They behead homosexuals and witches in Saudi Arabia. The leader of KSA is a 32 year old psychopath named Mohammed Bin Salman. Someone please explain the U.S. support for this country?

            Or Venezuela. The U.S. has waged various campaigns against this sovereign nation for over a decade now. A democracy. But a disobedient one. Where is the outcry? When people are going on about Harvey Weinstein, a troglodyte movie producer that literally everyone knew was a serial abuser, I wonder that the women of Venezuela seem not to count. Or of Libya, or Haiti, or Puerto Rico, or hell, the women of Houston right now. Poor women. Ah, but that is class again. Now perhaps the Weinstein affair will yield good results and some form of collective protection and maybe even unionizing will take place to limit the power of rich white men. I doubt it, but maybe. Still, given that the liberal class today applaud the idea of making it OK for women to bomb defenseless villages in Afghanistan or Iraq or Yemen, just like men, and given that most of these horrified by Weinstein were and are solidly behind Hillary Clinton and the DNC, and laud adulation on figures like Maddie Albright, it seems hard to imagine.

            David Rosen:

            Sexual abuse and violence in the U.S. is as old as the country. America’s patriarchal culture long legitimized sexual abuse and violence toward women — and children — whether conducted at the workplace, at home, a nightclub or on a deserted street. During the nation’s earliest days, the custom of sexual abuse and violence was legitimized through the notion of “chastisement.” This was a feature of Anglo-American common law that recognized the husband as master of “his” household and, thus, permitted him to subject “his” wife to corporal punishment, including rape, so long as he did not inflict permanent injury upon her. Sexual abuse was institutionalized in the rape of African and later African-American female slaves. As the legal scholar Adrienne Davis notes, “U.S. slavery compelled enslaved black women to labor in three markets – productive, reproductive, and slavery – crucial to the political economy.”

            One need only note the sexual violence that takes place in the U.S. military (See Kirby Dick’s The Invisible War). But that is not the military you see in this season’s TV shows such as SEAL Team or Valor or The Brave. The current Tom Cruise film American Made is a sort of comedy about Barry Seal who worked as a pilot for the CIA, and with various cartels in South America. Yeah, nothing funnier than squashing a socialist government like in Nicaragua. There is not a single Spanish speaking character who is not either a drunk, a sadist, or just incompetent. This stunningly racist revisionism was called “jaunty and bouncy” by the Hollywood Reporter.

            The liberal class will always side with the status quo. Always. They do not care if the status quo is fascist. And its suits them much more to lay out bromides about male abuse of women, as long as this doesn’t mean having to untangle the complexity of women in unfamiliar non tourist visited nations like Yemen or Libya or Honduras. Just like the fact that U.S. domestic police departments murdered over a thousand black men in 2015. And continue to do so, along with increasing numbers of black women. That’s just not a jaunty bouncy story, I guess. Obama has never been comfortable talking about or to black people. He did manage to scold Colin Kaepernick recently though, about the pain he, Kaepernick, might be causing. The pain of white billionaire sports team owners I guess. The Uncle Tomism of what Glen Ford called black misleadership has never been greater. And that’s another crime we can lay, largely, at the feet of Barack Obama.

            The U.S. House voted unanimously to sanction Iran and North Korea, an absurdity and a crime, and yet one that barely registered on the media Richter scale. What has Iran or North Korea ever done to hurt anyone in the United States? It is Saudi Arabia and Israel that fear a democratic nation like Iran and the influence they wield in the region. Iran is accused of fomenting instability but evidence is never given. Russia is said to control U.S. public opinion, but evidence is never given. The U.S. doesn’t even bother to really try and make claims about Venzeuela, because its just part of inherited wisdom that they are *bad*. Like Castro was bad, like Gadaffi, like Aristide, like anyone exhibiting independence. The world according to media entertainment is made up of bad guys and good guys. Mike Pompeo, head of the CIA, recently stated that his agency would become a “much more vicious agency” in fighting its enemies. Its actually hard to imagine what that might look like given CIA history. More vicious than rendition, drone killing and black site torture? Remember it was the U.S. and its School of the Americas that trained those death squads in Central America. Hollywood makes comedies about this.

            In any event nobody in Hollywood complains. Just as none of the actresses assaulted by Weinstein (and countless others) said anything lest they lose career opportunities. Just as nobody complains about the racism and demonizing of Muslims or Serbs or North Koreans or Russians lest they not get the job. Coercion is silent and a given. It is also absolute. Most actors and directors simply don’t think about it, and most know little beyond what they hear on corporate news or read in the NYTimes. But I understand. People have to eat, have to feed their families. The real problem is that power is ever more consolidated. Distribution of films is monopolized. And for most Americans, foreign policy remains a giant black hole about which they know very little. Tell someone Milosovic was actually a good guy and they will laugh at you (this still happens on the left, too, rather depressingly). Tell them Russia is not threatening the U.S. or Europe, and they will laugh at you. Try to explain what Imperialism is and means, and you get that bored look of irritation. A good rule of thumb is if the U.S. targets a country or leader, then its worth questioning the western generated propagated propaganda in mainstream media about said country or leader (think Syria, Gadaffi, Aristide, Milosovic, Iran, North Korea). The U.S. does not go after countries who welcome western capital.

            One of the things I’ve noticed about Hollywood film is the extraordinary amount of self pity from most characters. Self pity, entitlement, and sarcasm. The people who produce and make film and TV today, by and large, tacitly censor themselves. Some don’t have to, of course. But there is a general group think at work. And it extends to the way characters are written. The problems of affluent white people is the template here. Few examine the wider world, and mostly when they do it is seen as a world of threat and menace. An uncivilized place in need of guidance from the civilized white West (The Lost City of Z comes to mind, which made all the approved anti colonial notes while still creating a colonial narrative anyway.). But it is even more narrow than that. Everything resembles a studio; political discussions, even if they take place in outer space, resemble studio executives discussing opening weekend profits, or Neilson ratings. And since Hollywood itself ever more resembles Wall Street, or some corporate headquarters, that is increasingly what the world looks like. It is a profound loss of imagination. Westerns look and sound the same as melodramas set in Santa Monica or New York. Fantasy worlds resemble corporate headquarters or corporate motivational weekends. It is a world created by writers under thirty, largely, and certainly under forty. These are worlds created by people who themselves know very little of the world. They know even less about having to work for a living. The entire universe of film is absent any class awareness. History is simplified the better to appeal to a wider audience. Everything feels and sounds the same. And it is stultifying. There are films and TV from Europe, even from the U.K. that have merit, have heterogeneous sensibilities, but not from Hollywood. Like White House press conferences, the idea is to stay on message. Black characters sound white (or are given caricature *black* dialect and dialogue), brown characters sound white (or are given caricature barrio dialects), and Muslims sound dangerous and devious. Asians seem lifted from Fu Manchu serials or Charlie Chan. Strange when I hear people make fun of ethnic cliches from the 1940s, because it is really no different today (and check the recent TV incarnation of the venerable Star Trek franchise where the Klingon villains are very dark, live in dark spaceships and utter a guttural invented language all of which suggests something oddly racist and like nothing so much as colonial portraits of savages from darkest Africa).

            Fixation on Trump’s crimes distracts from a system in which crime is a built-in factor. Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Trump. They are only the figureheads that carry water for the system. And the system is the property of the ruling class. People vote as if it crucially matters, and they vote for who they like. Not for policy because mostly they have no idea of policy. Trump is an obvious target, but that’s the problem in a sense. America didn’t become racist and violent overnight. The forces of social unrest have been building for decades. Trump was inevitable. His lack of basic literacy mirrors the nation he nominally heads, and his vulgarity mirrors the vulgarity of America, as does his misogyny and racism. The same advisors are in place and if Hillary had won, those openly fascist thugs applauding Trump would still be committing hate crimes. Has Trump empowered them? To a degree, yes. But an HRC win would likely have provided motivation of a different sort and the same violence would be taking place. You cannot sustain, as a country, this level of inequality. And as more super hurricanes descend on us, as the bio-sphere collapses, none of this may end up mattering. There is something disturbing, actually, about the relentless attacks on Trump. Its like beating up a special needs kid. Where was this hatred and outrage before? I mean Trump’s America, a term I hear a lot, is just America. We have over 2 million people in prison in the U.S. Far and away leaders in the world. Infant mortality however puts the U.S. between 26th and 51st, depending on who is counting. There is no Universal Heath Care, no union protection for workers, no maternity leave, no free education. What is there to feel so special about, exactly? Trump was very popular on his moronic reality TV show. I’m guessing more than few now outraged by this buffoonish reactionary watched that show. I mean it did last fifteen years I believe. Who did they think he was? There is nothing wrong with identifying the crimes of Trump’s administration. But there is something deeply wrong in not recognizing it as a continuation of prevailing policy. Yes, it is worse in many areas. The environment for one. But then again, 47% of the world’s pollution is caused by the military. And the U.S. has a military bigger than the next ten largest militaries in the world. And every president since the first Bush has increased the military budget. The nightmare did not begin with the swearing in of Donald Trump. But nobody likes him. They liked Obama. And that is why he was able to do so much harm. Trump is dangerous not because of what he thinks (he mostly doesn’t) but because of his ignorance and weakness (and fear). And that weakness generated his welcoming hand to the Pentagon. Foreign policy is really in the hands of a man nicknamed ‘Mad Dog’. One cannot blame this catastrophic situation on one man. This is the creation of American history.

            More articles by:JOHN STEPPLING

            John Steppling is an original founding member of the Padua Hills Playwrights Festival, a two-time NEA recipient, Rockefeller Fellow in theatre, and PEN-West winner for playwriting. Plays produced in LA, NYC, SF, Louisville, and at universities across the US, as well in Warsaw, Lodz, Paris, London and Krakow. Taught screenwriting and curated the cinematheque for five years at the Polish National Film School in Lodz, Poland. A collection of plays, Sea of Cortez & Other Plays was published in 1999, and his book on aesthetics, Aesthetic Resistance and Dis-Interest was published this year by Mimesis International.

          • Hodei

            I have read all the large commentary, is incredible! Thanks fro the information about de disaster od the capitalism, the opression of the workers classess in the world and especially in the Unites States, the violence against de womnes and the racist politics of the governments. In conclusión, the corporations and financial olygarchy dominates de sistem with the power of the mass medias, policy, militaries, liberal education and religious

          • AlexanderAmproz

            You are welcome

      • dutchnational

        Seems you for forget it was USSR invading Afghanistan in 1979, murdering the communist president of that time.

        • Hodei

          I am not say anithng about URSS, because the Soviet Union have a state capitalism policy, no a real marxist, because the worked class didnt have the control of the economy and didnt adminístrate the political system, like a socialist state.
          In the case of Afganistan, the URSS invade the country, but they dont create and finance the Muyahiddin terrorist tropos, like USA

          • You an idiot, without USA , Afghanistan would have been part of a greater Russia

          • Gary Sellars

            You’re a fuckwit. The USSR was fighting against Islamic fundamentalism, both Sunni (supported by US/Saudi) and Shia (Iran) who opposed the socialist government introducing reforms and threatening their medieval society values.

            Of course, morons like you have no fucking idea of the actual history of the conflict and simply slurp up the BS propaganda from your government. After all, its easier to swallow candy-coated self-inflating platitudes instead of confronting the uncomfortable truth. ie that the US co-operated with militant Islamists/terrorists to undermine a secular Afghan government simply to achieve geopolitical objectives. Sounds familiar (Libya & Syria)? The US took the cork out of the genies bottle and breathed life into Islamic militancy and created the predecessor of AQ just to give the Ruskies a bloody nose, and now the world must suffer as a result.

            Typical Washington. No fucking idea what it is really doing… like a bunch of spiteful children.

          • Hey Gary, or should I call you Hasan? You might be partly right but you could have reduced all the bla bla you wrote into a few lines…Afghanistan was invaded, USA and USSR fought a proxy war, USA won, USSR ran with their tails between their legs USSR broke up. Have you ever heard the saying the enemy of my enemy is my friend? Relax and go drink cool aid, then fix your darn turban because you are so fool is shit!

          • Gary Sellars

            Moron, I’m an Aussie… go so blow it out yer arse you friggin clown.

          • Aussie my behind, go fuck yourself Muslim lover!

          • Rex drabble

            Very childish Peter,are you proud of making a fool of yourself?

          • The children here are you idiots bashing just Israel while you turn a blind eye to the atrocities committed world over by Iran, North Korea, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Pakistan, Yemen, are people killed in this country not human? Pakistan sentences non Muslims to death, if this happens in Israel the UN would be screaming like a little bitch.

            My point is why so much hypocrisy when it comes to Israel, a state that just wants to exist right in the midst of hostile blood-sucking neighbors, sometimes the only message haters get is FORCE!

          • Rex drabble

            Great comment Gary glad you can see the truth.America is the plague of our world.

          • Rex drabble

            Fentanyl is 80-100 times stronger than morphine.Once you are on it you are fucked.Very heavily restricted here in Aussie for that very reason.In fact next year you cannot get ANY opiod based drugs without prescription and even that is much harder.Thank fully our govt is on the ball and wants to stop lives from being destroyed,unlike the US govt that just loves making money no matter who they hurt in the process.

          • Brother Ma

            So what?

          • It means brother Mohammed you would have been speaking Russian and all Afghanis would have been under the foot of comrade Putin which isn’t a bad idea compared to an Afghanistan overrun with terrorist!

          • AlexanderAmproz

            Before WW2, the World Traditional “Lingua Franca”
            was French, it didn’t disturb me.
            If the German won WW2 it could have been German,
            it didn’t disturb me.
            Without the Anglo-American Organizing WW2,
            Europe wouldn’t have had WW2, Leipzig and Dresden
            Cultural treasure Cities wouldn’t have been victims
            of War Criminals for Blood “Pleasure”…
            Do we in Europe will have had to speak German
            the dominant Culture, why not, I have more admiration
            for Beethoven or Goethe and al, than the NeoColonial
            Cow-Boys masses Murders Trashy Pilfering Empire.
            I love too the Asian Culture better than the Toxic
            Chewing-Gum, Coca-Cola and Junk-Food poisoning
            the US and the World Citizen…
            http://www.voltairenet.org/article187508.html

            Anglo-American Money Owners Organized World War II

            by Valentin Katasonov

            To mark the 70th anniversary of the Victory against Nazism, we publish a study of Valentin Katasonov on financing of the NSDAP and the rearmament of the Third Reich. The author deals with new documents that confirm the organization of the Second World War by US and UK Bankers, covered by President Franklin Roosevelt and Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, in the hope of destroying the USSR. This study raises new questions that will be addressed in a future article.

            Hjalmar Schacht (left), Hitler’s finance minister, with his close friend Montagu Norman, Governor of the Bank of England from 1920 to 1944. According to documents reveled by the Bank of England in 2012, he Czechoslovak gold was held in London in a sub-account in the name of the Bank for International Settlements, the Basel-based bank for central banks. When the Nazis marched into Prague in March 1939 they immediately sent armed soldiers to the offices of the National Bank. The Czech directors were ordered, on pain of death, to send two transfer requests. The first instructed the BIS to transfer 23.1 metric tons of gold from the Czechoslovak BIS account, held at the Bank of England, to the Reichsbank BIS account, also held at Threadneedle Street. The second order instructed the Bank of England to transfer almost 27 metric tons of gold held in the National Bank of Czechoslovakia’s own name to the BIS’s gold account at the Bank of England.

            The war was not unleashed by frenzied Fuhrer who happened to be ruling Germany at the time. WWII is a project created by world oligarchy or Anglo-American “money owners”. Using such instruments as the US Federal Reserve System and the Bank of England they started to prepare for the next world conflict of global scale right after WWI. The USSR was the target.

            The Dawes and Young Plans, the creation of Bank of International Settlements (BIS), the Germany’s suspension of reparations payments it had to pay according to Paris Peace Treaty and the acquiescence of Russia’s former allies in this decision, large-scale foreign investments into the economy of Third Reich, the militarization of German economy and the breaches of Paris Treaty provisions – they all were important milestones on the way of preparing the war.

            There were key figures behind the plot: the Rockefellers, the Morgans, Lord Montagu Norman (the Governor of the Bank of England), Hjalmar Schacht (President of the Reichsbank and Minister of Economics in the Hitler’s government).The strategic plan of Rockefellers and Morgans was to subjugate Europe economically, saturate Germany with foreign investments and credits and make it deliver a crushing blow against the Soviet Russia so that it would be returned into the world capitalist system as a colony.

            Montagu Norman (1871 – 1950) played an important role of go-between to keep up a dialogue between American financial circles and Germany’s business leaders. Hjalmar Schacht organized the revival of Germany’s defense sector of economy. The operation conducted by “money owners” was covered up by such politicians as Franklin Roosevelt, Neville Chamberlain and Winston Churchill. In Germany the plans were carried out by Hitler and Hjalmar Schacht. Some historians say Hjalmar Schacht played a more important role than Hitler. Simply Schacht kept away from spotlight.

            The Dawes Plan was an attempt following World War I for the Triple Entente to compromise and collect war reparations debt from Germany. The Dawes Plan (as proposed by the Dawes Committee, chaired by Charles G. Dawes) was an attempt in 1924 to solve the reparations problem, which had bedeviled international politics following World War I and the Treaty of Versailles (France was reluctant to accept it got over 50% of reparations). In 1924-1929 Germany got $2, 5 billion from the United States and $ 1, 5 billion from Great Britain, according to Dawes Plan. In today’s prices the sum is huge, it is equal to $1 trillion of US dollars. Hjalmar Schacht played an active role in the implementation of Dawes Plan. In 1929 he summed up the results, saying that in 5 years Germany got more foreign loans that the United States in the 40 years preceding WWI. As a result, in 1929 Germany became the world’s second largest industrial nation leaving Great Britain behind.

            In the 1930s the process of feeding Germany with investments and credits continued. The Young Plan was a program for settling German reparations debts after World War I written in 1929 and formally adopted in 1930. It was presented by the committee headed (1929–30) by American industrialist Owen D. Young, creator and ex-first chairman of Radio Corporation of America (RCA), who, at the time, concurrently served at board of trustees of Rockefeller Foundation, and also had been one of representatives involved in previous war reparations restructuring arrangement – Dawes Plan of 1924. According to the plan, the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) was created in 1930 to make Germany pay reparations to victors. In reality the money flows went in quite a different direction – from the United States and Great Britain to Germany. The majority of strategically important German companies belonged to American capital or were partly under its control. Some of them belonged to British investors. German oil refinery and coal liquefaction sectors of economy belonged to Standard Oil (the Rockefellers). FarbenindustrieAG chemical industry major wasmoved under the control of the Morgan Group. 40% of telephone network and 30% of Focke Wulf shares belonged to American ITT. Radio and AEG, Siemens, Osram electrical industry majors moved under the control of American General Electric. ITT and General Electric were part of the Morgan’s empire. At least 100% of the Volkswagen shares belonged to American Ford. By the time Hitler came to power the US financial capital practically controlled all strategically important sectors of German industry: oil refining, synthetic fuel production, chemistry, car building, aviation, electrical engineering, radio industry, and a large part of machine-building (totally 278 companies). The leading German banks – Deutsche Bank, Dresdner Bank, Donat Bank and some others – were under US control.

            ***

            On January 30, 1933 Hitler was named the Chancellor of Germany. Before that his candidacy had been thoroughly studied by American bankers. HjalmarSchacht went to the United States in the autumn of 1930 to discuss the nomination with American colleagues. The Hitler’s appointment was finally approved at a secret meeting of financiers in the United States. He spent the whole 1932 trying to convince the German bankers that Hitler was the right person for the position. He achieved the goal. In mid-November 1932 17 German largest bankers and industrialists sent a letter to President Hindenburg expressing their demand to make Hitler the Chancellor of Germany. The last working meeting of German financiers before the election was held on January 4, 1933 in Kölnat the home of banker Kurt von Schröder. After that the National Socialist Party came to power. As a result, the financial and economic ties of Germany with Anglo-Saxons elevated to a higher level.

            Hitler immediately made an announcement that he refused to pay postwar reparations. It put into doubt the ability of England and France to pay off WWI debts to the United States. Washington did not object to the Hitler’s announcement. In May 1933 Hjalmar Schacht paid another visit to the United States. There he met with President Franklin Roosevelt and big bankers to reach a $1 billion credit deal.In June the same year Hjalmar Schacht visited London to hold talks with Montagu Norman. It all went down smoothly. The British agreed to grant a $2 billion loan. The British offered no objections related to the Germany’s decision to suspend debt payments.

            Some historians say the American and British bankers were pliant because by 1932 the Soviet Union had fulfilled the 5-year economic development plan to make it achieve new heights as an industrial power. A few thousand enterprises were built, especially in the sector of heavy industry. The dependence of USSR on import of engineering production has greatly dwindled. The chances to strangle the Soviet Union economically were practically reduced to zero. They decided to rely on war and launched the runaway militarization of Germany.

            It was easy for Germany to get American credits. By and large, Hitler came to power in his country at the same time as Franklin Roosevelt took office in the United States. The very same bankers who supported Hitler in 1931 supported Roosevelt at the presidential election. The newly elect President could not but endorse large credits to Germany. By the way, many noticed that there was a big similarity between the Roosevelt’s “New Deal Policy” and the economic policy of the German Third Reich. No wonder. The very same people worked out and consulted the both governments at the time. They mainly represented US financial circles.

            The Roosevelt’s New Deal soon started to stumble on the way. In 1937 America plunged into the quagmire of economic crisis. In 1939 the US economy operated at 33% of its industrial capacity (it was 19% in the heat of the 1929-1933 crisis).

            Rexford G. Tugwell, an economist who became part of Franklin Roosevelt’s first “Brain, a group of Columbia University academics who helped develop policy recommendations leading up to Roosevelt’s New Deal,wrote that in 1939 the government failed to reach any success.There was an open seatill the day Hitler invaded Poland.Only the mighty wind of war could dissipate the fog. Any other measures Roosevelt could take were doomed to failure. [1] Only the world war could save the US capitalism. In 1939 the money owners used all leverage at their disposal to put pressure of Hitler and make him unleash a big war in the east.

            ***

            The Bank of International Settlements (BIS) played an important role during the Second World War. It was created as an outpost of American interests in Europe and a link between Anglo-American and German businesses, a kind of offshore zone for cosmopolitan capital providing a shelter from political processes, wars, sanctions and other things. The Bank was created as a public commercial entity, it’s immunity from government interference and such things as taxes collection was guaranteed by international agreement signed in the Hague in 1930.

            The bankers of Federal Reserve Bank of New York, who were close to the Morgans, Montagu Norman, the Governor of the Bank of England, German financiers: Hjalmar Schacht (President of the Reichsbank and Minister of Economics in the Hitler’s government), Walther Funk (who later replaced Hjalmar Schacht as President of the Reichsbank) and EmilPuhl – all of them played an important role in the efforts to establish the Bank. The central banks of Great Britain, France, Italy, Germany, Belgium and some private banks were among the founders. The Federal Bank of New York did its best to establish the BIS, but it was not listed as a founder. The US was represented by the private First National Bank of New York, J.P. Morgan and Company, the First National Bank of Chicago – all parts of the Morgan’s empire. Japan was also represented by private banks. In 1931-1932 19 European central banks joined the Bank of International Settlements. Gates W. McGarrah, a banker of Rockefeller’s clan, was the first BIS chairman of the board. He was replaced by Leon Fraser, who represented the clan of Morgans. US citizen Thomas H. McKittrick was President of the Bankduring the war years.

            A lot has already been written about the BIS activities serving the interests of Third Reich. The Bank was involved in deals with different countries, including those Germany was at war with. Ever since Pearl Harbor the Bank of International Settlements has been a correspondent bank for the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. It was under Nazi control during the war years, no matter American Thomas Huntington McKittrick was the Bank’s President. Soldiers were dying on the battlefields while the leadership of BIS held meetings in Basel with the bankers of Germany, Japan, Italy, Belgium, Great Britain and the United States. There, in the Swiss offshore zone, it was all peaceful, the representatives of belligerents quietly worked in the atmosphere of mutual understanding.

            Switzerland became the place where gold seized by Germany in different corners of Europe was transported to for storage. In the March of 1938, when Hitler captured Vienna, part of Austrian gold was transferred to BIS vaults. The same thing happened with the gold of Czech National Bank (48 million USD). As the war started, the flows of gold poured into the Bank of International Settlements. Germany got it from concentration camps and as a result of plundering the wealth of occupied countries (including whatever belonged to civilians: jewels, gold crowns, cigarette cases, utensils…). It was called the Nazi Gold. The metal was processed into ingots to be stored in the Bank of International Settlements, Switzerland, or outside Europe. Charles Higham in his Trading With The Enemy: An Expose of The Nazi-American Money Plot 1933-1949 wrote that during the war Nazi transferred $378 million into the accounts of Bank of International Settlements.

            A few words about the Czech gold. The details surfaced when after the Bank of England’s archives were declassified in 2012. [2] In the March of 1939 Germany captured Prague. Nazi demanded $48 million of national gold reserves. They were told that the sum had already been transferred to the Bank of International Settlements. Later it became known that the gold was transferred from Basel to the vaults of Bank of England. Upon the command from Berlin the gold was transferred to the ReichsbankBIS account. Then the Bank of England was involved in transactions done upon the orders of Reichsbank given to the Bank of International settlements. The commands were retransmitted to London. There was collusion between German Reichsbank, the Bank of International Settlements and the Bank of England. In 1939 a scandal broke out in Great Britain because the Bank of England executed the transactions with Czech gold upon the commands coming from Berlin and Basel, not the Czech government. For instance, in the June of 1939, three months before the war between Great Britain and Germany started, the Bank of England helped Germans to get into their accounts the amount of gold equal to 440 thousand pounds sterling and transfer some gold to New York (Germany was sure that in case of German intervention into Poland the United States would not declare war).

            The illegal transactions with Czech gold were implemented with tacit approval of the government of Great Britain which was aware of what was going on. Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, Chancellor of the Exchequer Sir John Simon and other top officials did their best to hide the truth, including outright lies (the gold was returned to the lawful owner or had never been transferred to Reichsbank). The recently declassified materials of Bank of England reveal the truth and show that the government officials lied to cover up themselves and the activities of the Bank of England and the Bank of International Settlements. It was easy to coordinate the joint criminal activities because Montagu Norman, the head of Bank of England, served as the chairman of the board of Bank of International Settlements. He never made secret of his sympathy for fascists.

            The Bretton Woods Conference, formally known as the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference, was the gathering of 730 delegates from all 44 allied nations at the Mount Washington Hotel situated in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, the United States, to regulate the international monetary and financial order after the conclusion of World War II. The conference was held from 1 to 22 July 1944. All of a sudden the issue of the Bank of International Settlements hit the agenda. It was reported that the bank collaborated with fascist Germany. Leaving many details aside, I’d only mention that with great difficulty (some US delegates opposed the motion) the delegates reached an agreement to close the BIS. The decision of international conference has never been enacted. All the discreditable information related to the BIS wartime activities was classified. Today it helps to falsify the history of the Second World War.

            Finally, a few words about Hjalmar Schacht (1877-1970) who served as President of the Reichsbank and Minister of Economics in the fascist Germany’s government. He was a key figure controlling the economic machine of Third Reich, an extraordinary and plenipotentiaryambassador representing Anglo-American capital in Germany. In 1945 Schacht was tried at Nuremberg to be acquitted on October 1, 1946. He got away with murder. The same way it happened to Hitler. For some unexplained reasons he was not in the 1945 leading wartime criminals list. More to it, Schacht returned to his profession like if nothing happened and founded Schacht GmbH in Düsseldorf. This detail may go unnoticed, though it serves as another testimony to the fact that Anglo-American “money owners” and their plenipotentiary representatives in Germany prepared and, to some extent, influenced the outcome of the Second World War. The “money owners” want to rewrite the history of the war and change its results.

            Valentin Katasonov

            Source

            Strategic Culture Foundation (Russia)

            [1] P.Tugwell, The Democratic Roosevelt, A Biography of Franklin D. Roosevelt, New York, 1957, p 477.

            [2] http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/arch

          • AlexanderAmproz

            To make it short, in case you know to read, I will
            advise you Albert MacCoy or Noam Chomsky,
            Robert Fisk about Muslims is Good too !

            http://www.voltairenet.org/article177063.html
            The USA’s decades long warfare against China

            by Robert S. Rodvik

            In the first part of his study of the low-intensity warfare carried out by the United States against communist China since the Cold War, Robert S. Rodvik focuses on the U.S. collaboration with the nationalist government of Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek. As a rabid anti-communist, Washington knew it could count on the Generalissimo to be more preoccupied with anti-Communist extermination campaigns than with resisting the Japanese invaders, and complicitly turned a blind eye to Chiang’s massacres and unbridled corruption.

            Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek (L) appointed Allied Commander-in-Chief in the China theater in 1942, with his very influential wife, and U.S. General Joseph Stilwell (R) who served as Chiang’s Chief of Staff, and at the same time commanded US forces in the China Burma India Theater.

            For as long as I can remember the US has been waging an undeclared war against China, the latter very lucky to have avoided being nuked when it joined North Korea in its battle against the Empire. Considering that millions of North Koreans were wiped out by the bombing, killing, murdering giant, its land devastated by the marauding monster, the mere fact that the Joint Chiefs were unable to get the OK to nuke China seems a rare non-happening of great importance. This doesn’t mean, however, that the US hasn’t continued its covert wars to actually destroy communist China over the years. So don’t be surprised when that scenario actually comes into play; sooner, I believe, rather than later.

            At the end of WWII writes William Blum, “The ink on the Japanese surrender treaty was hardly dry when the United States began to use the Japanese soldiers still in China alongside American troops in a joint effort against the Chinese communists.” [1]

            Blum was referring to US collaboration with Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek and his Kuomintang (KMT) nationalist army and their plans to repel Mao Tse-Tung’s communist soldiers, at war with the rampantly corrupt KMT. Chiang’s nationalist army hoarded US aid monies, arms and material to such a degree that President Truman wrote that “the Chiangs, the Kungs and the Soongs (were) all thieves” having stolen some $750 million dollars of US funds. [2]

            To understand the role of the Generalissimo and the KMT in the long, tortured history of modern China we need to go back in time and examine Chiang’s monstrous role in the country’s development.

            Dr. Sun Yat-sen was the respected leader of modern China and the early leader of the KMT. His death in 1924 led to a scramble for power, which, in turn, led to the head of the Green Gang triad, Big Eared Tu (Tu Yueh-sheng) succeeding Sun as leader. Tu was the undeniable head of opium trafficking in China and also the head of worker suppression for the Chinese elites and their foreign counterparts in the International Settlement who found labour turmoil as anathema to profit. In 1925 worker and student unrest was such that police from the International Settlement were called in and a British detachment “fired into the crowd killing twelve workers and wounding fifty others. This ‘May 30th Incident’ precipitated strikes, boycotts, and demonstations,” [resulting in the further killing of fifty-two protestors in Canton] murdered by “French and British machine gunners.” [3] Big Eared Tu and his close drug trafficking sidekick Chiang Kai-shek were on their way to controlling all of China.

            In February 1927 yet another worker’s strike took place in Shanghai and along with them student supporters were passing out leaflets on city streets. As Sterling Seagrave informs us in his valuable book The Soong Dynasty, “Police and soldiers fell upon them, dragging them into the middle of streets and beheading them on the spot. In the presumed sanctuary of the International Settlement and French Concession, British, American and French police arrested students handing out leaflets, and expelled them from the barricades into the waiting arms of warlord soldiers—who immediately beheaded them. Two hundred were decapitated that day…In an act of calculated treachery, Chiang ordered his army vanguard [alleged rescuers] to stop twenty-five miles outside Shanghai…The man whose troops carried out these beheadings, Li Pao-chang, was rewarded by Chiang a few weeks later with the command of the Eighth Nationalist Army.” [4]

            By now the Western leaders of the International Settlement were closely aligned with Big Eared Tu and the Green Gang with the French Concession becoming the heart of China’s opium and heroin trade-all of which was controlled by Big-eared Tu, Chiang, and the Green Gang. As Seagrave writes, “Each month Big-eared Tu was realizing profits of $6,500,000 and passing $150,000 of this on to French government officials and concession police to guarantee a happy working relationship between the Concessionaires and the Green Gang.” [5] It also helped that the chief of detectives of the narcotics police was Green Gang honcho Pockmarked Huang (Huang Chih-jung). By now Chiang was the undisputed leader of the drug-dealing killer triad, as ruthless as any hoodlum in written history. As Seagrave informs us, “Chiang’s police record in the British-administered International Settlement grew over the years to include murder, extortion, numerous armed robberies, and assorted other crimes. He was indicted on all the listed charges, but was never brought to trial, or jailed.” [6]
            Etc…
            http://www.voltairenet.org/article177063.html

          • Your tin foil hat needs to be adjusted mate!

          • AlexanderAmproz

            Uneducated Cretins are cheap and Dangerous

          • I agree, go get yourself educated and this muslim lovers condemning Israel but all turn blind eyes to the death and destruction in Yemen, Syria, Iraq. When Israel defends herself Arabs and some ignorant dumb westerns who think Muslims love them blame Israel

          • Tudor Miron

            Peter, you may spread BS here all you want. Problem is that most know who’s behind deaths in Syria, Iraq and Lebanon. US/UK are a bit tentative (while keeping support of the same Al Queda that killed them en mass 9/11) but Israel doesn’t even bother to hide (they think that goyim are that stupid and would not check zio media) http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Report-ISIS-Israel-temporary-allies-against-Iran-515358
            Your real problem is that Goyim know :) https://youtu.be/WVorwdIFoD8

          • AlexanderAmproz

            I am not ready to quibble with mainstream
            medias excrement extract.

            But should know, since the early eighties,
            the KSA government can’t move the smallest
            finger without US/Zionist orders, or invaded !

            Weapons used to massacre Yemenis are Westerners.
            If you want correct infos, they have to be taken
            at the source, others than Medias done to manipulate
            ignorants for Wars and money.
            If you don’t have the luck to know high rank
            Ambassadors or rulers from many different horizon,
            there is tons of book written by reliable Historians
            and thinkers, ignored by Dumb Donkeys herd masses.

            Your partisanship attitude is pitiful and primitive !
            This said, I am just a casual World Citizen used
            since 50 years to meet any kind of Peoples from
            the top to the poorest of the poor in about 60 Countries
            World wide, Israel, US, Russia and China included…

            I wouldn’t answer to you anymore but incite you to read
            book choices to learn to think by yourself…
            By by and good luck !
            PS: if Israel is your obsession, look for a Doctor
            ==================================
            This is quiet good
            http://www.voltairenet.org/article175898.html

            MADE BY THE USA

            Manufacturing “Failed States”

            by Edward S. Herman

            The United States has mastered the art of undermining its targets by fomenting domestic terrorism, and then laying the responsibility on them for the crimes sponsored by Washington itself. This method affords it the possibility both to justify military intervention and to carry it out without risk. The well-oiled scheme described here by Edward S. Herman is now being applied in Syria.

            An Al-Qaeda operative who arrived in Syria with Western officials. Why change a recipe that works?

            During the Vietnam War, a sign over one of the U.S. army bases read “Killing Is Our Business, and Business Is Good.” Well, it was a very good business in Vietnam (and Cambodia, Laos, and Korea as well), the number of civilian deaths running into the millions. And it has been quite respectable in the years after Vietnam. The killings have been carried out both directly and via proxies on every continent, as U.S. “national security” has required bases, garrisons, assassinations, invasions, bombing wars, and the sponsorship of killer regimes, real terror networks, and programs everywhere in response to terrorist threats and challenges to the “pitiful giant.” Jan Knippers Black pointed out years ago in her great book [1] that “national security” is a wonderfully elastic concept, expanding in accord with “what a nation, class or institution…thinks it should have,” with the result that it is those “whose wealth and power would appear to make them most secure who are, in fact, most paranoid, and who, by their frenetic attempts to ensure their security, bring on their own destruction.” (She was addressing the 1960s Brazilian threat of social democracy and its termination by a U.S.-supported counter-revolution and military dictatorship.) Add to this the search by the vested interests of the military-industrial-complex for missions to justify budget increases, and the mainstream media’s full cooperation in this search, and we have a frightening reality.

            In reality, the fake-paranoid giant has had to struggle valiantly to produce more or less credible threats, especially with the fall of the “Evil Empire,” which this country had long been allegedly “containing.” Thank goodness that after relatively brief spurts of attention to narco-terrorism and then Saddam’s threatening weapons of mass destruction, Islamic terrorism came virtually out of nowhere to provide a successor threat, no doubt produced by hostility to U.S. freedoms and the Islamic world’s unwillingness to allow Israel to find a negotiating partner and peaceably settle any disputes with the Palestinians.

            But in addition to maintaining the killing and associated arms business at a high level, the United States has become a large-scale manufacturer of failed states. By a failed state I mean one that has been crushed militarily or rendered unmanageable by political and/or economic destabilization and a resultant chaos and is unable (or is not permitted) for long periods to recover and take care of its citizens’ needs. Of course, the United States has been such a manufacturer for a long time, as in the cases of Haiti, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala and those Indochinese states where killing was so good. But we have seen a dramatic resurgence in more recent times, some of it more or less peaceful, as in the cases of post-Soviet Russia and several of the Eastern European states, where income declines and sharply increased mortality rates resulted from “shock therapy” and Western-assisted but partly locally organized and supported elite semi-legal grand larceny (i.e., privatization under exceptionally corrupt conditions).

            But there has been a fresh stream of failed states brought about by U.S. and NATO “humanitarian intervention” and regime change, carried out more aggressively in the wake of the death of the Soviet Union (and thus the end of an important if limited force of “containment”). Humanitarian intervention in Yugoslavia has been a model, with Bosnia, Serbia and Kosovo turned into failed states, several other weaklings broken out, all of them Western clients or supplicants, plus a huge U.S. military base in Kosovo, with this package replacing one formerly independent social democratic state. This demonstration of the merits of imperial intervention set the stage for further failed-state manufacturing efforts in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Iraq, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Libya, with a similar program well advanced today in Syria and one obviously in process for some years in the Free World’s treatment of a threatening Iran, following its happy relationship with the Western-imposed Shah dictatorship.

            These manufactured failures have often had common features that show them to be a product of imperial policy and the projection of imperial power. One frequent feature is the rise and/or recognition of ethnic group rebels who claim victimhood, fight their government with terroristic acts, sometimes designed to provoke a violent government response, and who regularly appeal to the imperial powers to come to their aid. Sometimes foreign mercenaries are imported to aid the rebels, and both the indigenous rebels and mercenaries are often armed, trained and given logistical support by the imperial powers. The imperial powers encourage these rebel efforts as they find them useful to justify destabilizing, bombing, and eventually overthrowing the target regime.

            This process was evident throughout the period of the dismantlement of Yugoslavia and creation of the resultant set of failed states. The NATO powers wanted Yugoslavia taken apart and the Republic of Serbia, its largest and most independent component, crushed. They encouraged nationalist elements within the other Republics to rebel, and all of these recognized that NATO would support and eventually go to war for them. This made for prolonged warfare and ethnic cleansing, but did eventually succeed in the destruction of Yugoslavia and creation of the residual failed states [2]. Amusingly, Al Qaeda elements and mercenaries were imported into both Bosnia and Kosovo to help fight the target Republic (Serbia), with the knowledge and cooperation of the Clinton administration, as well as Iran [3]. Al Qaeda was also one of the constituents of the freedom fighters engaged in the Libyan campaign, and is now admitted even if a little belatedly in the New York Times to be a factor in the Syria regime-change program [4]. And, of course, it was a centerpiece in the regime change in Afghanistan and basis of the “blowback” of 9/11 (Bin Laden having been an important Saudi-US.-sponsored rebel, subsequently abandoned by those sponsors, and later attacking, demonized, and killed by them).

            These programs always involve serious “atrocities management,” whereby the government under attack is accused of major acts of violence against the rebels and their supporters, and is by this process effectively demonized and set up for more massive intervention. This was very important in the Yugoslav breakup wars, and possibly even more so in Libya and Syria. The process is greatly helped by the mobilization of international agencies, which participate in the demonization by denouncing the atrocities and sometimes indicting and prosecuting the targeted villains. In the case of Yugoslavia, the UN-established International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) worked hand-in-glove with the NATO powers in setting up the Serb leadership for prosecution and justifying any action the US and NATO wanted to take. In a beautiful illustration of the process, the ICTY prosecutor indicted Milosevic in May 1999 just as NATO turned to deliberately bombing Serb civilian facilities to hasten Serbian surrender, although these were war crimes and carried out under a UN Charter violation. But they diverted world attention from the unpleasant and illegal NATO behavior to the charges against the demonized Milosevic.

            Similarly, with NATO eager to attack Libya, the prosecutor at the International Criminal Court quickly indicted Muammar Gaddafi without even having conducted any independent investigation, and with an established prosecutor record of never having indicted anybody except Africans who were not Western clients. This kind of “juridical management” is invaluable to the imperial powers and feeds well into the advance of regime change and the manufacture of failed states.

            There are also purportedly independent human rights groups and “democracy promotion” entities like Human Rights Watch, the International Crisis Group, and the Open Society Institute that regularly get on the imperial bandwagon by featuring the violence of the targeted regime and its leaders. This also feeds into the mainstream media, the entire set providing the moral environment for more aggressive intervention on behalf of the victims.

            This is helped still further by the fact that the atrocity claims and pictures of grieving widows and refugees, the seemingly compelling evidence on atrocities, and an establishment consensus on the “responsibility to protect” the victim populations, also affect liberal and left elements in the West, causing some to join the mainstream throng in denouncing the targeted regime and demanding humanitarian intervention, and many others to lapse into silence because of confusion and an unwillingness to be accused of “supporting the dictators.” The argument of the interventionists is that while we may seem to be supporting an expanding imperialism, exceptions must be made where exceptionally bad things are happening and the home public is aroused and wants action, but we may show our progressive credentials by trying to micro-manage and contain the imperial attack, as in insisting on adherence to a no-fly zone intervention in Libya [5]

            There is a good case to be made that the United States itself is a failed or failing state. It obviously has not been crushed militarily by any foreign power, but its underlying population has been hugely damaged by its own permanent war system. In this case the military elite, with its contractor, banker, political, media and intellectual allies has greatly enlarged poverty and mass distress, shriveled the public services, and impoverished the country, making it impossible for the hamstrung and compromised leadership to properly service its ordinary citizens, despite steadily rising per capita productivity and GDP. The surpluses are drained into the war system and the consumption and ownership of a small minority, who, in what Steven Pinker in The Better Angels of Our Nature calls the era of “recivilization,” are aggressively striving to go beyond mere surplus monopolization to transfers from the incomes, wealth and public claims of the great (and struggling) majority. As a failed state as well as in other ways the United States is surely an exceptional nation!

            Edward S. Herman

            http://dissidentvoice.org/2012/09/m

            [1] United States Penetration of Brazil, by Jan Knippers Black, Pennsylvania University Press, 1977, 313 pages.

            [2] See “The Dismantling of Yugoslavia”, by Edward S. Herman and David Peterson, Monthly Review, October 2007.

            [3] See John Schindler’s Unholy Terror, which presses this theme very effectively, and is thereby unreviewable, except in Z Magazine! See my “Safari Journalism: Schindler’s Unholy Terror versus the Sarajevo Safari’s Mythical Multi-Ethnic Project,” Z Magazine, April 2008)

            [4] Rod Nordland, “Al Qaeda Taking Deadly New Role in Syria Conflict,” New York Times, July 24, 2012.

            [5] See Gilbert Achcar, “A legitimate and necessary debate from an anti-imperialist perspective,” ZNet, March 25, 2011; and my reply in “Gilbert Achcar’s Defense of Humanitarian Intervention,” MRZine, April 8, 2011, which refers to the “imperialist fine-tuning left.”).

            Edward S. Herman

            Edward S. Herman Edward S. Herman is professor emeritus of finance at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania and has written extensively on economics, political economy, and the media. Among his books are Corporate Control, Corporate Power (Cambridge University Press, 1981), The Real Terror Network (South End Press, 1982), and, with Noam Chomsky, The Political Economy of Human Rights (South End Press, 1979), and Manufacturing Consent (Pantheon, 2002).

            “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P): An Instrument of Aggression“Responsibility to Protect” (R2P): An Instrument of Aggression

            Paul Kagame: “Our Kind of Guy”Paul Kagame: “Our Kind of Guy”

          • DrGo

            Interesting read … Now look at who’s always crying victim:

            http://www.autochtonisme.com/2016/06/considerations-impertinentes-sur-la-shoah-l-holocauste-cananeen-et-le-genocide-des-peuples-blancs.html

            “La Bible nous montre qu’un système élaboré d’avilissement des Cananéens s’est
            progressivement imposé dans le monde hébraïque. Il fallait anesthésier
            les consciences et leur faire admettre l’inacceptable. Il fallait
            justifier le projet immonde d’exterminer en totalité plusieurs peuples,
            c’est-à-dire, comme le rappellent à plusieurs reprises les textes, tous
            les hommes, toutes les femmes, tous les enfants et tous les vieillards
            pour la seule et unique raison qu’ils étaient Cananéens. Clé du système
            d’avilissement, les Cananéens sont accusés de perversités inhérentes à
            leur lignée, c’est-à-dire incurables (ils honorent depuis toujours de
            faux dieux, font des sacrifices humains, pratiquent le cannibalisme, la
            zoophilie, l’homosexualité…). Bref c’est une « race maudite dès
            l’origine » qui ne peut « changer » (Sag 12,10-11). Dès lors que le
            système d’avilissement est ainsi posé, une conclusion s’impose aux
            consciences neutralisées : cette race maudite dès l’origine doit être
            exterminée. Cela est plus que légitime : cela est nécessaire,
            d’autant que l’ordre d’extermination vient de Dieu lui-même et qu’on ne
            saurait désobéir à Dieu. Lorsque les Hébreux entrent en Canaan, leur
            sens moral a été aboli par un enseignement du mépris ayant obtenu la
            caution divine. Ils vont soigneusement planifier l’extermination de
            plusieurs peuples et, racontent ces textes, ne laisser « aucun
            survivant », tuant tout sur leur passage : « hommes et femmes, enfants
            et vieillards (…) frappant tout du tranchant du glaive » (Jos 6,21).

            Ainsi la Bible pose et impose un système avilissant certains peuples. Elle
            enseigne le mépris à leur égard. Elle montre que l’holocauste cananéen
            qui en découle repose sur un ordre d’extermination venu de Dieu.”

          • AlexanderAmproz

            Ces histoires sont nac-nac(nul a chier deux fois)
            Personnellement, bien que blond en voie de disparition,
            je suis favorable au métissage qui fait partie de l’evolution…
            Merci pour le lien que j’ai lu.
            Heureusement que je suis devenu spontanément
            un Atheist en 1960 au grand dam de mon père, ma mere était tout sauf croyante. La religion est au mieux un vague souvenir
            barbant d’enfance enfoui dans le néant…
            La Torah(700BC) est une mauvaise copie faite par des bergers de la Religion Sumérienne(2’500BC) a Babylon.
            Mis a part l’intérêt historique, artistique et l’anthropologie,
            la Bible et le Coran sont sans intérêts…
            Apparement l’homme de Neandertal et l’homo Sapiens venant d’Afrique se seraient métissés en Palestine, selon une grotte découverte récemment lors de la construction d’une route…

            Mieux vaut regarder cette series de Documentaires
            remarquables que des balivernes religieuses…

            Quand Homo sapiens peupla la planète (2/5)

            Asie, le grand voyage
            https://www.arte.tv/fr/videos/050567-002-A/quand-homo-sapiens-peupla-la-planete-2-5/

            Les progrès de l’ADN et de l’archeologies sur les origines et l’evolution de l’homme sont époustouflants.
            Les Russes ont découvert dans l’Altai l’homme de Denisovan
            vieux de 100’000 ans avec de l’ADN conservé dans des dents grace au froid permanent qui règne en Sibérie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denisovan

            PS:Les Assyriens étaient aussi des champions de l’extermination totale

          • AlexanderAmproz

            Some Israeli are worst than NAZI and more racist under the US request with their own Children’s !

            The Ringworm Children: Zionist genocidal experiments on Jews

            Jill Mann
            https://www.sott.net/article/201207-The-Ringworm-Children-Zionist-genocidal-experiments-on-Jews

            Tue, 12 Jan 2010 15:51 UTC

            In a series of articles, Israeli writer Barry Chamish reviews Israeli television’s 2004 expose of the deliberate mass radiation poisoning of 100,000 young Israeli immigrants from North African and Middle Eastern countries (Sephardim) with a screening of the award winning 2003 documentary film, The Ringworm Children.

            The story goes like this: With vast evidence from Nazi experiments in the concentration camps and the atomic bombing of Japan, the scientific community was well aware by 1951 of the short and long-term dangers of radiation, especially on children. The American government had banned forced radiation testing based on eugenics on humans prisoners, the mentally feeble, etc., but wanted human lab rats for its nuclear and other programs.

            In 1951, the director general of the Israeli Health Ministry, Dr. Chaim Sheba, flew to America and agreed, on behalf of the Israeli government, to supply the humans in exchange for money and nuclear secrets. Dr. Sheba returned to Israel with 7 x-ray machines, supplied to him by the American army.

            The x-ray machines were to be used in a mass atomic experiment with an entire generation of Sephardi youths to be used as guinea pigs. Dr. Sheba demanded that all North African children be sent to health centers to receive radiation therapy as a preemptive treatment for ringworm, normally treated with vinegar. Every Sephardi child was to be given 35,000 times the maximum dose of x-rays through the head. For doing so, the American government paid the Israeli government 300,000 Israeli liras a year (billions in today’s dollars).

            To fool the parents of the victims, the children were taken away on “school trips” and their parents were later told the x-rays were a treatment for the scourge of scalpal ringworm. 6,000 of the children died shortly after their doses were given. Many of the rest developed epilepsy, amnesia, Alzheimer’s disease, sterility, horrifying scarred bald spots, severe scarring on the body, loss of teeth and hair, chronic headaches, psychosis, and cancers at more than double the rate of the general population.

            Many people have testified that the radiation campaign caused the children serious emotional harm. Without any explanation, they were brought to clinics where the hair on their heads was shaven, the hair that remained was pulled out with hot wax, and the roots were eliminated with x-rays.

            The majority of the victims were Moroccan because they were the most numerous of the Sephardi immigrants. The generation that was poisoned in Israel became the country’s perpetual poor and criminal class, while the Moroccan Jews who fled to France became prosperous and highly educated. The common explanation was that France got the rich, thus smart ones. The real explanation is that every French Moroccan Jewish child didn’t have the brain cells fried with x-rays.

            David Deri, makes the point that only Sephardi children received the x-rays. “I was in class and the men came to take us on a tour. They asked our names. The Ashkenazi children [descendants of European Jews] were told to return to their seats. The dark children were put on the bus.” A Moroccan woman: “It was a Holocaust, a Sephardi Holocaust. And what I want to know is why no one stood up to stop it.”

            The film presents a historian who declares that the ringworm operation was a eugenics program aimed at weeding out what Ashkenazi leaders perceived to be the “weak strains of society”. Running Rings Around the Victims, by Aryeh Dayan, says that the ringworm radiation campaign lasted until 1960.

            Fifty years after the ringworm radiation, victims are still fighting for compensation from the state for their illnesses. The claims process is prohibitive, riddled with tricky and impossible procedures, and the sparsely granted awards are paltry.

            Victims have been stonewalled in their efforts even to get information. David Deri, relates the frustration he encountered when trying to fi nd his childhood medical records. “All I wanted to know was what they did to me. I wanted to know who authorized it. I wanted to trace the chain of command. But the Health Ministry told me my records were missing.” Boaz Lev, the Health Ministry’s spokesman chimes in, “Almost all the records were burned in a fire.”

            Chamish contends that the Israeli leaders were aware of, responsible for, and benefited from the program. It is unlikely that a program involving the equivalent of billions of dollars of American government funds for cash-strapped Israel could be unknown to the Israeli leaders.

            A hospital was named after Eliezer Kaplan, who handled the profits of the operation. A whole medical complex was named after Chaim Sheba, who ran Ringworm Incorporated.

            Chamish says it is a miracle that Ringworm Children was broadcast at all, but it was aired at the same time as the highest-rated show of the year, the final of Israel’s, A Star Is Born. The next day, while there was not a word about Ringworm Children in any paper, the newly-born star’s photo took up half the front pages.

            See more information here.

            Comment: The AshkeNazi Zionists Poisoned/Radiated 100,000 Sefardi Jewish Children

            When Zionists Murder Jews: The Story of the Ringworm Children

          • Brother Ma

            That is what im saying.afghan was fine under Russias influence.For those that have eyes, america screwed afghanland.

          • Rex drabble

            They would be a hell of a lot better than they are if they were.The US has kept them at near stone age level for OPIUM which they sell to their own citizens to keep them enslaved.

          • And you actually think the Russians would do worse? Hahahaha, they even treat Russians like shit how much more a dumb dirty Muslim?

          • AlexanderAmproz

            Who do you tray to lure ?
            Do your open lies or your ignorance is suffocating ?
            ===================================

            IS US TRIUMPH IN DRUG-ADDICTED WAR POSSIBLE?

            Afghanistan: Opium, the CIA and the Karzai Administration

            by Peter Dale Scott

            According to Peter Dale Scott, there is no point in deploring the expansion of drug production in Afghanistan and the heroin epidemic gripping great parts of the world. Conclusions must be drawn from the established facts: the Taliban eradicated poppy cultivation; NATO promoted it; drug money corrupted the Karzai government but it is especially inside U.S. institutions that drug corruption is rife. Therefore, the solution does not lie with Kabul but with Washington.

            In Afghanistan, NATO curbs poppy cultivation by the insurgents while protecting that of its allies.

            Alfred McCoy’s important new article for TomDispatch (March 30, 2010) deserves to mobilize Congress for a serious revaluation of America’s ill-considered military venture in Afghanistan. The answer to the question he poses in his title – “Can Anyone Pacify the World’s Number One Narco-State? – is amply shown by his impressive essay to be a resounding “No!” . . . not until there is fundamental change in the goals and strategies both of Washington and of Kabul.

            He amply documents that

            – the Afghan state of Hamid Karzai is a corrupt narco-state, to which Afghans are forced to pay bribes each year $2.5 billion, a quarter of the nation’s economy;

            – the Afghan economy is a narco-economy: in 2007 Afghanistan produced 8,200 tons of opium, a remarkable 53% of the country’s GDP and 93% of global heroin supply.

            Map of Afghanistan showing major poppy fields and intensity of conflict 2007-08.

            – military options for dealing with the problem are at best ineffective and at worst counterproductive: McCoy argues that the best hope lies in reconstructing the Afghan countryside until food crops become a viable alternative to opium, a process that could take ten or fifteen years, or longer. (I shall argue later for an interim solution: licensing Afghanistan with the International Narcotics Board to sell its opium legally.)

            Perhaps McCoy’s most telling argument is that in Colombia cocaine at its peak represented only about 3 percent of the national economy, yet both the FARC guerillas and the right-wing death squads, both amply funded by drugs, still continue to flourish in that country. To simply eradicate drugs, without first preparing for a substitute Afghan agriculture, would impose intolerable strains on an already ravaged rural society whose only significant income flow at this time derives from opium. One has only to look at the collapse of the Taliban in 2001, after a draconian Taliban-led reduction in Afghan drug production (from 4600 tons to 185 tons) left the country a hollow shell.

            On its face, McCoy’s arguments would appear to be incontrovertible, and should, in a rational society, lead to a serious debate followed by a major change in America’s current military policy. McCoy has presented his case with considerable tact and diplomacy, to facilitate such a result.

            The CIA’s Historic Responsibility for Global Drug Trafficking

            Unfortunately, there are important reasons why such a positive outcome is unlikely any time soon. There are many reasons for this, but among them are some unpleasant realities which McCoy has either avoided or downplayed in his otherwise brilliant essay, and which have to be confronted if we will ever begin to implement sensible strategies in Afghanistan.

            The first reality is that the extent of CIA involvement in and responsibility for the global drug traffic is a topic off limits for serious questioning in policy circles, electoral campaigns, and the mainstream media. Those who have challenged this taboo, like the journalist Gary Webb, have often seen their careers destroyed in consequence.

            Since Alfred McCoy has done more than anyone else to heighten public awareness of CIA responsibility for drug trafficking in American war zones, I feel awkward about suggesting that he downplays it in his recent essay. True, he acknowledges that “Opium first emerged as a key force in Afghan politics during the CIA covert war against the Soviets,” and he adds that “the CIA’s covert war served as the catalyst that transformed the Afghan-Pakistan borderlands into the world’s largest heroin producing region.”

            But in a very strange sentence, McCoy suggests that the CIA was passively drawn into drug alliances in the course of combating Soviet forces in Afghanistan in the years 1979-88, whereas in fact the CIA clearly helped create them precisely to fight the Soviets:

            “In one of history’s ironic accidents, the southern reach of communist China and the Soviet Union had coincided with Asia’s opium zone along this same mountain rim, drawing the CIA into ambiguous alliances with the region’s highland warlords.”

            There was no such “accident” in Afghanistan, where the first local drug lords on an international scale – Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and Abu Rasul Sayyaf – were in fact launched internationally as a result of massive and ill-advised assistance from the CIA, in conjunction with the governments of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. While other local resistance forces were accorded second-class status, these two clients of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, precisely because they lacked local support, pioneered the use of opium and heroin to build up their fighting power and financial resources. [1] Both, moreover, became agents of salafist extremism, attacking the indigenous Sufi-influenced Islam of Afghanistan. And ultimately both became sponsors of al Qaeda. [2]

            Gulbuddin Hekmatyar

            CIA involvement in the drug trade hardly began with its involvement in the Soviet-Afghan war. To a certain degree, the CIA’s responsibility for the present dominant role of Afghanistan in the global heroin traffic merely replicated what had happened earlier in Burma, Thailand, and Laos between the late 1940s and the 1970s. These countries also only became factors in the international drug traffic as a result of CIA assistance (after the French, in the case of Laos) to what would otherwise have been only local traffickers.

            One cannot talk of “ironic accidents” here either. McCoy himself has shown how, in all of these countries, the CIA not only tolerated but assisted the growth of drug-financed anti-Communist assets, to offset the danger of Communist Chinese penetration into Southeast Asia. As in Afghanistan today CIA assistance helped turn the Golden Triangle, from the 1940s to the 1970s, into a leading source for the world’s opium.

            Abdul Rasul Sayyaf

            In this same period the CIA recruited assets along the smuggling routes of the Asian opium traffic as well, in countries such as Turkey, Lebanon, Italy, France, Cuba, Honduras, and Mexico. These assets have included government officials like Manuel Noriega of Panama or Vladimiro Montesinos of Peru, often senior figures in CIA-assisted police and intelligence services. But they have also included insurrectionary movements, ranging from the Contras in Nicaragua in the 1980s to (according to Robert Baer and Seymour Hersh) the al Qaeda-linked Jundallah [3], operating today in Iran and Baluchistan. [4]

            The Karzai Government, not the Taliban, Dominate the Afghan Dope Economy

            Perhaps the best example of such CIA influence via drug traffickers today is in Afghanistan itself, where those accused of drug trafficking include President Karzai’s brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai (an active CIA asset), and Abdul Rashid Dostum (a former CIA asset). [5] The drug corruption of the Afghan government must be attributed at least in part to the U.S. and CIA decision in 2001 to launch an invasion with the support of the Northern Alliance, a movement that Washington knew to be drug-corrupted. [6]

            CIA map tracing opium traffic from Afghanistan to Europe, 1998. The CIA cite, updated in 2008 states “Most Southwest Asian heroin flows overland through Iran and Turkey to Europe via the Balkans.” But in fact drugs also flow through the states of the former Soviet Union, and through Pakistan and Dubai.

            In this way the U.S. consciously recreated in Afghanistan the situation it had created earlier in Vietnam. There too (like Ahmed Wali Karzai a half century later) the president’s brother, Ngo dinh Nhu, used drugs to finance a private network that was used to rig an election for Ngo dinh Diem. [7] Thomas H. Johnson, coordinator of anthropological research studies at the Naval Postgraduate School, has pointed out the unlikelihood of a counterinsurgency program succeeding when that program is in support of a local government that is flagrantly dysfunctional and corrupt. [8]

            Thus I take issue with McCoy when he, echoing the mainstream U.S. media, depicts the Afghan drug economy as one dominated by the Taliban. (In McCoy’s words, “If the insurgents capture that illicit economy, as the Taliban have done, then the task becomes little short of insurmountable.”) The Taliban’s share of the Afghan opium economy is variously estimated from $90 to $400 million. But the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) estimates that the total Afghan annual earnings from opium and heroin are in the order of from $2.8 to $3.4 billion. [9]

            Clearly the Taliban have not “captured” this economy, of which the largest share by far is controlled by supporters of the Karzai government. In 2006 a report to the World Bank argued “that at the top level, around 25-30 key traffickers, the majority of them in southern Afghanistan, control major transactions and transfers, working closely with sponsors in top government and political positions.” [10] In 2007 the London Daily Mail reported that “the four largest players in the heroin business are all senior members of the Afghan government.” [11]

            The American media have confronted neither this basic fact nor the way in which it has distorted America’s opium and war policies in Afghanistan. The Obama administration appears to have shifted away from the ill-advised eradication programs of the Bush era, which are certain to lose the hearts and minds of the peasantry. It has moved instead towards a policy of selective interdiction of the traffic, explicitly limited to attacks on drug traffickers who are supporting the insurgents. [12]

            This policy may or may not be effective in weakening the Taliban. But to target what constitutes about a tenth of the total traffic will clearly never end Afghanistan’s current status as the world’s number one narco-state. Nor will it end the current world post-1980s heroin epidemic, which has created five million addicts in Pakistan, over two million addicts inside Russia, eight hundred thousand addicts in America, over fifteen million addicts in the world, and one million addicts inside Afghanistan itself. Nor will it end the current world post-1980s heroin epidemic, which has created five million addicts in Pakistan, over two million addicts inside Russia, eight hundred thousand addicts in America, over fifteen million addicts in the world, and one million addicts inside Afghanistan itself.

            The Obama government’s policy of selective interdiction also helps explain its reluctance to consider the most reasonable and humane solution to the world’s Afghan heroin epidemic. This is the “poppy for medicine” initiative of the International Council on Security and Development (ICOS, formerly known as The Senlis Council): to establish a trial licensing scheme, allowing farmers to sell their opium for the production of much-needed essential medicines such as morphine and codeine. [13]

            The proposal has received support from the European Parliament and in Canada; but it has come under heavy attack in the United States, chiefly on the grounds that it might well lead to an increase in opium production. It would however provide a short-term answer to the heroin epidemic that is devastating Europe and Russia – something not achieved by McCoy’s long-term alternative of crop substitution over ten or fifteen years, still less by the current Obama administration’s program of selective elimination of opium supplies.

            An unspoken consequence of the “poppy for medicine” initiative would be to shrink the illicit drug proceeds that are helping to support the Karzai government. Whether for this reason, or simply because anything that smacks of legalizing drugs is a tabooed subject in Washington, the “poppy for medicine” initiative is unlikely to be endorsed by the Obama administration.

            Afghan Heroin and the CIA’s Global Drug Connection

            There is another important paragraph where McCoy, I think misleadingly, focuses attention on Afghanistan, rather than America itself, as the locus of the problem:

            At a drug conference in Kabul this month, the head of Russia’s Federal Narcotics Service estimated the value of Afghanistan’s current opium crop at $65 billion. Only $500 million of that vast sum goes to Afghanistan’s farmers, $300 million to the Taliban guerrillas, and the $64 billion balance “to the drug mafia,” leaving ample funds to corrupt the Karzai government (emphasis added) in a nation whose total GDP is only $10 billion.

            What this paragraph omits is the pertinent fact that, according to the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime, only 5 or 6 percent of that $65 billion, or from $2.8 to $3.4 billion, stays inside Afghanistan itself. [14] An estimated 80 percent of the earnings from the drug trade are derived from the countries of consumption – in this case, Russia, Europe, and America. Thus we should not think for a moment that the only government corrupted by the Afghan drug trade is the country of origin. Everywhere the traffic has become substantial, even if only in transit, it has survived through protection, which in other words means corruption.

            There is no evidence to suggest that drug money from the CIA’s trafficker assets fattened the financial accounts of the CIA itself, or of its officers. But the CIA profited indirectly from the drug traffic, and developed over the years a close relationship with it. The CIA’s off-the-books war in Laos was one extreme case where it fought a war, using as its chief assets the Royal Laotian Army of General Ouane Rattikone and the Hmong Army of General Vang Pao, which were, in large part, drug-financed. The CIA’s massive Afghanistan operation in the 1980s was another example of a war that was in part drug-financed.

            Video shows the CIA’s Hmong Army led by Gen. Vang Pao in action in Laos

            Protection for Drug Trafficking in America

            Thus it is not surprising that the U.S. Government, following the lead of the CIA, has over the years become a protector of drug traffickers against criminal prosecution in this country. For example both the FBI and CIA intervened in 1981 to block the indictment (on stolen car charges) of the drug-trafficking Mexican intelligence czar Miguel Nazar Haro, claiming that Nazar was “an essential repeat essential contact for CIA station in Mexico City,” on matters of “terrorism, intelligence, and counterintelligence.” [15] When Associate Attorney General Lowell Jensen refused to proceed with Nazar’s indictment, the San Diego U.S. Attorney, William Kennedy, publicly exposed his intervention. For this he was promptly fired.15

            A recent spectacular example of CIA drug involvement was the case of the CIA’s Venezuelan asset General Ramon Guillén Davila. As I write in my forthcoming book, Fueling America’s War Machine, [16]

            “General Ramon Guillén Davila, chief of a CIA-created anti-drug unit in Venezuela, was indicted in Miami for smuggling a ton of cocaine into the United States. According to the New York Times, “The CIA, over the objections of the Drug Enforcement Administration, approved the shipment of at least one ton of pure cocaine to Miami International Airport as a way of gathering information about the Colombian drug cartels.” Time magazine reported that a single shipment amounted to 998 pounds, following earlier ones “totaling nearly 2,000 pounds.” [17] Mike Wallace confirmed that “the CIA-national guard undercover operation quickly accumulated this cocaine, over a ton and a half that was smuggled from Colombia into Venezuela.” [18] According to the Wall Street Journal, the total amount of drugs smuggled by Gen. Guillén may have been more than 22 tons.” [19]

            But the United States never asked for Guillén’s extradition from Venezuela to stand trial; and in 2007, when he was arrested in Venezuela for plotting to assassinate President Hugo Chavez, his indictment was still sealed in Miami. [20] Meanwhile, CIA officer Mark McFarlin, whom DEA Chief Bonner had also wished to indict, was never indicted at all; he merely resigned. [21]

            Nothing in short happened to the principals in this case, which probably only surfaced in the media because of the social unrest generated in the same period by Gary Webb’s stories in the San Jose Mercury about the CIA, Contras, and cocaine.

            Banks and Drug Money Laundering

            Other institutions with a direct stake in the international drug traffic include major banks, which make loans to countries like Colombia and Mexico knowing full well that drug flows will help underwrite those loans’ repayment. A number of our biggest banks, including Citibank, Bank of New York, and Bank of Boston, have been identified as money laundering conduits, yet never have faced penalties serious enough to change their behavior. [22] In short, United States involvement in the international drug traffic links the CIA, major financial interests, and criminal interests in this country and abroad.

            Antonio Maria Costa, head of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, has said that “Drugs money worth billions of dollars kept the financial system afloat at the height of the global crisis.” According to the London Observer, Costa said he has seen evidence that the proceeds of organised crime were “the only liquid investment capital” available to some banks on the brink of collapse last year. He said that a majority of the $352bn (£216bn) of drugs profits was absorbed into the economic system as a result…. Costa said evidence that illegal money was being absorbed into the financial system was first drawn to his attention by intelligence agencies and prosecutors around 18 months ago. “In many instances, the money from drugs was the only liquid investment capital. In the second half of 2008, liquidity was the banking system’s main problem and hence liquid capital became an important factor,” he said. [23]

            A striking example of drug clout in Washington was the influence exercised in the 1980s by the drug money-laundering Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI). As I report in my book, among the highly-placed recipients of largesse from BCCI, its owners, and its affiliates, were Ronald Reagan’s Treasury Secretary James Baker, who declined to investigate BCCI; [24] and Democratic Senator Joseph Biden and Republican Senator Orrin Hatch, the ranking members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which declined to investigate BCCI. [25]

            In the end it was not Washington that first moved to terminate the banking activities in America of BCCI and its illegal U.S. subsidiaries; it was the determined activity of two outsiders — Washington lawyer Jack Blum and Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau. [26]

            Conclusion: The Source of the Global Drug problem is not Kabul, but Washington

            I understand why McCoy, in his desire to change an ill-fated policy, is more decorous than I am in acknowledging the extent to which powerful American institutions—government, intelligence and finance—and not just the Karzai government, have been corrupted by the pervasive international drug traffic. But I believe that his tactfulness will prove counter-productive. The biggest source of the global drug problem is not in Kabul, but in Washington. To change this scandal will require the airing of facts which McCoy, in this essay, is reluctant to address.

            In his magisterial work, The Politics of Heroin, McCoy tells the story of Carter’s White House drug advisor David Musto. In 1980 Musto told the White House Strategy Council on Drug Abuse that “we were going into Afghanistan to support the opium growers in their rebellion against the Soviets. Shouldn’t we try to avoid what we had done in Laos?” [27] Denied access by the CIA to data to which he was legally entitled, Musto took his concerns public in May 1980, noting in a New York Times op-ed that Golden Crescent heroin was already (and for the first time) causing a medical crisis in New York. And he warned, presciently, that “this crisis is bound to worsen.” [28]

            Musto hoped that he could achieve a change of policy by going public with a sensible warning about a disastrous drug-assisted adventure in Afghanistan. But his wise words were powerless against the relentless determination of what I have called the U.S. war machine in our government and political economy. I fear that McCoy’s sensible message, by being decorous precisely where it is now necessary to be outspoken, will suffer the same fate.

            Peter Dale Scott

            See the following articles on related subjects:

            – Alfred W. McCoy, “Can Anyone Pacify the World’s Number One Narco-State? The Opium Wars in Afghanistan.”

            – Peter Dale Scott, “America’s Afghanistan: The National Security and a Heroin-Ravaged State”

            – Peter Dale Scott, “Martial Law, the Financial Bailout, and the Afghan and Iraq Wars”

            – Jeremy Kuzmarov, “American Police Training and Political Violence: From the Philippines Conquest to the Killing Fields of Afghanistan and Iraq”

            – MK Bhadrakumar, “Afghanistan, Iran and US-Russian Conflict”

            – Peter Van Agtmael, “All You Need is Heroin: U.S. Troops in Their Own Hand”

            http://www.voltairenet.org/article167754.html

          • AlexanderAmproz

            And What about this One ?

            Big Pharma billionaire arrested, charged with conspiracy and bribery of doctors

            October 29, 2017 by GOV’T SLAVES

            I almost never thought I’d see the day when a Big Pharma founder and owner was finally arrested for running a criminal drug cartel, but that day has arrived.

            “Federal authorities arrested the billionaire founder and owner of Insys Therapeutics Thursday on charges of bribing doctors and pain clinics into prescribing the company’s fentanyl product to their patients,” reports the Daily Caller News Foundation, one of the best sources of real journalism in America today.

            Addictive drugs that include opioids, we now know, are claiming over 64,000 lives a year in the United States alone.

            From the DCNF:

            The Department of Justice (DOJ) charged John Kapoor, 74, and seven other current and former executives at the pharmaceutical company with racketeering for a leading a national conspiracy through bribery and fraud to coerce the illegal distribution of the company’s fentanyl spray, which is intended for use as a pain killer by cancer patients. The company’s stock prices fell more than 20 percent following the arrests, according to the New York Post.

            Kapoor stepped down as the company’s CEO in January amid ongoing federal probes into their Subsys product, a pain-relieving spray that contains fentanyl, a highly-addictive synthetic opioid. Fentanyl is more than 50 times stronger than morphine, and ingesting just two milligrams is enough to cause an adult to fatally overdose.

            The series of arrests came just hours after President Donald Trump officially declared the country’s opioid epidemic a national emergency. Drug overdoses led to 64,070 deaths in 2016, which is more than the amount of American lives lost in the entire Vietnam War.

            As the opioid crisis has developed, more and more states have begun holding doctors and opioid manufacturers accountable for over-prescribing and over-producing the highly-addictive painkillers.

            “We will be bringing some major lawsuits against people and companies that are hurting our people,” Trump said Thursday. He also spoke about a program similar to Nancy Reagan’s “Just Say No” initiative.

            “More than 20,000 Americans died of synthetic opioid overdoses last year, and millions are addicted to opioids. And yet some medical professionals would rather take advantage of the addicts than try to help them,” Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a statement. “This Justice Department will not tolerate this. We will hold accountable anyone – from street dealers to corporate executives — who illegally contributes to this nationwide epidemic. And under the leadership of President Trump, we are fully committed to defeating this threat to the American people.

            President Trump is bringing the war to Big Pharma’s doorstep

            Under President Trump, who continues to fight to end the drug cartels and health care monopolies that are destroying this nation, we may see more and more drug companies finally facing the legal scrutiny they deserve for engaging in the mass medical murder of Americans with dangerous, deadly drugs.

            And then there’s the question of vaccines, the autism cover-up and the criminal racket run by the CDC, Big Pharma and the lying mainstream media. When that medical fraud and corruption scandal blows sky-high, we may see dozens of pharmaceutical officials going to prison.

            http://govtslaves.info/2017/10/big-pharma-billionaire-arrested-charged-with-conspiracy-and-bribery-of-doctors/

            and what about that One ?

            The US Opium Wars: China, Burma and the CIA

            by JEFFREY ST. CLAIR – ALEXANDER COCKBURN

            FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

            Photo by ResoluteSupportMedia | CC BY 2.0

            You won’t find a star of remembrance for him on the wall of fallen “heroes” at CIA HQ in Langley, but one of the Agency’s first casualties in its covert war against Mao’s China was a man named Jack Killam. He was a pilot for the CIA’s proprietary airline, Civil Air Transport, forerunner to the notorious Air America which figured so largely in the Agency’s activities in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. Killam’s job was to fly weapons and supplies from the CIA’s base in Bangkok, Thailand, to the mountain camps of General Li Mi in the Shan States of Burma. Li Mi, Chinese in origin, was the leader of 10,000 Chinese troops still loyal to Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, who had been driven off the Chinese mainland by Mao’s forces and was now ensconced on Taiwan.

            Under the direction of the CIA, Li Mi’s army was plotting a strike across Burma’s northern border into China’s Yunnan province. But Li Mi’s troops were not just warriors in Chiang’s cause: they had also taken control of the largest opium poppy fields in Asia. The CAT pilots working for the CIA carried loads of Li Mi’s opium on their return flights to Bangkok, where it was delivered to General Phao Siyanan, head of the Thai secret police and a long-time CIA asset.

            Jack Killam was murdered in 1951 when one of these arms-and-drugs round trips went bad. His body was buried in an unmarked grave by Sherman Joost, the CIA’s station chief in Bangkok.

            The exiled Kuomintang (KMT) army of Li Mi was as much a proprietary of the Central Intelligence Agency as Civil Air Transport. Installed in Burma, this army was armed by the CIA, fed by the CIA, and paid by the CIA. In later operations in Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam the CIA used it as a labor pool. Under this patronage and protection the KMT was able to build up its opium operations in the area of Southeast Asia known as the Golden Triangle.

            As a result, the KMT became a pivotal force in the Asian opium trade. Using the infrastructure of remote airstrips and airplanes set in place by the CIA, the KMT was able to export its opium crop from the Shan States of Burma and the mountains of Laos to international wholesalers. For its part, the CIA was more than pleased to see the KMT forces sustained by a stable flow of opium revenue impervious to the whims of Congress Congress or new arrivals in the White House. By the mid-1970s the KMT controlled more than 80 percent of the Golden Triangle opium market. It was a situation that put the newly created Drug Enforcement Agency at odds with the CIA’s opium warlords. Invariably, the DEA emerged defeated from these conflicts.

            In 1988, a newspaper reporter named Elaine Shannon interviewed dozens of DEA agents for a book, Desperados, on the international narcotics trade. The agents told her that the drug smugglers of Southeast Asia and the CIA were “natural allies.” Shannon wrote that “DEA agents who served in south east Asia in the late 1970s and 1980s said they frequently discovered that they were tracking heroin smugglers who were on the CIA payroll.”

            By the 1970s Nixon was staking more political capital on his War on Drugs and the CIA had to adjust to the new situation. Rather than allow the KMT to use its planes to ship opium out, the Agency bought 26 tons of opium at a cost of $1 million and destroyed it. This was a mere fraction of the KMT’s total output, but the purchase had the advantage of deflecting criticism from other agencies and putting US taxpayers’ money into the pockets of its mercenaries. In the mid-1970s the DEA suggested that the US government could buy Burma’s entire opium crop for $12 million. This time the US State Department and the CIA intervened, claiming that such a buy-out program might put money into the hands of “Communist insurgencies against the friendly governments of Burma and Thailand” and successfully opposed the plan. Later the CIA and State Department used the War on Drugs as a rationale for funneling even more weapons into the hands of Burma’s military dictatorship. These weapons were used to quell internal opposition, and the herbicides supposedly destined for the poppy fields were instead employed by Burma’s dictatorship against rural opponents, along with their food crops. By 1997 Burma reigned supreme as the world’s top producer of raw opium and high-grade heroin.

            The opium poppy was not native to Southeast Asia but was introduced by Arab traders in the seventh century AD. The habit of opium smoking didn’t take hold till the seventeenth century, when it was spread by the Spanish and Dutch, who used opium as a treatment for malaria. The Portuguese became the first to profit from the importing of opium into China from the poppy fields in its colonies in India. After the Battle of Plassey in 1757, the British East India Company took over the opium monopoly and soon found it to be an irresistible source of profit. By 1772 the new British governor, Warren Hastings, was auctioning off opium-trading concessions and encouraging opium exports to China. Such exports were already generating £500,000 a year despite the strenuous objections of the Chinese imperial government. As early as 1729 the Chinese emperor Yung Cheng had issued an edict outlawing opium smoking. The sanctions for repeat offenders were stern: many had their lips slit. In 1789 the Chinese outlawed both the import and domestic cultivation of opium, and invoked the death penalty for violators. It did little good.
            Etc…
            https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/12/01/the-us-opium-wars-china-burma-and-the-cia/

        • AlexanderAmproz

          To Look for information before to affirm ineptitudes,
          it will enforce a bite your credibility !

          Zbigniew Brzezinski, architect of the catastrophe in Afghanistan, dead at 89

          By Bill Van Auken

          29 May 2017

          Zbigniew Brzezinski, security adviser to Democratic President Jimmy Carter and a longtime proponent of an aggressive strategy for asserting US global hegemony, died Friday at the age of 89.

          During his four-year tenure in the Carter White House, Brzezinski was involved in a large number of criminal operations carried out by US imperialism around the globe, from support for the Shah’s attempts to drown the Iranian Revolution in blood to the initiation of a US policy in Central America that led to bloody counterinsurgency campaigns that claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands.

          Unquestionably, however, the greatest of these crimes, and one for which he proudly took credit, was the orchestration and support of a dirty war waged by Islamist mujahedeen against the Soviet-backed government of Afghanistan at the end of the 1970s.

          Born into an aristocratic Polish family that was forced to take refuge in Canada, where his father was a diplomat at the outbreak of World War II, Brzezinski’s outlook and policies were grounded in a ferocious hatred of revolution, socialism and the Soviet Union.

          He was recruited into anti-Soviet operations while lecturing at Harvard University in the 1950s. He was among a delegation sent by the CIA through its front group, the “Independent Service for Information,” to intervene at a Soviet-backed world youth festival held in Vienna in 1959. He was described by contemporaries as the most anticommunist and provocative of those sent by the US intelligence agency.

          In the early 1970s, Brzezinski was tapped by David Rockefeller to head the Trilateral Commission, a body created to coordinate imperialist strategy between Washington, Western Europe and Japan. The commission, made up of influential business and political figures, in turn, threw its support behind the 1976 presidential campaign of Democrat Jimmy Carter, then governor of Georgia and seen as a Washington “outsider” who could provide a fresh face after the debacle of the administration of Richard Nixon and that of his successor, Gerald Ford. Members of the commission occupied key posts in the Carter administration, with Brzezinski as national security adviser exercising overwhelming influence over US foreign policy.

          It was in this position that Brzezinski authored one of the greatest crimes carried out by US imperialism in the 20th century, the instigation of a war in Afghanistan that has continued to ravage the country to this day.

          In its obituary of Brzezinski, the New York Times acknowledges that “his rigid hatred of the Soviet Union” had placed him “to the right of many Republicans, including Mr. Kissinger and President Richard M. Nixon.” It adds that under Carter he directed US policy with the aim of “thwarting Soviet expansionism at any cost…for better or worse.” As an example, it states, “He supported billions in military aid for Islamic militants fighting invading Soviet troops in Afghanistan.”

          This is a deliberate distortion of the real role played by Washington, its military and the CIA in Afghanistan, under Brzezinski’s direction.

          Brzezinski acknowledged in an interview with the French news magazine Le Nouvel Observateur in January 1998 that he initiated a policy in which the CIA covertly began arming the mujahedeen in July 1978—six months before Soviet troops intervened in Afghanistan—with the explicit aim of dragging the Soviet Union into a debilitating war.

          Asked, given the catastrophe unleashed upon Afghanistan and the subsequent growth of Islamist terrorist groups like Al Qaeda, whether he regretted the policy he championed in Afghanistan, Brzezinski replied:

          “Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam War. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.”

          Asked specifically whether he regretted the CIA’s collaboration with and arming of Islamist extremists, including Al Qaeda, in fomenting the war in Afghanistan, Brzezinski responded contemptuously: “What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?”

          In the four decades of nearly uninterrupted fighting that flowed from Brzezinski’s “excellent idea”—with nearly 9,000 US troops still on the ground and plans being set in motion to carry out another escalation—over 2 million Afghans have lost their lives and millions more have been turned into refugees.

          In the aftermath of the Moscow Stalinist bureaucracy’s formal dissolution of the Soviet Union in December 1991, Brzezinski refocused his long-standing maniacal hostility to the USSR toward a strategy to assert undisputed US hegemony over Eurasia.

          He was among the more influential imperialist strategists in shaping a policy of attempting to offset the long-term decline in the world position of American capitalism by resorting to Washington’s unchallenged supremacy in terms of military might. This turn would lead to unending wars in the Middle East and Central Asia designed to assert undisputed American dominance in the regions containing the lion’s share of the world’s oil and natural gas reserves.

          In an article published in the September-October 1997 issue of Foreign Affairs, Brzezinski argued:

          “Eurasia is the world’s axial supercontinent. A power that dominated Eurasia would exercise decisive influence over two of the world’s three most economically productive regions, Western Europe and East Asia. A glance at the map also suggests that a country dominant in Eurasia would almost automatically control the Middle East and Africa. With Eurasia now serving as the decisive geopolitical chessboard, it no longer suffices to fashion one policy for Europe and another for Asia. What happens with the distribution of power on the Eurasian landmass will be of decisive importance to America’s global primacy and historical legacy … In a volatile Eurasia, the immediate task is to ensure that no state or combination of states gains the ability to expel the United States or even diminish its decisive role.”

          Expanding on this thesis in his book The Grand Chessboard, Brzezinski voiced his concern about the major obstacle to Washington pursuing such an aggressive drive for hegemony: the hostility of the vast majority of the American people to war.

          He wrote: “… America is too democratic at home to be autocratic abroad. This limits the use of America’s power, especially its capacity for military intimidation. Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public’s sense of domestic well-being. The economic self-denial (that is, defense spending) and the human sacrifices (casualties even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization.” [The Grand Chessboard, Basic Books, pp. 35-36].

          Four years later, on September 11, 2001, the “sudden threat or challenge to the public’s sense of domestic well-being” that the former national security adviser saw as a necessary precondition for launching a global campaign of American militarism was served up by the very forces that he and the CIA had promoted in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda, with its historic ties to US intelligence, claimed credit for the attacks on New York City and Washington, which were carried out by individuals who were able to move remarkably unhindered in and out of the US.

          Brzezinski was a virulent opponent of revolution, socialism and any challenge to the existing capitalist order from the left. In 1968, during the mass protests against the Vietnam War, he wrote in the New Republic that students should be prevented from protesting by locking them up, adding that if the protests’ “leadership cannot be physically liquidated, it can at least be expelled from the country.”

          In more recent years, particularly in the wake of the meltdown of the global capitalist financial system in 2008, Brzezinski has repeatedly warned of the “growing risk of class hatred” and the danger of radicalization among young people under conditions of unsustainable levels of social inequality.

          In his 2012 book Strategic Vision: America and the Crisis of Global Power, he wrote: “Populations of young adults… are especially explosive when combined with the revolution in communication technology.” He continued: “Often educated but unemployed, their resulting frustration and alienation” leaves them “susceptible to ideological agitation and revolutionary mobilization.”

          In a television interview that year, he warned that a growing “sense of social injustice can be terribly demoralizing and, politically in the long run, very dangerous.”

          While able to perceive this danger and issue his warnings, Brzezinski was no more able than any other representative of America’s capitalist ruling establishment to offer a rational, much less progressive, answer to the rising social and class conflicts that pose the threat of revolution.

          • Vitex

            No-one will miss him

          • Gary Sellars

            I like to think he is currently screaming in a pit of raging flames… hehe

        • Gary Sellars

          You mean the guy (Hafizullah Amin) who came to power by murdering his predecessor (Nur Muhammad Taraki)? The Soviets supported a “palace coup” by Afghans who opposed Amins bloody takeover and chaos.

          You’re a LIAR… as usual…. nothing but a HATOstani shill.

  • Serious

    Houthis are like Hezbollah number 2. And in thoses mountains, israel and saudi will never go.

    The only way is to send Americans slaves or Europeans slaves to die their.

  • Serious

    If Saudi Arabia and israel want to destroy Iran, Hezbollah will deal with israel and Houthis with saudis.

    israel and saudis are pussies.

  • Rodney Loder

    Ali Abdullah Saleh may rest in peace, no one is blaming the confusion of his mind, the situation was out of his capacity to understand, the Military he held sway over will now watch for outside assistance this will be met with force from opposing forces, also foreign on whatever level is necessary, if not, then I’m reigning as Jesus Christ.

  • Gary Sellars

    This is what happens to traitors when they betray their allies so that they can get down on their knees and suck the cock of the Wahabbis attacking their nation and killing their people. May he spend an eternity screaming as he burns in Hells furnace.

    I guess the Saudis will have to make do with their other “Yemeni President”, the one under house-arrest in Riyadh, waiting for the day when his Saudi “patrons” wheel him out to enthrone him and he can begin his career as stooge and sycophant.

  • Thegr8rambino

    very fuckin nice, HOUTHIS FOREVER :))))