Showing posts with label IRAN. Show all posts
Showing posts with label IRAN. Show all posts

Friday, October 26


What is the matter with the Palestine solidarity movement? Since 1948 (and before that, even) the Palestinians have been viciously abused and dispossessed while the perpetrators and their supporters, including unprincipled politicians of the Western powers, have continually played the anti-Semitism card.

Lately, bemused spectators were bored witless by the long and ludicrous propaganda campaign to vilify Jeremy Corbyn, bully the Labour Party into making the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism a cornerstone of their code of conduct and stifle discussion of Israel’s crimes against the Palestinian people. The expected riposte never came.

Jewish Voice For Labour, of all people, have now stepped in and struck back with a useful looking definition of anti-Palestinian racism which they describe as “hatred towards or prejudice against Palestinians as Palestinians”. In a document faintly mocking the pronouncements on anti-Semitism, they suggest that manifestations of anti-Palestinian racism might include the denial of Palestinian rights to a state of Palestine as recognised by over 130 member countries of the United Nations and blaming Palestinians themselves for their plight under brutal military occupation and lock-down. Here’s how they put it:

Contemporary examples of anti-Palestinian racism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

1. Denying the Palestinian people their right to self-determination and nationhood, or actively conspiring to prevent the exercise of this right.

2. Denial that Israel is in breach of international law in its continued occupation of Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

3. Denial that Israel is an apartheid state according to the definition of the International Convention on Apartheid.

4. Denial of the expulsion of 750,000 Palestinians during the 1948 Nakba and of their right, and the right of their descendants, to return to their homeland.

5. Denial that Palestinians have lived in what is now the land of Israel for hundreds of years and have their own distinctive national identity and culture.

6. Denial that the laws and policies which discriminate against Palestinian citizens of Israel (such as the recently passed Nation-State Law) are inherently racist.

7. Denial that there is widespread discrimination against Palestinians in Israel and the occupied territories in matters of employment, housing, justice, education, water supply, etc, etc.

8. Tolerating the killing or harming of Palestinians by violent settlers in the name of an extremist view of religion.

9. Making mendacious, dehumanising, demonising, or stereotypical allegations about Palestinians – such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth of a Palestinian conspiracy to wipe Israel off the map.

10. Justifying the collective punishment of Palestinians (prohibited under the Geneva Convention) in response to the acts of individuals or groups.

11. Accusing the Palestinians as a people of encouraging the holocaust.

I am not sure how Palestinians, as genuine Semites living there for thousands of years, will react to No.5 which claims their homeland is “now the land of Israel”. Despite being illegally occupied by an apartheid entity most of whose members have no ancestral links to the ancient “land of Israel”, it is still Palestine.

For decades activists have been telling the Israel lobby to look in the mirror and address their own racial hatred towards the Palestinians. You must truly hate people to deny them their freedom and even their right to return to their homes and livelihoods. Why has it taken so long for such a simple and obvious weapon to be produced? Doesn’t it make you wonder about the true agenda of those in charge of Palestine solidarity? And why is it left to a group of Jews (bless ’em) to do it?

The question now is how best to deliver this somewhat delayed riposte. It might have been most effective while the iron was hot, at the height of the anti-Semitism witch-hunt and media onslaught. Many activists wanted Corbyn to turn on his tormentors and tell them to mend their own vile attitude towards Palestinian Arabs before daring to smear others with accusations of anti-Semitism.

On the other hand, it will benefit from careful honing, cool planning and the massing of pro-Palestinian support to make the hit really count.

For reasons we know only too well, our politicians won’t adopt it as eagerly as they embraced the IHRA’s definition of anti-Semitism. But it is at least a starting point in the fight-back, especially if deployed by a coalition of genuine pro-Palestine groups and the BDS movement as the centrepiece of a new, high-octane strategy.

Lies, damned lies…
Meanwhile, I hope all those who allowed themselves to be suckered by the ZIONIST U.S.LOBBY will hang their heads in shame when they read this report by the Media Reform Coalition: Labour, Antisemitism and the News – A disinformation paradigm. The Executive summary says that an analysis of over 250 articles and news segments from the largest UK news providers (online and television) showed:

 29 examples of false statements or claims, several of them made by anchors or correspondents themselves, six of them surfacing on BBC television news programmes, and eight on The

A further 66 clear instances of misleading or distorted coverage including misquotations, reliance on single source accounts, omission of essential facts or right of reply, and repeated assumptions made by broadcasters without evidence or qualification. In total, a quarter of the sample contained at least one documented inaccuracy or distortion.
Overwhelming source imbalance, especially on television news where voices critical of Labour’s code of conduct were regularly given an unchallenged and exclusive platform, outnumbering those defending Labour by nearly 4 to 1.

In all, there were 95 clear-cut examples of misleading or inaccurate reporting on mainstream television and online news platforms, with a quarter of the total sample containing at least one such example. On TV two thirds of the news segments contained at least one reporting error or substantive distortion.

The report points to “a persistent subversion of conventional news values”. Furthermore, coverage of Labour’s revised code of conduct during the summer of 2018 often omitted critical discussion of the “working definition” of anti-Semitism promoted by the IHRA and wrongly described it as universally adopted. It says:

We established through background case research that although the IHRA is an international body with representatives from 31 countries, only six of those countries have, to date, formally adopted the definition themselves.

In spite of a call for local authorities to adopt the definition by the UK’s central government in early 2017, less than a third of councils have responded and several of those have chosen not to include any of the controversial examples contained within the working definition.

Several high-profile bodies have rejected or distanced themselves from the working definition, including the EU’s Fundamental Rights Agency (a successor to the body that drafted the original wording on which the definition is based) and academic institutions, including the London School of Economics and the School of Oriental and African Studies.

Mainstream academic and legal opinion has been overwhelmingly critical of the IHRA definition, including formal opinions produced by three senior UK barristers and one former appeals court judge. Virtually none of this essential context found its way into news reports of the controversy. Instead, the Labour Party was routinely portrayed by both sources and correspondents as beyond the pale of conventional thinking on the IHRA definition.”

Which all goes to show that Britain’s mainstream media has a hill to climb to get back its self-respect.

By Stuart Littlewood

Saturday, July 28


Guai se la denuncia del nazi-fascismo, risuonata nel 70° anniversario della liberazione di Auschwitz, servisse a depistare l’opinione pubblica dall’altro più pericoloso FASCISCMO quello ECONOMICO, fondato, principalmente, sulla menzogna che giustifica i peggiori atti, terminando in sistematiche aggressioni a POPOLI E CULTURE, AUTOCTONE, DEL MONDO INTERO

Per esempio la Jugoslavia, rasa al suolo dopo la decisione della Germania, assieme al Vaticano (1991) di riconoscere i separatisti, cattolici, sloveni e croati: inaccettabile, per la nascente EUROZONA, la sopravvivenza di un grande Stato, multi-etnico, come la JUGOSLAVIA  e, con l’economia interamente in mani pubbliche. 

Per esempio la Libia, di Muhamar Gheddafi, travolta dopo una sua  decisione di costituire una Banca Centrale africana con  un'unica moneta in oro, alternativa al dollaro. 

E avanti così, dalla Siria all’Ucraina, fino alle contorsioni terrificanti del cosiddetto ISIS, fondato sulle unità di guerriglia addestrate dall’Occidente in Libia contro Gheddafi, poi smistate in Siria contro Assad e quindi dirottate in Iraq. Possiamo chiamarlo come vogliamo, dice John Pilger, ma è sempre fascismo-economico

«Se gli Stati Uniti e i loro vassalli non avessero iniziato la loro guerra di aggressione in Iraq nel 2003, quasi un milione di persone oggi sarebbero vive, e lo Stato Islamico non ci avrebbe fatto assistere alle sue atrocità», scrive Pilger in una riflessione ripresa dal “Come Don Chisciotte”. 

Se gli USA avessero esitato, disse Obama, la città di Bengasi «avrebbe potuto subire un massacro che avrebbe macchiato la coscienza del mondo». Peccato che Bengasi non sia mai stata minacciata da nessuno: «Era un’invenzione delle milizie SCIITE-islamiche che stavano per essere sconfitte dalle forze governative libiche».

I nuovi “mostri” sono «la progenie del fascismo-economico moderno, svezzato dalle bombe, dai bagni di sangue e dalle menzogne, che sono il teatro surreale conosciuto col nome di “informazione”». Infatti, «come durante il fascismo-economico degli anni ‘30 e ‘40, le grandi menzogne vengono trasmesse con la precisione di un metronomo grazie agli onnipresenti, ripetitivi media e la loro velenosa censura per omissione». 

In Libia, nel 2011 la NATO ha effettuato 9.700 attacchi aerei, più di un terzo dei quali mirato ad obiettivi civili, con strage di bambini. Bombe all’uranio impoverito, sganciate su Misurata e Sirte, bombardate a tappeto. Il massacro di Ghedaffi in diretta mondiale, da parte degli uomini del DGSE, mischiati tra la folla, «è stato giustificato con la solita grande menzogna: Ghedaffi stava progettando il “genocidio” del suo popolo». Al posto della verità: Ghedaffi stava denunciando Nicholas Sarkozy per corruzione

L'insignificante Barak Obama, premio Nobel per la pace disse che se gli USA, non fossere intervenuti immadiatamente, la città di Bengasi «avrebbe potuto subire un massacro che avrebbe macchiato la coscienza del mondo» 

Paradossalmente, avvene un ALTRO tragico fatto:" il, prevedibile, massacro dell'ambasciatore statunitense Chris Stevens e della sua scorta a Bengazi sotto la totale INERZIA della Casa Bianca e del Dipartimento di Stato. 

Peccato per il povero Stevens, ma Bengasi non è mai stata minacciata da nessuno: «Era una INFAME invenzione delle milizie islamiche sciite libiche che stavano per essere sopraffatte e sconfitte dalle forze governative tripolitane». Le milizie, aggiunge Pilger, dissero alla “Reuters” che ci sarebbe stato «un vero e proprio bagno di sangue, un massacro come quello accaduto in Ruanda». 

La menzogna, segnalata il 14 marzo 2011, ha fornito la prima scintilla all’inferno della NATO, definito da David Cameron come «intervento umanitario». Molti dei “ribelli” sciiti, segretamente armati e addestrati dalle SAS britanniche, sarebbero poi diventati ISIS, decapitatori di “infedeli”. 

In realtà, per Obama, Cameron e Sarkozy – scrive Pilger – il vero crimine di Gheddafi, come prima anticipato, fù l'imminente indipendenza economica della Libia dal franco francese e dal dollaro USA e la sua dichiarata intenzione di smettere di vendere in dollari USA le più grandi riserve di petrolio dell’Africa, minacciando così il petrodollaro, che è «un pilastro del potere imperiale MONDIALE DO CONTROLLO americano». 

«Era l’idea stessa ad essere intollerabile per gli Stati Uniti, che si preparavano ad “entrare” in Africa -gia nel 1999, corrompendo i governi africani con offerte di Clinton e Blair-collaborazione-militare».

Così, “liberata” la Libia, Obama «ha confiscato 30 miliardi di dollari dalla banca centrale libica, che Gheddafi aveva stanziato per la creazione di una banca centrale africana e per il dinaro africano, valuta basata sull’oro».

La “guerra umanitaria” contro la Libia aveva un modello vicino ai cuori liberali occidentali, soprattutto nei media, continua Pilger, ricordando che, nel 1999, Bill Clinton e Tony Blair inviarono la Nato a bombardare la Serbia, «perché, mentirono, affermando che i serbi stavano commettendo un “genocidio” contro l’etnia albanese della provincia secessionista del Kosovo»

Finiti i bombardamenti della NATO, con gran parte delle infrastrutture della Serbia in rovina – insieme a scuole, ospedali, monasteri e la televisione nazionale – le squadre internazionali di polizia scientifica scesero sul Kosovo per riesumare le prove del cosiddetto “olocausto”. L’FBI non riuscì a trovare una singola fossa comune e tornò a casa.

Il team spagnolo fece lo stesso, e chi li guidava dichiarò con rabbia che ci fu «una piroetta semantica delle macchine di propaganda di guerra». Un anno dopo, un tribunale delle Nazioni Unite sulla Jugoslavia svelò il conteggio finale dei morti: 2.788, cioè i combattenti su entrambi i lati, nonché i serbi e i rom uccisi dall'UCK. «Non c’era stato alcun genocidio.

L' "olocausto” jugoslavo è stato una menzogna».

L’attacco NATO era stato fraudolento, insiste Pilger, spiegando che «dietro la menzogna, c’era una seria motivazione: la Jugoslavia era un’indipendente federazione multietnica, unica nel suo genere, che fungeva da ponte politico ed economico durante la guerra fredda».

Attenzione: «La maggior parte dei suoi servizi e della sua grande produzione era di proprietà pubblica. Questo non era accettabile in una Comunità Europea in piena espansione, in particolare per la nuova Germania unita, che aveva iniziato a spingersi ad Est per accaparrarsi il suo “mercato naturale” nelle province jugoslave di Croazia e Slovenia». 

Sicché, «prima che  gli europei si riunissero a Maastricht nel 1991 a presentare i loro piani per la disastrosa Euro-Zona, un accordo segreto era stato approvato: la Germania avrebbe riconosciuto la Croazia». Quindi, «il destino della Jugoslavia era segnato».

La solita macchina stritolatrice: «A Washington, gli Stati Uniti si assicurarono che alla sofferente Pilger-economia jugoslava fossero negati prestiti dalla Banca Mondiale, mentre la NATO, allora una quasi defunta reliquia della guerra fredda, fu reinventata, CON PRONTEZZAcome tutore dell’ordine imperiale».

Nel 1999, durante una conferenza sulla “pace” in Kosovo a Rambouillet, in Francia, i serbi furono sottoposti alle tattiche ipocrite dei sopracitati tutori. «L’accordo di Rambouillet comprendeva un allegato B segreto, che la delegazione statunitense inserì all’ultimo momento».

La clausola esigeva che tutta la Jugoslavia – un paese con ricordi amari dell’occupazione nazista – fosse messa sotto occupazione militare, e che fosse attuata una “economia di libero mercato” con la privatizzazione di tutti i beni appartenenti al governo.

«Nessuno Stato sovrano avrebbe potuto firmare una cosa del genere», osserva Pilger. «La punizione fu rapida; le bombe della Nato caddero su di un paese indifeso. La pietra miliare delle catastrofi era stata posata

Seguirono le catastrofi dell’Afghanistan, poi dell’Iraq, della Libia, della Siria, e adesso dell’Ucraina. Dal 1945, più di un terzo dei membri delle Nazioni Unite – 69 paesi – hanno subito alcune o tutte le seguenti situazioni per mano del moderno fascismo-economico

Sono stati invasi decine e decine di governi, i loro legali rappresentanti rovesciati, i loro movimenti popolari soppressi, i risultati delle elezioni sovvertiti, la loro gente bombardata e le loro economie spogliate di ogni protezione, le loro società sottoposte a un assedio paralizzante noto come “sanzioni”. Lo storico britannico Mark Curtis stima il numero di morti in milioni

«Come giustificazione, in ogni singolo caso una grande, immensa, sporca menzogna è stata raccontata dalla centrale del fascismo-economico-mondiale.»

Sunday, April 15


Edward M. Spiers, professor of strategic studies at Leeds University, in England, explores both the myths and realities of chemical and biological warfare. Organized more or less
chronologically, Spiers recounts the evolution of chemical and biological weapons from the first mass uses of chemical weapons in World War I to the potential of modern biology to transform bioterrorism.

Spiers writes that chemical and biological weapons have probably been around as long as warfare itself. Ancient European, Indian, and Chinese history is replete with the use of poisonous snakes, insects, diseased animals, incendiaries, poison-tipped weapons, and poisoned water supplies in warfare. The first large-scale use of chemical weapons occurred in World War I, when the Germans discharged chlorine gas from cylinders at Ypres, Belgium, in 1915. 

Reported casualties from the gas ranged from 7,000 to 15,000 people, but after the initial surprise, the Allies were able to improvise protective measures. Within five months, the British were able to retaliate at the Battle of Loos, but they suffered 2,000 casualties to their own gas.

The failures of gas to break the enemy’s lines at Ypres, Loos, and other battles contributed to the legacy of gas warfare in World War I as a failure. However, Spiers argues, this legacy was largely shaped by postwar historians, because few participants shared that view. The use of gas actually increased over the course of the war. In addition to consequent casualties, gas negatively affected morale and considerably contributed to psychological and physical stress. Antigas defenses also made warfare more cumbersome, exacerbating logistical and communication challenges.

As evidence of the effectiveness of chemical weapons, real or imagined, Spiers writes that the Allies prohibited Germany from manufacturing and importing asphyxiating or poisonous
gases as part of the Treaty of Versailles that ended the war. Furthermore, in 1925, 44 nations signed the Geneva Protocol, which prohibited the use of chemical and biological weapons by international law and the “conscience and practice of nations.” Nonetheless, during the period between World Wars I and II, Britain considered but, for largely moral and political reasons, did not use chemical weapons in Egypt, Afghanistan, India, and Iraq.

Winston Churchill himself was “strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes,” Spiers writes. The eventual use of gas bombs by the Italians in Ethiopia in 1935–36, however, in direct contravention of the Ge ne va Protocol, reawakened Europe to the possibility of gas warfare. In Britain, more than 50 million “antigas” helmets had been distributed by the beginning of World War II. 


A Kurdish woman carries photos of relatives killed in chemical weapons attacks ordered
Questions of efficacy aside, Spiers writes that a combination of other factors averted the use
of chemical weapons during the Second World War. Because of the industrial and economic
hardships engendered as a result of the First World War, German, French, and British
chemical production capacity was limited. Hitler personally disdained chemical weapons,
which had injured him during World War I

Moreover, early in World War II, Germany did not need to resort to chemical weapons, and the Allies could not risk using them near friendlycivilian populations. Eventually, Germany did test its V1 and V2 rockets with chemical warheads, although the nation was deterred from using them by fear of reprisal against its civilian population. 

By the end of the war, U.S. military-industrial might had produced the world’s largest stock of chemical weapons and the air power to deliver them. However, the development of the atomic bomb, and success on other fronts, made their use unnecessary.

Biological weapons were not used to a significant extent in either the First or Second World
Wars. Nonetheless, as Spiers describes, there were still chilling reminders of the potential
power of even crude biological weapons. After the Japanese surrender in 1945, six Japanese soldiers released hordes of plague-infested rats and 60 horses infected with glanders into the Chinese countryside, leaving Changchun and surrounding environs uninhabitable until the mid-1950s.

Nuclear weapons, of course, came to dominate deterrence strategies during the Cold War.
Nonetheless, the proliferation of a new class of chemical weapons, nerve agents such as
sarin [2-(fluoro-methylphosphoryl)oxypropane], touched off a new chemical arms race, Spiers writes. From 1954 to 1969, the U.S. also manufactured and stockpiled numerous antiplant and antipersonnel biological weapons.

In Vietnam, the U.S. faced criticism, both at home and abroad, for its use of riot-control agents (to clear tunnels, for example), defoliants, and chemical weapons to kill crops and render soils infertile. In 1967 alone, the U.S. defoliated 1.5 million acres of vegetation and destroyed 220,000 acres of crops in Vietnam. In 1969, the Nixon Administration announced the end of the U.S. biological weapons program, in part, Spiers argues, to blunt criticism for its use of herbicides and riot control agents in Vietnam.

In the meantime, Spiers writes, the Soviets were developing the world’s most advanced chemical and biological weapons program.

During the Cold War, Iran and Iraq also waged a devastating war (1980–88) that again witnessed the mass by former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein.

Credit: Newscom use of chemical weapons. The Iraq Survey Group (ISG) later confirmed that the Iraqis had used some 1,800 tons of mustard agent, 140 tons of tabun (ethyl Ndimethyl phosphoramido cyanidate), and 600 tons of sarin. 

Iraq estimated these attacks resulted in more than 30,000 Iranian casualties (compared with the 500,000 to 1 million estimated total Iranian casualties). As Spiers notes, although the number of casualties from chemical weapons may have been small on a relative basis, the psychological impact was significant. Iraq’s ballistic missiles, and the fear of their potential to deliver chemical warheads to Iranian cities, played a role in Iran’s accepting the United Nations-brokered truce in 1988. Iraqi chemical weapons also helped to suppress the internal Kurdish rebellion, killing and injuring thousands of Kurds and leading to the flight of 65,000 others to Turkey in 1988, Spiers writes.

By the 1990 invasion of Kuwait, Iraq had significantly restocked and improved its chemical weapons capabilities. U.S. Central Commander Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf originally planned for 10,000 to 20,000 chemical weapons casualties, but Iraq never resorted to chemical weapons. The George H. W. Bush Administration had already decided not to respond with nuclear or chemical weapons if coalition forces were attacked with chemical weapons, but they deliberately conveyed the opposite impression.

Iraqi Ambassador to the U.S. Tariq Aziz later commented that the Iraqis understood that the use of chemical weapons might very well provoke the use of nuclear weapons against Baghdad by the U.S. Although Iraq’s SCUD missile attacks against Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain inflicted minimal physical damage, the specter of chemical warheads inflicted great psychological damage. Spiers quotes Schwarzkopf: “The biggest concern was a chemical warhead threat. … Each time they launched … the question was, is this going to be a chemical missile. That was what you were concerned about.” 

Their unique ability to engender such fears, of course, is precisely what makes chemical and biological weapons appealing to terrorists. As Spiers astutely notes, “terrorists can choose when, where, and how to attack their targets, they can avoid many of the uncertainties that have bedeviled the military use of chemical and biological weapons. By maximizing the element of surprise, they can attack targets with low or non-existent levels of protection; by careful choice of target environment, especially an enclosed facility, they need not wait upon optimum meteorological conditions; by attacking highly vulnerable areas, they may use a less than optimal mode of delivery; and by making a chemical or biological assault, they may expect to capture media attention and cause widespread panic.”

Although chemical weapons have been used much more frequently, Spiers notes that on a per-mass basis, biological weapons are more lethal than chemical weapons. As advances in production technologies can simultaneously result in increased yields in smaller, harder-todetect facilities, the potential utility of biological weapons to terrorists will become even more significant. 

In the most well-known example of biological terrorism to date, in October 2001, just after the 9/11 attacks, anthrax-tainted letters began appearing in the U.S. Despite fears of another international attack, the strain was identified as having come from a domestic source, the Army research facility at Fort Detrick, Md. Letters were received in Florida, New York, Connecticut, and Washington, D.C., including a Senate office building. As Spiers described it, “massive panic and chaos” erupted, and Congress and the Supreme Court were closed for several days, although only 22 cases of anthrax actually resulted, including just five fatalities.

One of the most sobering developments outlined in the book is the application and
proliferation of emergent molecular biology techniques to the production of biological
weapons. Through the use of genetic engineering, new or modified organisms of greater
virulence, antibiotic resistance, and environmental stability may be produced. 

In one notable example foreshadowing the utility of biotechnology to weapons production, the Soviets developed the host bacterium Yersinia pseudotuberculosis, which through genetic engineering could also produce the myelin toxin. Infected animals developed both the tuberculosis-like symptoms caused by the bacteria and the paralysis induced by the myelin toxin. One former Soviet scientist recalled that after a briefing on the results, “the room was absolutely silent. We all recognized the implications of what the scientists had achieved. A new class of weapon had been found.”

Additional topics in this comprehensive book include the various international attempts at chemical and biological weapons disarmament, deterrence, and nonproliferation, including the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention; the sarin attacks on the Japanese subways in the mid-1990s; the use of chemical warfare in developing-world conflicts; and the embarrassing failures of American and British intelligence regarding Iraqi chemical weapons that led to the second Gulf War. 

For those of us interested in the potential impacts of chemistry and biology on humankind, Spiers’s book is a thoroughly documented, no-nonsense (often to the point of being dry) review of the malevolent potential of our science.

Read also here
and here

Friday, April 7



On the eve of the 14th anniversary of one of the most contentious and divisive wars in living memory, Peter Taylor forensically investigates how key aspects of the secret intelligence used by Downing Street and the White House to justify the invasion of Iraq, were based on fabrication, wishful thinking and lies.
Using remarkable first hand testimony, this one-hour Panorama special reveals the full story of how two very highly placed sources, both close to Saddam Hussein, talked secretly to the CIA via an intermediary and directly to MI6 in the build-up to the war and said Iraq did not have an active Weapons of Mass Destruction programme. But both were ignored.

In a compelling story of spies and intrigue, deception and lies, key players reveal how sparse British and American intelligence was and how none of the handful of human sources had direct knowledge of WMD production. 

The former CIA Paris Station Chief, Bill Murray, explains how he used an intermediary to recruit Iraq’s Foreign Minister and his frustration when he found crucial intelligence from this source was rejected because it didn’t fit in with the White House’s agenda. 

The intelligence from Iraq’s Foreign Minister was confirmed four months later, when an MI6 officer met Iraq’s Head of Intelligence, who passed on the same message, saying Iraq had no WMD.

Lord Butler, author of the 2004 report into the WMD intelligence, says the British public was misled.

With a series of revelatory interviews, including a shocking exchange with the Iraqi spy and self-confessed fabricator ‘Curveball’, Panorama sheds new light on the spies who fooled the world.

Sunday, October 11


Analisi Didesa. L’Amministrazione Obama ha deciso di mettere fine al contestato programma da 500 milioni di dollari annui del Pentagono per addestrare i ribelli “moderati” siriani.

Riconoscendo, in questo modo, il fallimento totale nella formazione di combattenti in grado di contrastare lo stato islamico. Lo ha riferito il New York Times, citando fonti della stessa amministrazione Obama. 

La conferma è arrivata poco dopo dal segretario alla Difesa, Ash Carter, secondo cui il presidente americano presenterà a breve proposte di modifica al programma. Sarà lo stesso Obama a parlarne nelle prossime ore, ha aggiunto Carter.

Dal Pentagono una fonte sotto anonimato ha spiegato al quotidiano che non verranno più reclutati ribelli da mandare ad addestrare in Giordania, Qatar, Arabia Saudita o Emirati, ma verrà allestito un centro di formazione più piccolo in Turchia dove un piccolo gruppo di “facilitatori”, per la maggior parte comandanti dei gruppi di opposizione, verranno istruiti su manovre tattiche  e su come chiedere l’intervento dei cacciabombardieri della Coalizione.

Ashton Carter, ha affermato che gli USA intendono cambiare il programma di addestramento dei ribelli siriani contro lo stato islamico seguendo l’esempio della collaborazione coi curdi. “Il lavoro che abbiamo fatto coi curdi nel nord della Siria è l’esempio di un approccio efficace”, ha affermato il ministro americano nel corso di un incontro a Londra col suo omologo britannico Michael Fallon.

Questo è l’esempio che vogliamo seguire con gli altri gruppi in Siria d’ora in avanti”, ha aggiunto Carter senza spiegare però che mentre i curdi controllano ampi territori i ribelli siriani moderati sono a ranghi ridotti e controllano poco enclaves in Siria minacciate dalla pressione dello stato islamico e del Fronte al-Nusra oltre che dalle forze regolari di Damasco.

Il fallimento del piano americano di rafforzare i ribelli moderati coincide con l’offensiva scatenata ieri dallo stato islamico che continua ad avanzare a nord di Aleppo attaccando le postazioni dei ribelli moderati e quelle governative. Qui gli uomini del Califfato hanno ucciso giovedì sera il generale iraniano Hussein Hamedani, morto mentre svolgeva il suo lavoro di “consigliere” delle forze siriane, ha spiegato la tv di Teheran. 

Hamedani era indicato come il responsabile in Siria delle Forze al Quds, la divisione per le operazioni all’estero dei Pasdaran iraniani.Secondo l’Osservatorio nazionale per i diritti umani in Siria (organizzazione vicina ai ribelli sospettata di essere sostenuto dall’intelligence anglo-americana)  Hamedani è stato ucciso dallo stato islamico vicino all’aeroporto di Kweiris, a est di Aleppo, assediato dai jihadisti.

La Francia ha bombardato ieri per la quinta volta campi d’addestramento del Califfato a Raqqa mentre Mosca ha annunciato ieri di aver bombardato 60 “obiettivi terroristici” in Siria nelle ultime 24 ore.“

Nei 67 raid dei caccia bombardieri Su-34M e Su-25SM nelle province di Raqqa, Latakia, Hama, Idlib e Aleppo sono stati uccisi circa 300 jihadisti, compresi due comandanti, e sono andati distrutti 6 centri di comunicazione e di comando, 17 campi di addestramento, 6 depositi di armi, 13 tunnel utilizzati dai jihadisti nella provincia di Latakia, 16 roccaforti, 17 mezzi corazzati, 2 sistemi multipli di lanciarazzi”.

I dati sono stati resi noti durante una conferenza stampa dal generale Igor Igor Konashenkov , capo dello Stato maggiore russo che ha fornito oggi i dati dei raid effettuati oggi: 64 contro 55 obiettivi. Di fatto la media delle sortite offensive russe si attesta oltre le 50/60 al giorno, oltre il doppio di quelle effettuate dalla Coalizione a guida statunitense.

Come è consuetudine i russi definiscono “terroristi” non solo i miliziani del Califfato ma anche i miliziani dei gruppi salafiti, qaedisti e dei fratelli musulmani che militano nell’Esercito della Conquista (sostenuti da turchi, sauditi e Qatar) e che vengono colpiti insieme allo Stato Islamico poiché presidiano il fronte più delicato per il regime di Bashar Assad, quello nord occidentale tra Latakya, Idlib e Hama

Secondo quanto riportato dalla tv araba al-Mayadin molti membri dello stato islamico hanno evacuato le famiglie da Raqqa dopo l’avvio dei raid aerei russi. Fonti saudite citate dalla BBC assicurano che Riad ha già intensificato il sostegno bellico alle forze dei ribelli siriani.

Per il terzo giorno consecutivo è proseguita l’offensiva di terra delle truppe governative siriane appoggiate da miliziani libanesi e iraniani, che tentano di sfondare le linee degli insorti su tre lati tra Hama e Idlib: Atshan, Kfar Nabbuda e Khan Shaykhun.


Organizers and participants in the “Creating a Workable World” conference (held this weekend at the University of Minnesota) are undoubtedly sincere. No one wants to live in an unworkable world. 

The sponsoring World Federalist Movement has historically exercised a strong attraction on progressives, appealing to their generous sentiments and wish for world peace, as Coleen Rowley and Diana Johnstone, describe.

“Human rights” organizations have become purveyors of bloody chaos as they advocate Western big-power military attacks on weak countries in the name of “responsibility to protect” – one of several purportedly well- intentioned strategies gone awry such a grand, overarching ideal as world federalism or global democracy must be evaluated in light of current circumstances and its track record.

At the end of World War II, it was widely believed that nationalism was the main cause of the horrors that had just devastated much of the world. It was easy to imagine that abolishing nation states would be a step toward ending wars by removing their cause. 

This sentiment was particularly strong in Western Europe, forming the ideological foundation of the movement that led to European integration, now embodied in the European Union. In that same period, there was a historic movement going in the opposite direction: the national liberation movements in various colonized countries of the Third World

The political drive for national liberation from European powers —Britain, France, the Netherlands— contributed to establishing national sovereignty as the foundation of world peace, by outlawing aggression

Newly liberated Third World countries felt protected by the principle of national sovereignty, seeing it as essential to independence and even to survival. But today, 70 years after the end of World War II, experience has provided lessons in the practice of these two contrary ideals: supranational governance and national sovereignty

Not surprisingly, the official voices of the hegemonic world power and its allies tend to cite internal conflicts, especially in weaker Third World countries, as proof that national sovereignty must be violated in order to defend “human rights” and bring democracy. The danger from “genocide” has even become an official U.S.-NATO pretext for advocating and launching military intervention. With disastrous results

It’s therefore not surprising that Workable World’s keynote speaker, W. Andy Knight, was a supporter of the infamous regime-change war that virtually destroyed Libya, under the guise, paradoxically, of the U.S. and NATO’sresponsibility to protect.” 

That is not just a side issue: It signals the dirty business of wars and regime-change intrigues currently underway behind the scholarly façade of “global governance”. We fear that opposing arguments in favor of national sovereignty will probably not be discussed much during this conference. 

And yet, the European Union has served as an experimental laboratory testing what happens when a large and growing number (now 28) of sovereign states turns over a major part of their rights to supranational governance. Unified institutionally, the weaker members find themselves dominated by the powerful

Despite decades of speeches proclaiming that “we are all Europeans,” when it comes to the crunch, people revert radically to their national identity. Germans resent Greeks for being debtors; Greeks resent Germans for keeping them in debt

All the more so in that there is no way out. Elections are increasingly meaningless within the member states, because major economic decisions are taken essentially in Brussels, by the E.U. institutionsThis is causing increasing disillusionment and de-politicization in Europe

Europeans take virtually no interest in the European Parliament. They do not feel represented by it, and indeed they are not. Democracy works best in small circumscriptions: Greek city states, Iceland, villages. 

The bigger it gets, the less “democratic” it can be. Half a century ago, the functioning ideal was to bring eternal peace to Europe through unity. Today, that institutional unity is creating new divisions and hostility

To put it simply, experience is in the process of killing the ideal and showing why “worldwide parliamentary democracy” may bring more harm than good, at least in the real world as it exists today and will for some time to come.

Wednesday, September 2


Gli Stati Uniti hanno deciso di imporre altre sanzioni alla Federazione Russa. Questa volta, contro società militari russe accusate di violare la Legge Federale degli USA sulla "non proliferazione delle armi"

Sono finite nel mirino del Dipartimento di Stato americano la "KBP Instrument Design Bureau" di Tula, la "JSC Katod" di Novosibirsk (azienda produttrice di dispositivi di visione notturna e convertitori elettro-ottici), il "Consorzio produttivo di ricerca di ingegneria meccanica" di Reutov, la "Rosoboronexport" e la "Russia Aircraft Corporation". 

Insieme alle sopracitate aziende russe, sono state colpite anche alcune società in Iran, Cina, Corea del Nord, Emirati Arabi, Siria, Sudan e Turchia.

Secondo il documento della Federal Register USA, ai ministeri e ai dipartimenti degli Stati Uniti d'America, viene fatto assoluto divieto di acquistare i prodotti da queste aziende e/o di fornire, loro, qualsiasi tipo di assistenza tecnica.

Solo il segretario di Stato John Kerry ha il diritto di fare e disfare, eventuali, nuovi avvenimenti. Le misure introdotte, comunque, rimarranno in vigore per un periodo di 2 anni.

In realtà, gli U.S.A. si sono inventati questa nuova gabola, per bloccare l'industria militare russa, e privarla di certe "componentistiche statunitensi" che non permetteranno ai russi di poter concretizzare forniture militari per circa ottanta miliardi di dollari, a quei tre Stati (il prossimo anno, anche la Libia sarà in gioco).

Nessuna concorrenza russa. Please. Cerchiamo di capire meglio questo fooling to play.

Iran e Corea del Nord, due paesi distanti migliaia di chilometri, due approcci nei confronti della religione diametralmente opposti, due popoli che non spartiscono nulla ne a livello storico ne a livello culturale, ma due paesi che hanno stabilito un’alleanza strategica per combattere un nemico comune e per raggiungere reciproci benefici.

Iran e Corea del Nord hanno come nemico comune una potenza globale, quale sono gli Stati Uniti d’America, e di riflesso hanno nemici regionali che sono forti alleati degli USA.

Per quanto riguarda la Corea del Nord i nemici regionali sono rappresentati da Giappone e Corea del Sud, per quanto riguarda l’Iran sono lo stato di Israele e l’Arabia Saudita.

Entrambi i paesi, Iran e Corea del Nord, hanno alle spalle uno sponsor rappresentato da una potenza globale, parliamo di sponsor e non di alleati per una serie di motivi che vi elencheremo.

Per quanto riguarda l’Iran lo sponsor principale è la Federazione Russa, per quello che riguarda la Corea del Nord è la Cina. 

Abbiamo definito sponsor Russia e Cina, e non alleati, in quanto nessuna delle due potenze ha piena fiducia in Teheran e in Pyongyang.

Il timore che nutrono Cina e Russia è rappresentato dal fatto che sia Corea del Nord che Iran perseguono programmi atomici e l’acquisizione di armi nucleari da parte di questi due paesi potrebbe trasformare in breve tempo Teheran e Pyongyang, non solo come potenze regionali (con un grande peso diplomatico nelle scelte per il futuro delle rispettive aree di influenza) ma potenzialmente porre Iran e Corea del Nord come avversari degli odierni loro sponsor Russia e Cina.

La Corea del Nord potrebbe ergersi a difesa delle nazioni del sud est asiatico che reclamano territori ambiti da Pechino, e l’Iran potrebbe diventare un punto di riferimento per i molti mussulmani del Caucaso, area tanto ricca di risorse naturali, quanto affollata da spinte islamiste ed indipendentiste.

Non bisogna quindi dare per scontato ed assoluto l’appoggio di Russia e Cina ad Iran, Siria e Corea del Nord (vedi sanzioni contro la Russia da parte degli yankee), ragione per cui queste nazioni ricercano indipendenza sotto il punto di vista energetico, industriale e militare.

Anche gli avversari regionali di Iran e Corea del Nord hanno iniziato a collaborare direttamente tra loro, un ultimo esempio ne è il viaggio del Primo Ministro israeliano in Giappone e gli accordi di collaborazione nel campo della guerra elettronica e cibernetica firmati tra Tokio e Gerusalemme, proprio per contrastare l’alleanza Teheran Pyongyang.

Israele ed Arabia Saudita, così come Giappone e Corea del Sud collaborano attivamente in campo diplomatico e militare ma per ragioni di opportunità politica tale collaborazione avviene ad un livello di bassa ufficialità e con minima pubblicità.

La collaborazione nel campo energetico vede l’Iran come fornitore di energia per la Corea, anche se l’assenza di grande capacità di raffinazione dei due paesi rende gli scambi in questo settore non adeguati alle necessità della Corea del Nord.

Iran e Corea del Nord collaborano da oltre dieci anni in campo militare e ambedue i paesi perseguono, se osservati attentamente, un cammino di sviluppo parallelo delle proprie capacità militari.

Entrambe i paesi stanno fortemente impegnandosi nella ricerca missilistica e nello sviluppo di processi industrializzati dell’arricchimento del minerale di uranio e della produzione di plutonio.

La Corea del Nord ha inoltre già testato diversi dispositivi nucleari, di potenza crescente, ma non ha ancora raggiunto un livello tecnologico tale da porter sviluppare e testare un’arma atomica impiegabile sul campo.

Ufficiali dei due paesi sono spesso presenti alle esercitazioni della controparte, o al lancio di nuovi vettori missilistici che spesso vengono sviluppati in sinergia tra gli ingegneri e le industrie dei due paesi. Meno chiara e invece la collaborazione in campo nucleare, fattore cruciale delle politiche militari dei due paesi.

Non esistono prove pubbliche della collaborazione tra Iran e Corea del Nord in campo nucleare, tuttavia è ragionevole pensare che come per gli altri aspetti della collaborazione militare, anche in questo campo le due nazioni possano condividere risorse e conoscenze.

Se così fosse, così come i dati dei test missilistici dell’Iran vengono regolarmente condivisi con la Corea del Nord, così i test nucleari della Corea del Nord, ed i relativi risultati, potrebbero essere nelle mani degli scienziati atomici di Teheran.

Se questa nostra ipotesi fosse corretta, diminuisce per l’Iran la necessità di eseguire test atomici delle proprie armi potendo avere, almeno in teoria, i dati delle esplosioni Nord Coreane, accorciando e non di poco la via verso le armi atomiche del governo degli Ayatollah.

E se la Russia desse una mano e quei beoti di americani si congolano, ancora, del loro bluff deal, allora sì che...

Tuesday, July 28


The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPA) reached on July 14, 2015 between Iran and the P5+1 and the EU High Representative may ultimately prove to be one of President Obama’s greatest achievements. 

To attain that status, it will have to overcome serious Congressional hurdles, but even more important, it will have to withstand the test of time and prove that it can successfully resist Iran’s determination to obtain nuclear military capability. 

Among the world leaders who negotiated the JCPA with Iran, none will have to face the same political opposition, domestic and external, that will be directed against President Obama long after he retires from the White House. 

For now, however, the President must overcome opposition by Congress, where both chambers are controlled by the Republicans. According to the legislative compromise reached in May 2015 between the Republicans, Democrats, and the White House, Congress will have 60 days to review the JCPA and either give it bicameral  approval or reject it. 

As announced by President Obama, rejection will incur a presidential veto. This veto can be overruled by two thirds of the Senate and the House of Representatives, a highly improbable scenario. Thus in all likelihood, the President will prevail and the JCPA will be endorsed officially by the United States. 

Moreover, failure by the President to mobilize the support of a third of either the Senate or the House does not necessarily mean the end of the JCPA as far as the US is concerned. While it means the US has not assumed any formal obligation toward Iran as have the other signatories, the President can, for example, waive non-statutory sanctions, i.e., those imposed by Congress. 

The sanctions imposed by the US government can be revoked, as well as those imposed by the Security Council, which were adopted by the government but not signed into law. President Obama himself signed several Executive Orders that imposed sanctions against the import of certain goods and sanctions dealing with particular Iranian figures. 

He has the power to waive these sanctions, and in his public statements after the JCPA was announced, Obama left no doubt regarding his determination to see this agreement through, staking his own legacy on the deal and his success in skirting Congressional opposition.  

The current confrontation between President and Congress is rooted in two sources. One is the historic constitutional battle between the executive and legislative branches on which holds the power of making war and peace. The second, more recent factor is the growing political polarization in American society. 

Despite a measure of criticism against the agreement and the failure of the negotiators, and the US in particular, to provide adequate answer to issues relating to the nuclear domain – and certainly to issues relating to Iran's involvement in terrorism, or what amounts to the administration’s abandonment of the military option – President Obama is nonetheless justified in saying that Iran's road to nuclear military capability has, at least for the next 10-15 years, been blocked. 

The vote in the two houses of Congress, however, will reflect the partisan rivalry more than any critical assessment of the JCPA's merits. 

Israel has legitimate concerns and President Obama himself has recognized this, even while asserting that a better alternative to the JCPA was not proposed. Israel and its political leaders have the duty to express their concerns and point to the weaknesses and lapses of both the negotiations process with Iran and the result – the JCPA. 

But here issues of substance and form assume critical importance. Prime Minister Netanyahu erred when he approached Congress directly, which constituted an affront to the President at the height of the partisan battle between the Democratic President and the Republican-controlled Congress. 

The Prime Minister would repeat this mistake should he seek to address a joint Congressional session again. The previous attempt to leverage Congressional support, in early March 2015, did not succeed in halting the negotiations with Iran. 

The legislation (H.R. 1191 of May 2015) did not call upon the President to end the negotiations, and the odds are slim that Congress can override the President's determination to make the JCPA binding on the United States. 

Prime Minster Netanyahu is already perceived as taking sides in the highly charged domestic partisan contest – his speech to Congress last March was boycotted by dozens of legislators – and further intervention in the Congressional process relating to the JCPA could inflict long term damage on the hitherto bi-partisan support for Israel in US public opinion. 

There is already some erosion in that support among America’s young, liberal generation, including the Jewish component. 

President Obama's public statements after the announcement of the JCPA in Vienna on July 14, 2015 indicate willingness to enter into a serious discussion with the Israeli government over the implications of the agreement for Israel's security. 

This dialogue is vital for Israel, and should not be confined to the military aspects of Iran's nuclear program and Israel's qualitative military edge. President Obama has acknowledged that the JCPA deals solely with the nuclear aspects, and that Israel has legitimate concerns beyond them. 

It must be assumed that Iran's agenda in other matters in the Middle East will not change; indeed, Iran might well be encouraged by the agreement and the end of the international sanctions regime to pursue its strategic goals even more actively. 

It must likewise be assumed that the parallel discussions between the US and Iran at the very high level while the negotiations were underway will not end suddenly.

It is imperative that Israel realize that though the agreement has become a reality, the debate in the US and especially in Congress has just begun, particularly as the legislation calls for the administration to submit periodical reports both on Iran's implementation of the JCPA and on other issues, such as Iran's support for terror. 

Through sophisticated diplomacy, Israel will be able to influence the discussions, those in Congress and those between the US and Iran, staying away from the political domestic rift that will inevitably widen in the US presidential race. 

The Iran nuclear file, troubling as it is, is just one of the long term dangers Israel is facing. The more immediate regional threats have to do with the radicalization and fragmentation processes in the region and the proliferation of weapons that are not categorized as WMD but have a significant destructive power. 

These are the issues that should be on the top of the agenda in a healthier, less acrimonious dialogue that is based a higher degree of trust. The political leaders at the highest echelons in both Israel and the United States are responsible for restoring this dialogue to that level and quality.