#silence is the same as support when it is OUR government providing military aid to israel

[carpathxanridge]

some of u guys r just going full mask off zionist huh

[wisdomrays]

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS: Are Muslims Guilty of Imperialism?

This charge continues to be leveled against the Muslim world. I would like to counter it by asking the following questions:

Given the existing circumstances of 1,400 years ago, how would any one living in Makka or Madina go about exploiting his own clan and tribe? If the supposedly exploited lands and people were those of the Hijaz, which were poor, unfruitful, and barren, who would have wished to invade or exploit them? It is ludicrous to level the charge of imperialist colonialism against the most noble-minded Muslims, who risked their lives to spread the message of Islam; who spent the greater part of their lives far from their children, families, homes, and native lands fighting armies ten or twenty times their size; and who felt deeply grieved when they did not die on the battlefield and join the earlier martyrs for Islam. We ask ourselves what worldly gain they obtained in return for such struggle, deprivation, and sacrifice!

Those who invaded, occupied, and exploited others with the worst intentions (and results) of imperialism are power-hungry individuals or nations. To mention a few: Alexander the "Great" and Napoleon, the Roman empire and Nazi Germany, the Mongol armies unleashed by Genghis Khan and the colonizing armies unleashed by western Europe, Russian dictatorship (whether czarist or communist) and the American empire (whether "manifest destiny" or "making the world safe for democracy"). Wherever such conquests came and went, they corrupted the morality of the conquerors and the conquered, causing chaos, conflict, tears, bloodshed, and devastation. Today their heirs, like bold thieves who bluff property owners to conceal their theft of that very property, turn to besmirching Islam, its Prophet, and his Companions.

True Muslims have never sought to exploit others. Nor have they let others do so where Muslim government had jurisdiction. At a time when Muslim armies were running from triumph to triumph, Caliph 'Umar said: "What befits me is to live at the level of the poorest Muslims," and he really did so. As he took only a few olives a day for his own sustenance, who was he exploiting?

After one battle, when a Muslim was asked to take the belongings of an enemy soldier whom he had fought and killed, he said: "I did not participate in the battle to take spoils." Pointing to his throat, he continued: "What I seek is an arrow here and to fall as a martyr." (His wish was granted.) While burning with the desire for martyrdom, who was he exploiting?

In another battle, a Muslim soldier fought and killed a leading enemy who had killed many Muslims. The Muslim commander saw him pass by his dead enemy. The commander went to the head of the dead soldier and asked who had killed him. The Muslim did not want to reply, but the commander called him back in the name of God. The Muslim felt himself obliged to do so, but concealed his face with a piece of cloth. The following conversation took place:

-Did you kill him for the sake of God?

-Yes.

-All right. But take this 1,000 dinar piece.

-But I did it for the sake of God!

-What is your name?

-What is my name to you? Perhaps you will tell this to everyone and cause me to lose the reward for this in the afterlife.

How could such people exploit others and establish colonies all over the world? To speak frankly, those who hate Islam and Muslims are blind to the historical truth of how Islam spread.

Let's look at what exploitation and imperialism are. Imperialism or colonization is a system of rule by which a rich and a powerful country controls other countries, their trade and policies, to enrich itself and gain more power at the other's expense. There are many kinds of exploitation. In today's world, they may take the following forms:

• Absolute sovereignty by dispossessing indigenous people in order to establish the invader's direct rule and sovereignty. Examples are western Europe's conquest of North and South America, as well as Australia and New Zealand, as well as the Zionists' conquest of Palestine.

• Military occupation so that the invaders can control the conquered nation's land and resources. One example is British colonial rule in India.

• Open or secret interference and intervention in a country's internal and foreign affairs, economy, and defense. Examples are those Third World countries who are manipulated and controlled by various developed countries.

• The transfer of intellectuals, which is currently the most common and dangerous type of imperialism. Young, intelligent, and gifted people of the countries to be exploited are chosen, given stipends, and educated abroad. There they are introduced to and made members of different groups. When they return to their country, they are given influential administrative and other posts so that they can influence their country's destiny. When native or foreign people linked to exploiters abroad are placed in crucial positions in the state mechanism, the country is conquered from inside. This immensely successful technique has enabled Western imperialists to achieve many of their goals smoothly and without overtly rousing the enmity of the people they wish to subjugate. Today, the Muslim world is caught in this trap and thus continues to suffer exploitation and abuse.

Whatever kind of imperialism they are subjected to, countries suffer a number of consequences:

• Various methods of assimilation alienate people from their own values, culture, and history. As a result, they suffer crises of identity and purpose, do not know their own past, and cannot freely imagine their own future.

• Any enthusiasm, effort, and zeal to support and develop their country is quenched. Industry is rendered dependent upon the (former) imperial masters, science and knowledge are not allowed to become productive and primary, and imitation is established firmly so that freedom of study and new research will gain no foothold.

• People remain in limbo, totally dependent upon foreigners. They are silenced and deluded by such empty phrases as progress, Westernization, civilization, and the like.

• All state institutions are penetrated by foreign aid, which is in reality no more than massive financial and cultural debt. Imports, exports, and development are wholly controlled by or conducted according to the exploiter's interests.

• While no effort is spared to keep the masses in poverty, the ruling classes become used to extravagant spending and luxury. The resulting communal dissatisfaction causes people to fight with each other, making them even more vulnerable to outside influence and intervention.

• Mental and spiritual activity is stifled, and so educational institutions tend to imitate foreign ways, ideas, and subjects. Industry is reduced to assembling prefabricated parts. The army tends to become a dumping ground for imperialist countries, for its purchases of expensive hardware ensure the continued well-being of the latter's industries.

We wonder if it is really rational to liken the Islamic conquest to imperialism, which brought disastrous consequences wherever it went.

The victory of Muslim armies never caused a great exodus of people from their homes and countries, nor has it prevented people from working by putting chains on their hands and feet. Muslims left the indigenous people free to follow their own way and beliefs, and protected them in exactly the same way it protected Muslims. Muslim governors and rulers were loved and respected for their justice and integrity. Equality, peace, and security were established between different communities.

If it had been otherwise, would the Christians of Damascus have gathered in their church and prayed for a Muslim victory against Christian Byzantium, which was seeking to regain control of the city? If Muslims had not been so respectful of non-Muslims' rights, could they have maintained security for centuries in a state so vast that it took more than 6 months to travel from one end to another?

One cannot help but admire those Muslim rulers and the dynamic energy that made them so, when we compare them to present-day rulers. Despite every modern means of transportation, telecommunications, and military back-up, they cannot maintain peace and security in even a small area of land.

Today, many scholars and intellectuals who realize the value of Islam's dynamics, which brought about Islam's global sovereignty and which will form the basis of our eternal existence in the Hereafter, expressly tell us that Muslims should reconsider and regain them. While conquering lands, the Muslims also were conquering their inhabitants' hearts. They were received with love, respect, and obedience. No people who accepted Islam ever complained that they were culturally prevented or ruined by the arrival of Muslims. The contrast with the reality of Christian Europe's conquests is stark and obvious.

Early Muslims evaluated the potential of knowledge and art in the conquered lands. They prepared and provided every opportunity for local scholars and scientists to pursue their work. Regardless of their religion, Muslims held the people in high regard and honored them in the community. They never did what the descendants of the British colonialists in America did to the American Indians or in Australia to the Aborigines, the French to the Algerians, or the Dutch to the Indonesians. On the contrary, they treated the conquered people as if they were from their own people and religion, as if they were brothers and sisters.

Caliph 'Umar once told a Coptic Egyptian who had been beaten by a Makkan noble to beat him just as he had been beaten. When 'Umar heard that 'Amr ibn al-'As had hurt the feelings of a native Egyptian, he rebuked him: "Human beings were born free. Why do you enslave them?" As he went to receive the keys to Masjid al-Aqsa, 'Umar visited and talked to priests in different churches in Palestine. Once he was in a church when it was time to pray. The priest repeatedly asked him to pray inside the church, but 'Umar refused, saying: "You may be harassed by other Christians later on because you let me pray in the church." He left the church's premises and prayed outside on the ground.

These are but a few examples to indicate how Muslims were sensitive, tolerant, just, and humane toward other people. Such an attitude of genuine tolerance has not been reached by any other people or society.

[fangirltothefullest]

(vent anon)I understand the blm movement, and I understand why it's happening. I support it, these people need their justice. I just dont understand the ACAB movement. To me, it's like saying all muslims are bad. If someone says that, everyone is so quick to tell them how wrong they are. But if someone says ACAB, so many people are quick to agree. I get that the system itself is bad and needs fixed, but what happened to not judging a whole group on the actions of some? I'm just really confused.

I understand why you're thinking like this. For anyone who doesn't go through that fear, especially white people, we are taught that cops are meant to serve and protect. But the system is not working that way any more. We can't keep riding the dead horse. We have to get off and face reality. There are people more qualified to talk about this than me, people whose voices have been silenced for too long. And they are the reason this needs to be undersrood.

Black people are murdered and tormented by the United States police on a daily basis, from profiling them to planting evidence to get them arrested and sent to jails which are government sanctioned slave houses that provide free labor, to murdering them or beating them or burning their communities.

You cannot be a cop in this country without ingrained racism affecting you, your judgement and your actions. You can't escape it because it's systemic and part of the systemic nature of racism means that the enforcers of the rules are always going to be a major part of the problem.

To take your example.... to say all Muslim people are bad is basing an entire group of marginalized people on the acts of a few who are radicalized and cause harm, but who the majority of cause no threat because they do not hold a position of power. But like I said, cops are ingrained in the systematic nature of oppressive racism and by default are part of the aystem whic enforces those rules. "Keeping people safe" can be taken as protecting people from harm. But how harmful is it for an unarmed teenager to walk home? How harmful is it for a disarmed man to require being choked? How harmful is a woman already in a police car that merits tear gas being tossed inside? Those are acts of violence used as a way to force people into their "place" through fear and an exercise of power.

When the system is corrupted then those who are under that system need to be held accountable for the actions of those people. Why? Because the system doesn't affect just a few, it's literally a major part of our entire society.

Cops are systematically using their power and military grade weaponry to single out a certain group of people and cause them harm with the aid of government sanctioned weapons and societal racism backing them up.

Yes, not all police officers are bad but working in a corrupted system is still an issue. You look at the officers working for Hitler who were "just doing their job" and you don't give them a break. They were still part of the system and they knew that. Yes some smuggled people out but they still had to do terrible things and they knew that.

That's what we mean when we say all cops are bad. It's because the system is designed to marginalize people of colour as its enforcers. The majority of prisoners in the United States are people of colour who were typically arrested and jailed for minor crimes such as possession of drugs. This same system slaps white rapists on the wrist and say naughty naughty you're free to go or worse they elect them as president, but this same system jails a person of colour (predominantly black people) often entirely unjustly, and lets cops get away with flat out murdering black people constantly because the system has told them it's ok. When you say we shouldn't judge a whole group for the acts of a few, it only holds up if they don't come from a system which affects the entire country on an incredible level. We have to hold all government officials accountable because their actions affect everyone. It's the same with police.

We allow a black person to be enslaved and forced to do labor for owning a tiny amount of weed because they're a "thug" (and part of police issues are co stantly apread propoganda.) We call a black man arreated a thug but a white man arrested is a "loving husband" or whatever and wealthy white people who literally ruin the lives of thousands we slap on the wrist and say keep up the good work have a nice day?

Can you not see what the hell is happening here?

That's why the movement is the way it is. All cops are bad because they're a part of a bad system that affects everybody negatively because white people getting off for terrible crimes is still badly affecting you! How many white child molestors are out of prison because they're white and free to roam around but a young black person nicked a donut or whatever and got sentenced for life?

Cops are unable to escape the systematic racism imposed upon their judgement when dealing with civillians.

We absolutely cannot trust any cop not to kill a person of colour, especially one that is african american, because they are armed and automatically dangerous and taught inherently to look for anyone not white to blame. If you called the cops and they showed up, no matter the reason or why you called them if there's a black person in a room there is a chance they will be shot first and asked questions later and that kind of fear is rediculous and unneeded but ever present.

It's not a matter of "maybe" this or that will happen, it's a matter of "we can't take that risk" and when you reach the point of "we can't take that risk", then the whole system is flawed.

So yeah, that's why we say all cops are bad. Because it doesn't matter how many people say "But so and so is a good guy!" The system is flawed and no person of colour, especially black americans, can EVER be sure that a cop doesn't mean death.

Black lives matter. And they matter more than the pride of a cop.

A good cop would know this, would know they are part of the problem and understand why all cops are bad and agree with it.

You can save a hundred thousand lives and still know the system you work in is flawed and that your badge is and will continue to be tainted so long as things stay as they are.

[newstfionline]

Headlines

Quarantine Blues and the Power of a Jigsaw Puzzle (Worldcrunch) A sudden rush of stress, trouble sleeping or eating, overwhelming feelings of helplessness, general fatigue. Does it sound familiar? With approximately half the world still forced to live in lockdown, old and new psychological disorders are a widely diffused side-effect of the COVID-19 pandemic. A recent study led by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 45% of Americans feel the current health crisis had impacted their mental health. In France, Le Figaro reported this week that 74% of adults in a recent survey developed sleeping disorders and 34% showed signs of psychological distress. Humans are social animals, and while we can acknowledge that our modern digital tools are providing instant links in the face of our respective quarantines, we are also seeing how crucial in-person interaction and stimuli are to the human experience. Alongside the more severe threats to our emotional state is a seemingly less menacing effect: boredom. There is a fine line between enjoying some spare time to do nothing and repeatedly having nothing to do, especially when we yearn for distraction from the current uncertainty of the outside world. Board games that were piling up dust in the basement are seeing the light of day again and solo players indeed are able to play across the computer screen with friends and strangers. Similarly, the lockdown has created one of the highest recorded demand for jigsaw puzzles, a pastime whose time had seemed to have passed two or three generations ago. The American Puzzle Warehouse reported a jump of 2,000% in business compared to the same period last year. When the world seems to fall apart, putting back pieces together could be the ultimate satisfaction.

Coronavirus could erode global fight against other diseases (AP) Lavina D’Souza hasn’t been able to collect her government-supplied anti-HIV medication since the abrupt lockdown of India’s 1.3 billion people last month during the coronavirus outbreak. Marooned in a small city away from her home in Mumbai, the medicine she needs to manage her disease has run out. The 43-year-old is afraid that her immune system will crash: “Any disease, the coronavirus or something else, I’ll fall sick faster.” As the world focuses on the pandemic, experts fear losing ground in the long fight against other infectious diseases like AIDS, tuberculosis and cholera that kill millions every year. Also at risk are decadeslong efforts that allowed the World Health Organization to set target dates for eradicating malaria, polio and other illnesses. With the coronavirus overwhelming hospitals, redirecting medical staff, causing supply shortages and suspending health services, “our greatest fear” is resources for other diseases being diverted and depleted, said Dr. John Nkengasong, head of the Africa Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

IMF warns of social unrest (Foreign Policy) The International Monetary Fund has warned of social unrest developing in countries where coronavirus prevention measures are seen as insufficient or unfair to poorer workers. The IMF said that although governments have taken swift action to inject stimulus funds into their economies, even more money would be needed once the crisis subsides. The organization expects global public debt to rise by 13 percent in 2020 to almost 96 percent of global gross domestic product.

After Coronavirus, Colleges Worry: Will Students Come Back? (NYT) For years, Claire McCarville dreamed of going to college in New York or Los Angeles, and was thrilled last month to get accepted to selective schools in both places. But earlier this month, she sent a $300 deposit to Arizona State University, a 15-minute drive from her home in Phoenix. “It made more sense,” she said, “in light of the virus.” Across the country, students like Ms. McCarville are rethinking their choices in a world altered by the pandemic. And universities, concerned about the potential for shrinking enrollment and lost revenue, are making a wave of decisions in response that could profoundly alter the landscape of higher education for years to come. Lucrative spring sports seasons have been canceled, room and board payments have been refunded, and students at some schools are demanding hefty tuition discounts for what they see as a lost spring term. Other revenue sources like study abroad programs and campus bookstores have dried up, and federal research funding is threatened. Some institutions are projecting $100 million losses for the spring, and many are now bracing for an even bigger financial hit in the fall, when some are planning for the possibility of having to continue remote classes.

‘Pretty Catastrophic’ Month for Retailers (NYT) Retail sales plunged in March, offering a grim snapshot of the coronavirus outbreak’s effect on consumer spending, as businesses shuttered from coast to coast and wary shoppers restricted their spending. Total sales, which include retail purchases in stores and online as well as money spent at bars and restaurants, fell 8.7 percent from the previous month, the Commerce Department said Wednesday. The decline was by far the largest in the nearly three decades the government has tracked the data. Even that bleak figure doesn’t capture the full impact of the sudden economic freeze on the retail industry. Most states didn’t shut down nonessential businesses until late March or early April, meaning data for the current month could be worse still. “It was a pretty catastrophic drop-off in that back half of the month,” said Sucharita Kodali, a retail analyst at Forrester Research. She said April “may be one of the worst months ever.”

Now Arriving at La Guardia Airport: One Passenger (NYT) Jim Mack had made several trips to New York City before, but had never been the only passenger on a commercial jet landing at a deserted La Guardia Airport. Instead of shuffling into the madhouse that is Terminal B on a typical weeknight, Mr. Mack was greeted by an eerie silence. “It felt like it was either closed or I had landed in the wrong terminal,” he said. He had flown from Tampa, Fla.--just him and a Southwest Airlines crew--and now he was striding up the concourse toward baggage claim. The only luggage on the carousel was his. The lone Uber driver was waiting for him. The coronavirus pandemic has unraveled air travel in the United States and turned some of the world’s busiest airports into giant voids. The nation’s air-traffic system is still functioning. But airlines have slashed their schedules, and even on the dwindling number of remaining flights very few seats are filled.

As Danish schools reopen, some worried parents are keeping their children home (Washington Post) The children pressed down on a hand sanitizer dispenser and kept a safe distance from one another as they filed into Ellebjerg School in central Copenhagen on Thursday. But while they settled into their lessons, with a new limit of 10 students per room, some of their classmates remained at home, their families resistant to participating in what they see as a public policy experiment. Denmark this week became the first country in Europe to reopen schools--nursery and primary up to fifth grade--as a start to lifting a coronavirus lockdown imposed on March 12. Although the country has reported 6,879 confirmed cases of coronavirus infection and 309 deaths, new infections have been decreasing since a peak on April 1, giving the government confidence that a cautious reopening was possible. But thousands of families are opposed to sending their kids back to school so quickly. It’s unclear whether the same opposition will arise in other countries as they try to pivot from more than a month of restrictive measures aimed at slowing the pandemic’s spread. Officials are weighing the negatives of distance learning, which can exacerbate inequality, and the reality that many parents won’t be able to return to work if their children are still home--a point that Denmark’s prime minister specifically noted Wednesday in a surprise visit to a school here.

At least 668 sailors infected after coronavirus outbreak aboard French aircraft carrier, Defense Ministry says (Washington Post) Nearly a third of the crew aboard a French aircraft carrier and its support vessels have tested positive for coronavirus, the country’s Defense Ministry said Wednesday. As test results from 1,767 sailors on the Charles de Gaulle and other ships within its battle group continue to arrive, at least 668 have contracted the virus, officials said. More than 30 are now being treated in the hospital with one person in intensive care, Agence France-Presse reported. In the meantime, the rest of the crew has been quarantined at a military base in the French port city of Toulon.

Germany to ease lockdown (Foreign Policy) Germany is following the lead of its southern neighbor Austria by preparing to ease its lockdown measures. Starting May 4, Germany will begin reopening smaller shops and allowing schools to reopen, with priority given to final-year students. Hairdressers will also be allowed to open, but larger gathering points like bars, restaurants, and cinemas would still be banned. German Chancellor Angela Merkel played down talk of larger scale reopening, saying Germany had achieved merely a “fragile intermediate success” in its battle against the coronavirus.

China tries to revive economy but consumer engine sputters (AP) China, where the coronavirus pandemic started in December, is cautiously trying to get back to business, but it’s not easy when many millions of workers are wary of spending much or even going out. Factories and shops nationwide shut down starting in late January. Millions of families were told to stay home under unprecedented controls that have been copied by the United States, Europe and India. The ruling Communist Party says the outbreak, which had killed more than 3,340 people among more than 82,341 confirmed cases as of Thursday, is under control. But the damage to Chinese lives and the economy is lingering. Truck salesman Zhang Hu is living the dilemma holding back the recovery. The 27-year-old from the central city of Zhengzhou has gone back to work, but with few people looking to buy 20-ton trucks, his income has fallen by half. Like many millions of others, he is pinching pennies.

U.S. Navy complains of harassment in Persian Gulf (Foreign Policy) The U.S. Navy said Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps vessels conducted “dangerous and provocative” approaches to U.S. Navy vessels in the Persian Gulf in a statement on Wednesday. The U.S. Fifth Fleet said it was in international waters and carrying out exercises when the boats approached. Iran has yet to respond to the U.S. statement.

Australia to send aid to Fiji after cyclone tears across Pacific (Reuters) Australia is to send humanitarian aid to Fiji after a tropical cyclone caused widespread destruction across the Pacific, Minister for Foreign Affairs Marise Payne said on Thursday. Cyclone Harold, a category five storm, lashed several island nations in the Pacific last week, killing dozens of people, flooding towns and leaving many homeless. In Fiji, thousands of people remain without electricity, aid agencies say, and many need immediate assistance.

[pgoeltz]

6 questions on Neoliberalism und alternatives

Noam Chomsky answers to Michael Albert’s questions

ZNetCommentary 30.9.2001

Michael Albert: I sent six questions to Noam Chomsky. His answers, by email, are below.

M.A.: (1) There has been an immense movement of troops and extreme use of military rhetoric, up to comments about terminating governments, etc. Yet, to many people there appears to be considerable restraint...what happened?

Noam Chomsky: From the first days after the attack, the Bush administration has been warned by NATO leaders, specialists on the region, and presumably its own intelligence agencies (not to speak of many people like you and me) that if they react with a massive assault that kills many innocent people, that will be answering bin Laden's most fervent prayers. They will be falling into a "diabolical trap," as the French foreign minister put it. That would be true -- perhaps even more so -- if they happen to kill bin Laden, still without having provided credible evidence of his involvement in the crimes of Sept. 11. He would then be perceived as a martyr even among the enormous majority of Muslims who deplore those crimes, as bin Laden himself has done, for what it is worth, denying any involvement in the crimes or even knowledge of them, and condemning "the killing of innocent women, children, and other humans" as an act that "Islam strictly forbids...even in the course of a battle" (BBC, Sept. 29). His voice will continue to resound on tens of thousands of cassettes already circulating throughout the Muslim world, and in many interviews, including the last few days. An assault that kills innocent Afghans -- not Taliban, but their terrorized victims -- would be virtually a call for new recruits to the horrendous cause of the bin Laden network and other graduates of the terrorist networks set up by the CIA and its associates 20 years ago to fight a Holy War against the Russians, meanwhile following their own agenda, from the time they assassinated President Sadat of Egypt in 1981, murdering one of the most enthusiastic of the creators of the "Afghanis" -- mostly recruits from extremist radical Islamist elements around the world who were recruited to fight in Afghanistan.

After a little while, the message apparently got through to the Bush administration, which has -- wisely from their point of view -- chosen to follow a different course.

However, "restraint" seems to me a questionable word. On Sept. 16, the New York Times reported that "Washington has also demanded [from Pakistan] a cutoff of fuel supplies,...and the elimination of truck convoys that provide much of the food and other supplies to Afghanistan's civilian population." Astonishingly, that report elicited no detectable reaction in the West, a grim reminder of the nature of the Western civilization that leaders and elite commentators claim to uphold, yet another lesson that is not lost among those who have been at the wrong end of the guns and whips for centuries. In the following days, those demands were implemented. On Sept. 27, the same NYT correspondent reported that officials in Pakistan "said today that they would not relent in their decision to seal off the country's 1,400- mile border with Afghanistan, a move requested by the Bush administration because, the officials said, they wanted to be sure that none of Mr. bin Laden's men were hiding among the huge tide of refugees" (John Burns, Islamabad). According to the world's leading newspaper, then, Washington demanded that Pakistan slaughter massive numbers of Afghans, millions of them already on the brink of starvation, by cutting off the limited sustenance that was keeping them alive. Almost all aid missions withdrew or were expelled under the threat of bombing. Huge numbers of miserable people have been fleeing to the borders in terror, after Washington's threat to bomb the shreds of existence remaining in Afghanistan, and to convert the Northern Alliance into a heavily armed military force that will, perhaps, be unleashed to renew the atrocities that tore the country apart and led much of the population to welcome the Taliban when they drove out the murderous warring factions that Washington and Moscow now hope to exploit for their own purposes. When they reach the sealed borders, refugees are trapped to die in silence. Only a trickle can escape through remote mountain passes. How many have already succumbed we cannot guess, and few seem to care. Apart from the relief agencies, I have seen no attempt even to guess. Within a few weeks the harsh winter will arrive. There are some reporters and aid workers in the refugee camps across the borders. What they describe is horrifying enough, but they know, and we know, that they are seeing the lucky ones, the few who were able to escape -- and who express their hopes that ''even the cruel Americans must feel some pity for our ruined country,'' and relent in this savage silent genocide (Boston Globe, Sept. 27, p. 1). Perhaps the most apt description was given by the wonderful and courageous Indian writer and activist Arundhati Roy, referring to Operation Infinite Justice proclaimed by the Bush Administration: "Witness the infinite justice of the new century. Civilians starving to death while they're waiting to be killed" (Guardian, Sept. 29).

M.A.: (2) The UN has indicated that the threat of starvation in Afghanistan is enormous. International criticism on this score has grown and now the U.S. and Britain are talking about providing food aid to ward off hunger. Are they caving in to dissent in fact, or only in appearance? What is their motivation? What will be the scale and impact of their efforts?

N. Ch.: The UN estimates that some 7-8 million are at risk of imminent starvation. The NY Times reports in a small item (Sept. 25) that nearly six million Afghans depend on food aid from the UN, as well as 3.5 million in refugee camps outside, many of whom fled just before the borders were sealed. The item reported that some food is being sent, to the camps across the border. If people in Washington and the editorial offices have even a single gray cell functioning, they realize that they must present themselves as humanitarians seeking to avert the awesome tragedy that followed at once from the threat of bombing and military attack and the sealing of the borders they demanded. "Experts also urge the United States to improve its image by increasing aid to Afghan refugees, as well as by helping to rebuild the economy" (Christian Science Monitor, Sept. 28). Even without PR specialists to instruct them, administration officials must comprehend that they should send some food to the refugees who made it across the border, and at least talk about air drop of food to starving people within: in order "to save lives" but also to "help the effort to find terror groups inside Afghanistan" (Boston Globe, Sept. 27, quoting a Pentagon official, who describes this as "winning the hearts and minds of the people"). The New York Times editors picked up the same theme the following day, 12 days after the journal reported that the murderous operation is being put into effect.

On the scale of aid, one can only hope that it is enormous, or the human tragedy may be immense in a few weeks. But we should also bear in mind that there has been nothing to stop massive food drops from the beginning, and we cannot even guess how many have already died, or soon will. If the government is sensible, there will be at least a show of the "massive air drops" that officials mention.

M.A.: (3) International legal institutions would likely ratify efforts to arrest and try bin Laden and others, supposing guilt could be shown, including the use of force. Why does the U.S. avoid this recourse? Is it only a matter of not wishing to legitimate an approach that could be used, as well, against our acts of terrorism, or are other factors at play?

N. Ch.: Much of the world has been asking the US to provide some evidence to link bin Laden to the crime, and if such evidence could be provided, it would not be difficult to rally enormous support for an international effort, under the rubric of the UN, to apprehend and try him and his collaborators. However, that is no simple matter. Even if bin Laden and his network are involved in the crimes of Sept. 11, it may be quite hard to produce credible evidence. As the CIA surely knows very well, having nurtured these organizations and monitored them very closely for 20 years, they are diffuse, decentralized, non-hierarchic structures, probably with little communication or direct guidance. And for all we know, most of the perpetrators may have killed themselves in their awful missions.

There are further problems in the background. To quote Roy again, "The Taliban's response to US demands for the extradition of Bin Laden has been uncharacteristically reasonable: produce the evidence, then we'll hand him over. President Bush's response is that the demand is non-negotiable'." She also adds one of the many reasons why this framework is unacceptable to Washington: "While talks are on for the extradition of CEOs can India put in a side request for the extradition of Warren Anderson of the US? He was the chairman of Union Carbide, responsible for the Bhopal gas leak that killed 16,000 people in 1984. We have collated the necessary evidence. It's all in the files. Could we have him, please?" Such comparisons elicit frenzied tantrums at the extremist fringes of Western opinion, some of them called "the left." But for Westerners who have retained their sanity and moral integrity, and for great numbers among the usual victims, they are quite meaningful. Government leaders presumably understand that.

And the single example that Roy mentions is only the beginning, of course, and one of the lesser examples, not only because of the scale of the atrocity, but because it was not explicitly a crime of state. Suppose Iran were to request the extradition of high officials of the Carter and Reagan administrations, refusing to present the ample evidence of the crimes they were implementing -- and it surely exists. Or suppose Nicaragua were to demand the extradition of the US ambassador to the UN, newly appointed to lead the "war against terror," a man whose record includes his service as "proconsul" (as he was often called) in the virtual fiefdom of Honduras, where he surely was aware of the atrocities of the state terrorists he was supporting, and was also overseeing the terrorist war for which the US was condemned by the World Court and the Security Council (in a resolution the US vetoed). Or many others. Would the US even dream of responding to such demands presented without evidence, or even if the ample evidence were presented?

Those doors are better left closed, just as it is best to maintain the silence on the appointment of a leading figure in managing the operations condemned as terrorism by the highest existing international bodies -- to lead a "war on terrorism." Jonathan Swift would also be speechless.

That may be the reason why administration publicity experts preferred the usefully ambiguous term "war" to the more explicit term "crime" -- "crime against humanity as Robert Fisk, Mary Robinson, and others have accurately depicted it. There are established procedures for dealing with crimes, however horrendous. They require evidence, and adherence to the principle that "those who are guilty of these acts" be held accountable once evidence is produced, but not others (Pope John Paul II, NYT Sept. 24). Not, for example, the unknown numbers of miserable people starving to death in terror at the sealed borders, though in this case too we are speaking of crimes against humanity.

M. A.: (4) The war on terror was first undertaken by Reagan, as a substitute for the cold war -- that is, as a vehicle for scaring the public and thus marshalling support for programs contrary to the public's interest -- foreign campaigns, war spending in general, surveillance, and so on. Now we are seeing a larger and more aggressive attempt to move in the same direction. Does the problem that we are the world's foremost source of attacks on civilians auger complications for carrying through this effort? Can the effort be sustained without, in fact, a shooting war?

N. Ch.: The Reagan administration came into office 20 years ago declaring that its leading concern would be to eradicate the plague of international terrorism, a cancer that is destroying civilization. They cured the plague by establishing an international terrorist network of extraordinary scale, with consequences that are -- or should be -- well-known in Central America, the Middle East, Africa, Southeast Asia, and elsewhere -- while using the pretexts, as you say, to carry out programs that were of considerable harm to the domestic population, and that even threaten human survival. Did they carry out a "shooting war"? The number of corpses they left in their wake around the world is impressive, but technically, they did not usually fire the guns, apart from transparent PR exercises like the bombing of Libya, the first crime of war in history that was timed precisely for prime time TV, no small trick considering the complexity of the operation and the refusal of continental European countries to collaborate. The torture, mutilation, rape, and massacre were carried out through intermediaries.

Even if we exclude the huge but unmentionable component of terrorism that traces back to terrorist states, our own surely included, the terrorist plague is very real, very dangerous, and truly terrifying. There are ways to react that are likely to escalate the threats to ourselves and others; there are ample precedents for more sane and honorable methods, which we've discussed before, and are not in the least obscure, but are scarcely discussed. Those are the basic choices.

M. A.: (5) If the Taliban falls and bin Laden or someone they claim is responsible is captured or killed, what next? What happens to Afghanistan? What happens more broadly in other regions?

N. Ch.: The sensible administration plan would be to pursue the ongoing program of silent genocide, combined with humanitarian gestures to arouse the applause of the usual chorus who are called upon to sing the praises of the noble leaders committed to "principles and values" and leading the world to a "new era" of "ending inhumanity." The administration might also try to convert the Northern Alliance into a viable force, perhaps to bring in other warlords hostile to it, like Gulbudin Hekmatyar, now in Iran. Presumably they will use British and US commandoes for missions within Afghanistan, and perhaps resort to selective bombing, but scaled down so as not to answer bin Laden's prayers. A US assault should not be compared to the failed Russian invasion of the 80s. The Russians were facing a major army of perhaps 100,000 men or more, organized, trained and heavily armed by the CIA and its associates. The US is facing a ragtag force in a country that has already been virtually destroyed by 20 years of horror, for which we bear no slight share of responsibility. The Taliban forces, such as they are, might quickly collapse except for a small hard core. And one would expect that the surviving population would welcome an invading force if it is not too visibly associated with the murderous gangs that tore the country to shreds before the Taliban takeover. At this point, most people would be likely to welcome Genghis Khan.

What next? Expatriate Afghans and, apparently, some internal elements who are not part of the Taliban inner circle have been calling for a UN effort to establish some kind of transition government, a process that might succeed in reconstructing something viable from the wreckage, if provided with very substantial reconstruction aid, channeled through independent sources like the UN or credible NGOs. That much should be the minimal responsibility of those who have turned this impoverished country into a land of terror, desperation, corpses, and mutilated victims. That could happen, but not without very substantial popular efforts in the rich and powerful societies. For the present, any such course has been ruled out by the Bush administration, which has announced that it will not be engaged in "nation building" -- or, it seems, an effort that would be more honorable and humane: substantial support, without interference, for "nation building" by others who might actually achieve some success in the enterprise. But current refusal to consider this decent course is not graven in stone. What happens in other regions depends on internal factors, on the policies of foreign actors (the US dominant among them, for obvious reasons), and the way matters proceed in Afghanistan. One can hardly be confident, but for many of the possible courses reasonable assessments can be made about the outcome -- and there are a great many possibilities, too many to try to review in brief comments.

M. A.: (6) What do you believe should be the role and priority of social activists concerned about justice at this time? Should we curb our criticisms, as some have claimed, or is this, instead, a time for renewed and enlarged efforts, not only because it is a crisis regarding which we can attempt to have a very important positive impact, but also because large sectors of the public are actually far more receptive than usual to discussion and exploration, even it other sectors are intransigently hostile?

N. Ch.: It depends on what these social activists are trying to achieve. If their goal is to escalate the cycle of violence and to increase the likelihood of further atrocities like that of Sept. 11 -- and, regrettably, even worse ones with which much of the world is all too familiar -- then they should certainly curb their analysis and criticisms, refuse to think, and cut back their involvement in the very serious issues in which they have been engaged. The same advice is warranted if they want to help the most reactionary and regressive elements of the political-economic power system to implement plans that will be of great harm to the general population here and in much of the world, and may even threaten human survival.

If, on the contrary, the goal of social activists is to reduce the likelihood of further atrocities, and to advance hopes for freedom, human rights, and democracy, then they should follow the opposite course. They should intensify their efforts to inquire into the background factors that lie behind these and other crimes and devote themselves with even more energy to the just causes to which they have already been committed. The opportunities are surely there. The shock of the horrendous crimes has already opened even elite sectors to reflection of a kind that would have been hard to imagine not long ago, and among the general public that is even more true. Of course, there will be those who demand silent obedience. We expect that from the ultra-right, and anyone with a little familiarity with history will expect it from some left intellectuals as well, perhaps in an even more virulent form. But it is important not to be intimidated by hysterical ranting and lies and to keep as closely as one can to the course of truth and honesty and concern for the human consequences of what one does, or fails to do. All truisms, but worth bearing in mind.

Beyond the truisms, we turn to specific questions, for inquiry and for action.

From ZNet: http://www.zmag.org/55qaframe.htm

[fyeahtheodyssey]

idk if y'all know much about the humanitarian crisis in Turkey right now but it was once a pretty progressive democracy, about to join the EU, then its democratically elected president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, manufactured a military coup so he could essentially declare the Turkish version of a state of emergency in 2016. they've essentially been living in a military dictatorship ever since because, fun fact, Turkey has the second largest military in the world. Erdoğan has been jailing academics, dissenters, and journalists, giving Turkey the distinction of having the highest number of journalists in jail in the world right now. he is monitoring electronic communications among citizens, and fyi whatsapp isn't as secure as it looks. he is jailing citizens based on social media posts. he is forcibly shutting down people's businesses as a silencing tactic. he held a sham election last year where he flagrantly stuffed the ballots and basically dated anyone to say anything about it. he is taking people from their homes and not providing their children with any sort of social services, so the Turkish community is collectively just...feeding children who were left to die by the Turkish government when their parents were thrown in jail and held indefinitely. people are asking their relatives living in Europe, Canada, and the United States to send money so that they can literally just prevent suddenly orphaned children from starving, because there's also a food shortage, making essentials more expensive than normal. the only communication about the atrocities in Turkey is coming from rouge amateur journalists who are in hiding and stream on YouTube, when they can, like Fred, George, and Lee Jordan or something.

I say this because more people need to know about it, yes. It is something that's gone unnoticed for a very long time, and that's shameful. I also say this because the reason I know so much about it is that one of my best friends is a Turkish immigrant. she is a mother of two children dealing with American student loans, living on her husband's teaching salary while also supporting her Turkish mother half of the year, trying to get her mom a green card but dealing with US immigration mess, and on top of all that, sending money to Turkey to aid in the humanitarian crisis. she grew up in Turkey and the Turkey she knew was a beautiful country with socialized medicine, a rich history and a nice climate, and she watched, safely in America while her country was taken over by an autocrat, while feeling powerless to stop it. she also knows that, should she ever try to return, her social media posts will have her thrown in jail the minute the plane lands. "I want to go back to my country, but I have no country to go to" she tells me.

and do you know what she said to me in November of 2016? do you know what she says to me every time I see her? she says "I am scared for America. Trump is like Erdoğan. Trump says the same things as Erdoğan did. Trump is a dictator."

so yeah. maybe traditional Republicans are abhorrent, yes. I do not dispute this. I wouldn't piss on Ronald Regan if he were on fire. I know Bush did 9/11 and significantly curbed our freedoms as a result. I know all of that. but if there's one thing my friend knows, it's the atmosphere of a country just before it plunges headfirst into a dictatorship. it's the attitude and rhetoric of an autocratic dictator.

and y'all are aware that Trump is threatening to declare a state of emergency to get his wall, right?

[xtruss]

Zelensky, 2022, Stalin 1942: The US ‘Propaganda Machine’ Can Easily Make Heroes, But It Can Quickly Change The Script

The US campaign to build public support for Ukraine harks back to a propaganda push lionizing Stalin’s Soviet regime during WWII

— By Tony Cox! Tony Cox, a US journalist who has written or edited for Bloomberg and several major daily newspapers.

America’s sudden love affair with Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky and Kiev’s military forces is reminiscent of an old campaign to exalt a previous ally of geopolitical circumstance: Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin.

Just as in the Georgian strongman's heyday, the US political establishment and media-entertainment complex have responded to a crisis in Eastern Europe by portraying their preferred combatants as heroic friends who must be supported. In fact, Zelensky and his country’s defenders have been painted as freedom fighters battling to save democracy from evil aggressors – even as Kiev bans opposition parties, shuts down media outlets, and otherwise silences critics of the regime.

For instance, outlets such as Newsweek and the Associated Press have touted Zelensky as a “defiant hero” and a “modern Churchill.” The comparison to former UK Prime Minister Winston Churchill wasn’t sufficiently glowing for CNN, which said Zelensky is a “more unlikely hero.”

After all, the liberal network argued, Churchill was “an imperialist rather than a pure believer in democracy.” Zelensky, despite taking such actions as arresting the main opposition party's leader and banning critical TV and online outlets, apparently qualifies as a greater democrat than a man who lost office, by the ballot box, shortly after his greatest victory.

Eight decades ago, Churchill and US President Franklin Roosevelt faced a similar challenge in trying to beautify the Western public image of Stalin, a hated enemy before Nazi leader Adolf Hitler broke a non-aggression pact by attacking the Soviet Union. As American historian Albert Marrin wrote in ‘A Time of Fear’, his 2021 book on the red scares before and after World War II, there was considerable public concern “over fighting one mass murderer with the help of another.” The joke back then was that the main difference between Stalin and Hitler was the size of their mustaches. “Otherwise, they were the same cold-blooded monsters,” Marrin said.

But the Allied powers deemed support for the Soviets advantageous to keep Axis forces deployed on the Eastern Front, where 90% of German casualties would be suffered, taking much of the heat off their own armies. The White House used its new Office of War Information (OWI) propaganda unit to burnish the Soviet regime’s image while providing $11.3 billion in wartime aid to the USSR, equivalent to nearly $190 billion in today’s dollars.

As in the current conflict, media outlets did much of the heavy lifting. Stalin was depicted as “Uncle Joe,” a trusted ally and brave leader. He appeared on the covers of major magazines, including three times on Time, which named the Georgian generalissimo its “Man of the Year” in January 1943.

Joseph Stalin and Winston Churchill at the Yalta Conference held at the Livadia Palace, Livadiya, Soviet Union, February 1945. © PhotoQuest/Getty Images

Later that same year, Collier’s magazine did a cover story making the dubious claim that the USSR was evolving “toward something resembling our own and Great Britain’s democracy.” This was a half decade after the Great Purge, when Stalin wiped out somewhere in the region of a million people during an attempt to eliminate perceived political threats.

The New York Times agreed, asserting in 1944 that “Marxian thinking in Soviet Russia is out. The capitalist system, better described as the competitive system, is back.”

Life magazine promoted the Soviet leadership present and past, including calling Vladimir Lenin “a normal, well-balanced man who was dedicated to rescuing 140 million people from a brutal and incompetent tyranny.” That was strangely high praise, given that the US government didn’t recognize the USSR until nearly a decade after Lenin’s death. Life also praised Soviet citizens, calling them “one hell of a people” who “look like Americans, dress like Americans and think like Americans.”

Stalin’s brutal secret police, the NKVD, were described as “national police similar to the FBI,” whose job was “tracking traitors.” Life added, “If Soviet leaders tell us anything, we can afford to take their word for it.”

The OWI also made efforts to promote the Soviet Red Army. A 1942 propaganda poster showing a smiling, apparently Russian, soldier was captioned, “This man is your friend. He fights for freedom.”

Photo of smiling Russian soldier wearing helmet, with rifle. © Wikipedia

Fast-forward to today, and praise for Ukraine’s military is similarly effusive. The Pentagon, for example, has been so impressed by Kiev’s forces that its leaders have suggested their exploits will be studied by future generations of soldiers. Ukraine’s fighters “will go down in military history” for their resilience in battling the Russian military, US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin said in April.

Even in defeat, such as Russia’s capture of Severodonetsk last month, the Pentagon has hailed the fighting prowess of Ukraine’s personnel. An unidentified US official has been quoted as saying that when Ukrainian forces retreated, “they chose to do [it] of their own accord.”

However, the current portrait of Ukrainian forces has required major airbrushing of neo-Nazi elements, which establishment media outlets covered more openly before Russia launched its military offensive in February. As Reuters pointed out in 2018, dozens of volunteer militias in Ukraine use Nazi symbolism and recruit Hitler acolytes into their ranks.

Those groups have attacked anti-fascist demonstrations, government meetings, media outlets, foreign students and minorities, among other targets, Reuters noted. Some 40 US senators signed a letter in 2019 demanding that some of those militias, including the Azov Battalion, be designated as terrorist organizations.

But with Ukraine now a media darling, to the extent that major outlets acknowledge the country’s fascist elements, it’s typically to whitewash them. For instance, NBC News argued in March that because Zelensky has Jewish heritage and there have been no “recent mass killings or ethnic purges” in Kiev, it’s “absurd” for Russian President Vladimir Putin to claim that Moscow’s military offensive is partly designed to “denazify” the former Soviet republic.

A group of protesters demonstrate holding placards against Communist sympathizers outside the Fox Wilshire Theatre, Beverly Hills, Los Angeles, California, US, December 1960. © American Stock Archive / Archive Photos/Getty Images

Likewise, President Joe Biden and other US leaders have mocked the notion that Ukraine has a Nazi problem, typically citing Zelensky’s Jewishness as their proof. “Putin has the gall to say he is denazifying Ukraine,” Biden said in March. “This lie isn’t just cynical, it’s obscene.”

However, the fact is Ukraine incorporated neo-nazi militias, including the Azov Battalion, into its National Guard after the country’s democratically elected leadership was overthrown in a US-backed coup in 2014. Those fighters have been hailed for their alleged heroism in battling Russian forces, and Western outlets have amplified Azov propaganda, such as a falsely claimed chemical weapon attack in Mariupol. In fact, immediately after the Russian offensive began, Facebook altered its rules to allow users to praise the Neo-Nazis.

The new wave of apologism for openly fascist elements – Ukraine has statues, street names and public marches venerating WWII-era Nazi collaborators – follows years of US political rhetoric hyping fears of neo-Nazism. Democrats in Congress, including Representatives James Clyburn (South Carolina) and Jerry Nadler (New York), likened then-President Donald Trump to Hitler.

Far-right groups march in Kiev, Ukraine to commemorate Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera. © Sputnik/Efrem Lukatsky

Prior to the current crisis, Americans knew little about Ukraine, which consistently ranked as one of the poorest and most corrupt nations in Europe. When Ukraine became a big news story during the 2014 coup, the Washington Post found that only one in six Americans were able to find the country on a map. The median guess was 1,800 miles off.

Nevertheless, once Russian tanks rolled across the border, Americans were quick to accept the new narrative about Zelensky and Ukraine. A Pew Research Center poll found that 72% of Americans had confidence in Zelensky to “do the right thing in world affairs.” In fact, the Ukrainian president ranked ahead of all other world leaders in the survey, including Biden at 48%.

Selling the public on Zelensky and Ukraine has been vital, given that the deeply indebted US government is pumping tens of billions of dollars’ worth of aid into Kiev and leading the charge for anti-Russia sanctions, which have contributed to the nation’s highest inflation rates in more than 40 years. And if warnings from Russian leaders are to be believed, the campaign to supply weapons to Ukraine and punish Moscow has put Americans and the rest of humanity at risk of potential nuclear annihilation.

With the stakes so high, critics of Biden’s Ukraine policy have been branded as Russian stooges or traitors. The New York Times and USA Today, among other outlets, have dismissed opposition as “far-right” rhetoric. Such voices have repeated the Kremlin’s “misleading claims” about the war, The Times said, including “unfounded” allegations about US-funded biolabs in Ukraine.

Rolling Stone called Fox News host and Biden critic Tucker Carlson a “Putin sycophant,” while MSNBC suggested that he was echoing Moscow's talking points because he wanted the US to become more like Russia, “with paleoconservative and white nationalist principles.”

Hollywood was quick to jump on the “Stand With Ukraine” bandwagon. Actors Ben Stiller and Sean Penn went so far as to pay visits to Zelensky in Kiev, with the former telling the Ukrainian president, “You’re my hero.” Penn threatened in March to boycott the Academy Awards show and smelt his two Oscars if organizers didn’t invite Zelensky to participate in the event.

Idiot to his Core, Sean Penn, gives ultimatum on Zelensky speech at Oscars. The actor has threatened to smelt his statuettes if the Ukrainian leader isn’t given a platform at Hollywood’s biggest awards show

As it turned out, Zelensky didn’t get to make a remote appearance, but the Los Angeles awards program featured a moment of silence for Ukraine and an appeal for public donations. The Ukrainian president did give a recorded speech at the Grammy Awards in April.

Zelensky had no reason to doubt the entertainment industry’s support. He told Ukrainians in a March speech, “The whole world admires you, from Hollywood stars to politicians.”

Several major studios announced in March that to show their support for Ukraine, they were halting the release of their films in Russia. In the UK, the opening of a blockbuster Guy Ritchie movie called ‘Operation Fortune’ has reportedly been delayed because it needed to be revised to reflect newfound reverence for Kiev. It turns out that gangsters in the story were identified as Ukrainian, which is no longer acceptable.

Hollywood was also a key pillar in the campaign to sell Americans on Stalin and the Soviets. Studios rushed to produce pro-Soviet films – such as ‘The Boy from Stalingrad’, ‘Song of Russia’, and ‘Moscow Strikes Back’ – in many cases getting OWI approval for their scripts. In ‘Days of Glory’, starring Gregory Peck as “Vladimir,” Soviet guerilla fighters were portrayed as defenders of democracy. ‘The Battle of Russia’ featured ordinary citizens depicted as patriots devoted to their leaders, a theme that was too far-fetched even for Stalin, who once admitted that the Soviet people “fought for their homeland, not for us.”

Roosevelt requested the making of a movie called ‘Mission to Moscow’, which was based on a book by a former US ambassador to the Soviet Union, Joseph Davies. The film portrayed Stalin as a kindly and wise leader with a fondness for children. It sanitized the Moscow show trials of 1936-1938 – which Stalin used to purge his political enemies – depicting them as a necessary step to expose traitors. Speaking to an audience that watched the movie in Chicago, Davies reportedly said, “The word of honor of the Soviet government is as safe as the Bible.”

Ukrainian-born Soviet engineer Victor Kravchenko, who was assigned to Washington under the lend-lease program and later defected, cringed when he heard such gullibility as he traveled around America during the war. In his 1946 book, ‘I Chose Freedom’, Kravchenko recalled: “A thousand times, I had to listen in frustrated silence while the Soviet dictatorship was given full credit for the achievements of the Russian people. Stalin’s grip on the American mind, I realized with a shock, was almost as firm as his grip on the Russian mind.”

Once the war ended, it was no longer necessary to promote Uncle Joe and the Red Army. The temporary allies were quickly estranged once Hitler was vanquished. With a congressional committee hunting down alleged communists as traitors and Hollywood facing pressure to prove its patriotic loyalty, Soviet-related films had a decidedly darker tone, as evidenced by such titles as ‘The Red Menace’ and ‘Behind the Iron Curtain’.

A US poll conducted in March 1946, just 10 months after the war in Europe ended, showed that 60% of Americans believed their government was too soft on policy toward the USSR, while only 3% said it was too tough. By a 65%-25% margin, respondents believed the Soviets would go to war to get what they wanted. Later that same year, a poll showed that 62% of Americans said their feelings had become less friendly toward the Soviet Union, compared with only 2% who said they felt more friendly.

The US-Ukraine relationship remains chummy, though it’s perhaps no longer in a honeymoon phase. Some observers questioned whether the ties were beginning to fray last month, when Biden said Zelensky “didn’t want to hear” Washington’s warnings early this year that the Russians were poised to launch an attack. Ukrainian officials called the claim “absurd.” Biden critics, such as Fox Business host Charles Payne and podcast host Jack Posobiec, said Zelensky was being thrown “under the bus.”

With the economic effects of the conflict multiplying on the home front, US public support for Ukraine aid has begun to wane. Polling by research firm Morning Consult earlier this month showed that 81% of Americans remained at least “somewhat” concerned about the Russian offensive in Ukraine, down from 90% in March. Less than half of respondents (46%) said their government should impose sanctions on Russian oil, even if that causes fuel prices to rise, down from 55% in April. Only 43% of US voters, including 32% of Republicans, see the protection of Ukraine as America’s responsibility, down from 50% in April.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and French President Emmanuel Macron shake hands after giving a press conference in Kyiv, on June 16, 2022. © Sergei Supinsky/AFP

Nevertheless, Biden’s administration is making plans to keep shipping weapons to Ukraine for “months and years,” a Pentagon official told reporters last week. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken reiterated late last month that the administration was committed to backing Kiev for the long haul. “We are giving Ukraine the support it needs to defend itself for as long as it takes, and we will continue to do so,” he said.

Back in May, Blinken linked America’s heroic allies past and present: “Those who study the past know President Zelensky and the brave people of Ukraine embody the spirit of those who prevailed during the second World War.”

— RT | July 16, 2022

[expatimes]

In Myanmar’s Rakhine, families of the disappeared seek answers | Conflict News

One evening, as Ma Nway* and her family were having dinner, soldiers from Myanmar’s armed forces, known as the Tatmadaw, came to her house and asked for her husband. According to her account, they blindfolded him, took out their guns and beat him in front of her.

“At the time, I could only cry,” said Ma Nway, an ethnic Arakanese from Myanmar’s westernmost Rakhine State, who prefers not to reveal her identity for fear of reprisals. “I feared they would shoot me, so I held my tongue … I felt like they were the most brutal people in the world.”

It was March 16 2020 and the last time she saw her husband. He is among 18 people from the neighbouring villages of Tinma Thit and Tinma Gyi in Rakhine State’s northern Kyauktaw township who were arrested in March and have not been seen since. Their families’ relentless search for information has been met with silence, rejection and threats. Ten months later, they are still looking for answers – and justice.

Three witnesses, whose testimonies align with those published by other media, told Al Jazeera that on March 13 and 16, uniformed soldiers wearing the badge of the Tatmadaw’s Light Infantry Division No. 55 went door to door arresting dozens of men it suspected of having ties to the Arakan Army, an ethnic armed group seeking autonomy.

Most of those arrested were released the same day, but 18 were not. The missing include a 16 year old, three people over the age of 65 and one person who is deaf. Al Jazeera has used pseudonyms for the three witnesses to protect them from possible reprisals.

On March 18, four bodies were seen floating in the Kaladan River near the villages. One of the bodies was identified by family members as among the missing villagers. The family told local media that soldiers shot at them when they approached the body, which the US-government funded broadcaster Radio Free Asia reported was riddled with bullet holes. The three other bodies were never identified.

The villages of Tinma Gyi and Tinma Thit are along the Kaladan River. Four bodies were found floating down the river last March

All of the missing are Arakanese, also called Rakhine, a predominantly Buddhist ethnic group thought to make up the majority in the state. Frustrated with political marginalisation and perceived domination under Myanmar’s ethnic Bamar majority, increasing numbers of Arakanese have in recent years joined the Arakan Army (AA). Since conflict escalated in late 2018, nearly 1,000 civilians have been killed or seriously injured in violence including indiscriminate air raids, gunfire, and landmines and more than 230,000 have fled their homes.

‘House to house’

The arrests in Tinma Gyi and Tinma Thit occurred following two weeks of intense clashes near the villages. “Tatmadaw soldiers went house to house, calling the men,” said Tun Hla,* who was among those arrested and released. “I don’t know why we were arrested by the Tatmadaw. At the time, the soldiers didn’t give any reason … 10 people were tied and beaten with guns in front of me.”

Days later, the villagers fled.

Zaw Win, a local advocate helping the families of the missing to seek justice, told Al Jazeera that three elderly men stayed in Tinma Gyi to watch over the monastery and have also not been seen since. Shortly after the villages were deserted, the houses were razed. Villagers blame the Tatmadaw, which has denied responsibility.

Myanmar’s police forces sit under the Ministry of Home Affairs, which is under the jurisdiction of the Tatmadaw. On March 23, a group of family members of the missing, now scattered in different displacement camps, filed a case regarding the disappearances with township police. Letters were also sent to the Myanmar National Human Rights Commission and the offices of the commander-in-chief, president, and state counsellor, calling for an investigation.

No updates came until June, when a Tatmadaw spokesperson denied anyone had been arrested in the two villages. Five more months of silence followed. On November 27, the Tatmadaw spokesperson announced that the families could open a case at the relevant police station and that if the police reported any suspicious information, the Tatmadaw would decide whether to conduct its own investigation.

The families returned to the township police station on December 8, but Ma Nway told Al Jazeera the officers on duty warned them against opening a case. “Regarding the initial case, the police told us their paperwork disappeared,” she said. “Then, they threatened us several times that we could be detained and sent to jail.”

“They said this case doesn’t concern them, and we should go to the Tatmadaw station to inquire,” added Zaw Win, who accompanied the villagers to the police station. “When we replied that the police had a responsibility to seek justice, they said they could immediately detain and send us to jail.”

A woman whose husband and two family members have been missing since they were arrested in March. She now lives in a displacement camp on a monastery compound in the Rakhine State capital

The Myanmar National Human Rights Commission, which has faced criticism for not intervening in other high-profile cases, has also done little to support the Tinma villagers.

Kyauktaw township legislator Tun Win, who submitted the request to investigate the case, told Al Jazeera the commission responded in November that the Tinma villagers were not detained by the Tatmadaw. Its chairperson told local media on December 30 that the pandemic prevented an on-site investigation and that the commission had closed the case after inquiring with the defence ministry, which denied the Tatmadaw’s involvement.

A police investigation finally began on December 29, when district police in the nearby town of Mrauk-U called the villagers in for questioning. Ma Nway stayed behind out of fear. “I feel like my children and I are not safe since my husband disappeared. I am really worried we could be attacked because we filed charges,” she said. According to Radio Free Asia, the police took statements from 15 people.

The next day, the Tatmadaw spokesperson stated that concerned persons could file reports and present credible evidence with the local military division office or regional military commanders.

Al Jazeera’s calls to the Tatmadaw spokesperson, township and district police stations, Myanmar National Human Rights Commission and Rakhine State government spokesperson went unanswered. Media are only allowed to report from Rakhine with permission and official escorts and the government has restricted mobile internet services across conflict-affected townships including Kyauktaw since June 2019.

Local lawyer Zaw Win told Al Jazeera he was frustrated by an apparent lack of political will to address the case. “All authorities have to take responsibility,” he said. “Those in power need to know the situation, follow human rights standards and seek justice.”

History of impunity

The Tatmadaw is notorious for committing rights abuses with impunity, most notably following a brutal 2017 crackdown on Rakhine State’s mostly Muslim Rohingya that sent 740,000 fleeing to Bangladesh. A UN Independent International Fact-Finding Mission stated in a September 2019 report that Myanmar was failing in its obligation to prevent, investigate or enact effective legislation criminalising and punishing genocide in relation to its treatment of the Rohingya.

The Fact-Finding mission also, in an August 2018 report, identified enforced disappearances among crimes against humanity committed in Kachin, Rakhine and Shan States for which Myanmar’s top military generals must be investigated and prosecuted.

Yanghee Lee detailed a pattern of military abuses including crimes against humanity and enforced disappearances during her tenure as the UN special rapporteur on Myanmar

The Tinma villagers’ cases are not the only enforced disappearances to have occurred in Rakhine State since the report was released. Between January and June 2020, at least 30 civilians disappeared in the state after being arrested by the Tatmadaw, according to a tally by the Rakhine-based Development Media Group. As of October, Radio Free Asia counted 32 more who died after being taken into Tatmadaw custody from the start of 2019 to October 12.

In April 2020, UN human rights expert Yanghee Lee said accountability was critical to ending the conflict between the AA and Tatmadaw. “Having faced no accountability, the Tatmadaw continues to operate with impunity,” she said in a statement. “They are now targeting all civilians in the conflict area …Their alleged crimes must be investigated in accordance with international standards, with perpetrators being held accountable.”

Myo Myat Hein, the chair of the Arakan Lawyers Council which is providing legal aid to the families of the missing Tinma villagers, also emphasised the importance of accountability. “It isn’t acceptable just to say the villagers are missing, because several people saw the Tatmadaw detain them,” he told Al Jazeera. “Conflict actors need to build trust beyond just talking about the national peace process.”

Since mid-November, fighting between the AA and Tatmadaw has eased and an informal ceasefire is in place.

Women who were forced from their homes by fighting in Tinma have taken shelter in the railway station at Kyauktaw

Dialogue is now taking place for the first time since December 2019. Tun Win, the Kyauktaw township legislator, emphasises the urgency of achieving justice for the Tinma villagers and others affected by human rights abuses in the state. “I welcome peace negotiations,” he said. “But if the perpetrators have impunity, it will be difficult to achieve sustainable peace.”

For the families of the missing, the current absence of clashes offers little solace. “Although the AA and Tatmadaw have stopped fighting for two months, we haven’t heard anything about our villagers’ case,” said Bo Aung,* whose son is among the missing.

Ma Nway said she lies sleepless at night, worrying about her husband and fearing for her and her children’s safety and survival. They were unable to harvest their paddy fields this season, and are living on 15,000 kyats ($11) a month in food aid. Ma Nway wants to go home but still fears the soldiers stationed near her village. “As long as they are staying there, we won’t be safe,” she said.

*Pseudonyms have been used to protect the security of witnesses.

#humanrights Read full article: https://expatimes.com/?p=17067&feed_id=29754 #asiapacific #conflict #features #humanrights #myanmar #news

[myprincecandy]

[ENG] ZTAO in L’officiel Hommes China 2017 special edition

MANY POSSIBILITIES: HUANG ZITAO, BREAKING OUT & SHOWING THERE’S MORE THAN ONE SIDE TO HIM

When talking about people in the entertainment industry who are still able to maintain being true to themselves, we believe that the name Huang Zitao pops up immediately. Rather than just attributing it to him being a type AB, why not say that it’s because our “30-year-old! Tao” keeps being a “3-year-old! Tao” at heart. Having so many sides to him allows him to retain more of the potential & possibilities in his character amidst the ever-changing public sentiments

In the 5 years since he became an artist, Huang Zitao is often at the centre of various hot topics. But the public knows and understands very little about how he is really like. Be it the memes, the top searches or being a magnet for negative and hostile attention…..all those are merely a snapshot of his personality taken out of context. We might even say that his character’s been over-simplified. Either he’s the arrogant and blunt 3-year-old!Tao or the considerate and mature 30-year-old!Tao. Rarely is there a chance for him to completely show the side of him that’s paradoxical and not as adorable. The many sides to his personality only truly became more concrete to people, after the aid of the many variety shows and movies. The charm exuded from the variety show, shown as he transitioned from the unruly rookie to becoming the “soldier king” who’s so passionate about the army, provided a whole new perspective of him to viewers. So it turns out that the Huang Zitao of many memes and controversies, is actually very adorable, funny, real & slightly narcissistic. Yet when his teammates are facing hard times, he chooses to quietly support them from behind. This lets many people see the considerate, heart-warming and sensitive side of him. 

ALWAYS EXPLORING NEW SIDES TO HIMSELF

Huang Zitao never seems to run out of things to say when chatting about his days in the army. Because that has left him with too many touching memories. “The last time I cried, it was when I was still in the army. Because I really couldn’t bear to leave my fellow comrades and squad leaders. I feel that if I am not a singer, I would definitely go join the army!” Huang Zitao, who constantly surprises the masses, has attracted more attention through his multifaceted personality.

And this generous display to the outside world, as shown in the variety shows, is still, in the end, a way to attract more people to his infinite potential in music and acting. Huang Zitao says that he won’t be taking part in any reality tv shows for the time being. It is, after all, a means to bring more attention to his works. His focus, from now on, will still be on music and dramatic works. In the music that he’s released this year, he’s used the style of EDM (electronic dance music) to create a new C-POP song “Time”. In terms of fashion, he has tried different possibilities. In the drama “The Brightest star in the Sky”, he’s not only playing the lead and investing in the project. He’s also serving, for the first time, as the drama’s music producer. As he takes on more roles and gets every more enriching exposures to different areas of work, Huang Zitao’s constantly exploring new sides to himself along with everyone. He doesn’t set limits for himself and he doesn’t want to be typecast. The “3-year-old! Tao” is a free spirit, pursuing his true happiness to the end. The “30-year-old! Tao” is determined and responsible, never letting the past trap or stop him, and never fearing the future. After all, the future’s always new and unexpected. There are too few interesting souls out there. So perhaps you should keep an eye and look forward to Huang Zitao. 

BEING HONEST AND FRANK IS NOT A CHARACTER SETTING FOR ME

From being the “honest and frank” boy to the “untamed horse in the military”, if you are still sticking labels on to Huang Zitao, then perhaps you have missed too many interesting sides to him. His participation in the variety shows have gained him loads of attention and fans, but that’s just to help him get people to recognize his infinite potential in music and acting. He’s both “3-year-old! Tao” and “30-year-old! Tao” , maintaining a youthful heart while being very grounded. 

When you enter the words “Huang Zitao” into a search engine, it will show you gazillions of search results, with related searches like “Huang Zitao memes”, “Huang Zitao hats” & “Huang zitao rap”. To people who don’t quite understand him, these few labels form what the public sees of Huang Zitao, a topic generator. After all the debate and controversies, nowadays, the image that Huang Zitao gives to people is more of the forthright, and spontaneous sort. Even though it looks a little like a total reborn/remaking of him to people who don’t know him, all along he’s only just been using his own ways to face the trials and challenges. Despite the fact that planning and pre-setting how his life would pan out would be a steadier choice, he has never intended to live that way. To use his own words, “There’s really no “setting” per se to my character. I’m just being myself. Oftentimes the AB side of me would show itself, and that’s the “3-year-old! Tao” and “30-year-old! Tao” . Sometimes even I don’t know which side would surface.”

The unpredictability of Huang Zitao, is actually a choice to reclaim and live life as true to oneself as possible. In this complicated entertainment industry, and operating outside of those “pre-set answers and moves”, he always sounds true and full of confidence. He attributes all that as part of his style. With him, there’s no “unspoken rules”. The only rule is to be happy. The AB side of him, is something that’s really within all of us. All the self-praise and recognition that we deem as vain, all the weaknesses and wilfulness that we seem to want to hide from others, or the tiny temper tantrums that are not accepted in the adult’s world… Those are things that he “3-year-old! Tao” expresses in its most primitive form. Naturally, that very real and open-mindedness about him, is all the more easily accepted and loved by this world which is governed by too many rules and restrictions. Some people may teach you how to negotiate your way through the world, but Huang Zitao only wishes to say to you, “don’t hold your true self back”.

The genius “3-year-old! Tao”

“Perfect side profile”, “great chest muscles”, “self-proclaimed genius”… Huang Zitao’s praise of himself never fails to ignite waves of searches on weibo. All the “golden quotes” he utters, always becomes the focal point of people’s discussions. This generous praise of himself and the way he lives so feely, has helped Huang Zitao find his own set of “rules of survival in the entertainment world”. That is how Zitao, who knows himself sufficiently well and is sure of the direction he wishes to pursue, has found a more direct way to show his true self and ambition. Not bothering to waste time on explanations but rather, focusing on doing things seriously and letting time prove everything.

After the first incident where he was late to a fashion event, most people felt that he would probably stay away from anything fashion related. A blogger even asked in an interview last year, “Why do you still dare to come, after the backlash that happened after your previous fashion week visit?” Huang Zitao calmly expressed that, “The only thing that incident made him do, was to want to make sure that he will not be late the next time. So, in the fashion events that followed, he would get to the venue 2 hours ahead of time. This has also become a standard for him. Be it filming on set or waiting, he will not attempt to explain too much about the incidents. The correct way to resolve that is by improving himself and showing it through his actions.

That’s how Huang Zitao treats his mistakes, and that’s also how he treats misunderstandings about him. “When other people misunderstand you, they might not listen to any explanations you may offer. But the fact remains and so you must wait, wait for time to prove that you are right.” So at the height of all those controversies, despite how shaken he felt deep inside, he still chose to remain silent. He went to the States to work on his music, choosing to immerse himself entirely in work. Not explaining nor shying away. Letting time wash away the mud, and show how he is truly like. That rare silence is an interesting contrast to how frank he is these days. “Don’t care about those gossip and rumours, but longs for recognition of his works”. That’s the source of everything.  In Huang Zitao’s minds, it seems that there’s always a compass. He knows where he comes from and at the same time, he never forgets, what he needs to do to get to where he wants to be. There will always be obstacles in the way forward, which causes some to waver or become lost. “Your self-confidence is not built on how much recognition others can give you. Rather it’s more of whether you are in control of your self-confidence. What abilities do you possess that gives yourself that confidence? What is it in your that lets others believe in what you tell them? Well, the answer is in your actions.” Huang Zitao has said that in conclusion during several interviews.  All his flamboyance, carefreeness and self-confidence are all built upon this.

He started working and earning money at the age of 15, debuting at 19, and starting out again to focus on his music and acting at 22. Up until today, this is what he has to say “I think it’s my belief and determination that has allowed me to arrive at where I am today. Don’t care about what others say about you, or what they feel that you can’t possibly do. You yourself have to believe that you can do it, and then proceed to achieve it, one step at a time.” As “30-year-old! Tao” said that, all the brashness of youth is gone from him. Each word is uttered like an oath engraved upon his heart.

“30-year-old! Tao” has this to say

“The things that don’t kill us, only makes us stronger.” That’s the promotional slogan of the the drama “The Negotiator”, of which Huang Zitao is the male lead. Huang Zitao, who is really only just starting out in the TV/movie industry, is almost an unstoppable force. From his first major role in the movie “Railroad Tigers”, to the drama “The Negotiators” where he teams up with Yang Mi, he’s releasing 3 movies and 2 dramas in less than a year. Working non-stop, Huang Zitao’s still filming “The brightest star in the sky” now. It seems that a lot of times, he prefers to move and not stop. Practising, absorbing and changing like a workaholic. Because “it’s more enriching to be constantly working”

Huang Zitao, who once said candidly that he doesn’t really watch movies, may be mistaken as one who’s “good at nothing”. As to the public who has doubts about his acting, he has responded with his “being a genius”. But behind all that joking around, is the actual experience he’s accumulated through the constant learning in the various projects he’s taken on. It’s the norm for actors to have to wait in between scenes. Some may choose to chit chat, read a book or even play games. Huang Zitao uses it to learn from the others. Through the director’s discussions with other actors, through observing, taking notes, and going through scenes with every actor, through taking on characters that are closer in various aspects to how he is. Through all that, he’s learning the rules of acting, and has begun to break those rules to mould it in into something that’s his own style. It’s like how he first started composing, making music. There’s always a memo on his musical inspirations in Huang Zitao’s phone. No matter when it is, so long as inspiration comes, he doesn’t want to miss this “luck”. Only when he notes it down or has the melody recorded will he feel at ease. It’s also like his determination in filming action movies. Combing the many years of his training with his acting ability, working hard to release his potential and show what he has learned in the captured scenes. This maybe what constitutes the “genius” in Huang Zitao, that so many co-workers and senior actors see in him.

To himself, he’s very strict. To his co-workers, he’ll try hard to build the rapport. He sets very high goals for himself, but during work, is very humble. His personality is such that he doesn’t want to disappoint the crew’s expectations in him and the efforts they’ve put in. During the filming of “Railroad Tigers”, not even being covered with chicken pox and sub-zero temperatures could keep him from taking part in filming. And it’s all so that he won’t be the cause of delays in the filming schedule. This made Jackie Chan give him high praises. In the beginning stages of filming “Edge of Innocence”, the entire crew had doubts about his acting ability and attitude. But with his insistence on not using doubles in fight scenes, and him continuing without complaint to finish his scenes despite having been accidentally injured by the stunt guys, he ultimately won the recognition of everyone.

In filming “The Negotiator”, Huang Zitao kept more of his time to be alone with the character he plays, “Xie Xiaofei”. This is so that he can examine the similarities and differences between his own growing up experiences with the character’s. The naivete that’s a result of an affluent background with no major setbacks in life, the ambition towards his career and life after growing up, are parts that he can pull readily from his own experiences. At the same time, he’s able to spend more effort in working on the parts which he doesn’t have. He finds his way of portraying the character through acting and discussions. Acting to him is, “all about focus. That and being diligent and getting into the character. The more you can get in character, the more perfectly it is being portrayed. As to my acting skills… well, in the past, all that stuff about being a genius... it’s all joking. I know I still have much room for improvement, and so I’ll learn more things, to change all that’s bad about me. It doesn’t matter if people remembers me or not. What matters is that they remember the character “Xie Xiaofei”.

Q&A

Q: What role do you play in “The Negotiator”? What are the similarities or differences between the role and you?

A: I’m playing “Xie Xiaofei”. He’s someone who changes and grows up a lot in the show. In the beginning, he’s the sort who might not really care about a lot of things. Because life has been smooth-sailing for him. He changed quite a bit after going through a lot, and becomes more mature in his life and career. But I’m quite different from him. I’ve gone to work when I was young and made my debut at a relatively young age. So, my mental state’s probably around 30-40 years old. I do find a lot of what Xie Xiaofei does in the earlier parts of the drama childish. But that confidence and ambition he has towards his career after he matures is still pretty much like me.

Q: What’s the most boring bit about filming that you find, when compare to making music? How do you handle those negative emotions?

A: When I’m writing songs I’m usually alone, so I feel that time passes very quickly. But filming is something done by a lot of people together, so there will be a lot of wait time. Because I’m the sort who will wait by the side if I don’t have any scenes, so that in the event when they do need me, I can go over immediately. As such, there’s quite a bit of time spent just waiting. But actually, it’s still fine, because that is something that you, as an actor, must done.

Q: Between the set and the recording studio, which is the one that makes your “nerves shake”?

A: Right now, actually it’s both. But if I must choose one, it would be the recording studio. But it would be shaking because of excitement

Q: What do you think about the issue of extensive use of green screens/CGI (note: more to save time actors have to spend on set etc.) in the filming of dramas? Are there any “unspoken rules” in the industry that you are not comfortable with?

A: Actually, I do not support the use of that technique. But a lot of times, due to the requirements from the crew, and for post-production, it would be utilised. So, it’s unavoidable in a way I guess. But I don’t know what are “unspoken rules”. In any case, there are none with me.

Q: Do your desires or wants change according to increases in your income?

A: No. All the material stuff around you don’t really matter. What you want to persist and maintain is your pursuit of your dreams and beliefs. That’s the true meaning of life.

Q: Occasionally we see you clocking your hours at the gym through your posts online. When did you started taking note of your health, and started to work out? What plans have you put in place and how do you guarantee that you follow them through?

A: I started working out before the concert tour began this year. Back then it was so that I would have better stamina for the concert. Later on, it was so that I would be in better shape for filming in the new drama. But now working out has become a habit. If I don’t go running and exercising every day, I would feel weird. And I’ve been eating more healthily now.

Q: Would you watch movies to help you improve your acting? Do you watch your own movies? How does it feel to watch yourself on the big screen?

A: I don’t really have much time to rest, so I have had no time to go and watch movies. I can only learn and improve myself in the process of filming. It’s still rather interesting to watch my own movies. Sometimes I can get back into character just by watching it for a short while. By recalling how that character was feeling then, it really makes you feel for him.

-      Source of scans: lunchbox0502

[awkwardlyamusing-blog]

Holcomb refuses to listen to constituents about Hoosier State train

New Post has been published on http://doggietrainingclasses.com/holcomb-refuses-to-listen-to-constituents-about-hoosier-state-train/

Holcomb refuses to listen to constituents about Hoosier State train

CLOSE

Instead of listening to ordinary Hoosiers along the train’s route he took the advice of the Department of Transportation, and killed the service.

The pundits are saying that Gov. Eric Holcomb, who just announced he’s running for re-election, is a shoo-in. After all, he’s not the perceived dour, judgmental Mike Pence, but a smiling, jovial figure. But as I learned recently, he’s also the one who puts right-wing dogma over public opinion.

Back in 2012, Amtrak announced that the four-day-a-week Hoosier State train between Indianapolis and Chicago would be discontinued in 2013 if the state did not fund its operation. Pence wasn’t enthusiastic about spending the money, but when people all along the line — especially in Lafayette, where Purdue students depend on the train —promised to help, Pence went along with it.

This year, Holcomb, instead of listening to ordinary Hoosiers along the train’s route, took the advice of his transit-hating Department of Transportation, and killed the service. While he was happy to subsidize the Indianapolis airport to the tune of $20 million, he wouldn’t even consider $3 million to maintain daily train service to Chicago.

Given Holcomb’s refusal to listen to constituents in the case of the Hoosier State, his smiling countenance is more of a mask. Democrats need to find someone good at unmasking.

Stephen Wylder

Elkhart

Create employment opportunities, offer mentorship for Indy’s youth

While we celebrate the thousands of recent graduates, others won’t seek post-secondary credentials or a career. EmployIndy estimates 30,000 people in Indianapolis, ages 16-24, are not enrolled or employed. And they are disproportionately people of color.

It’s tempting to suggest that if a person works hard, he or she can be successful, but we know environmental stressors and systemic racism often disrupt individual ambition. These young people, “opportunity youth,” are at a critical moment in their lives. Education and employment decrease a person’s likeliness to be incarcerated or to use government supports. They’re more likely to have stable housing and contribute to the growing economy.

We, the eight advisors of the Community Leadership Innovation Fund at Central Indiana Community Foundation, have committed $400,000 to create the first Opportunity Youth Collaborative to engage this population. Participants include: EmployIndy, Indiana Black Expo, Groundwork Indy, Martin Luther King Center and Hamilton County Youth Assistance Program.

We urge you to support these youth by offering mentorship, creating employment opportunities or by making a financial gift to these organizations. This population is vital to the current and future success of our community.

Instead of detention facilities, U.S. could provide foreign aid to Central America

Here’s a thought: Rather than spending millions, if not billions of dollars on detention facilities and border walls, develop a plan to assist the people in Central America to improve their living conditions in their homelands. The people who have migrated must provide reasons for their actions and this might be a starting point for developing a plan. If drug cartels are the problem, provide military support to eliminate the cartels. If it’s food or water or lack of energy, send some corporations down to address those issues. Money spent on these issues would better serve Central America.

Tom Schroeder

Indianapolis

We bring you stories that matter to Indiana: Subscribe now.

Enforce speed limits on Indiana’s highways

The recent tragic accident where a mother and twin toddlers were killed has been attributed to excessive speed of a truck driver. The speed limit on most if not all of I-465 is 55 mph. A lot of the time if one is driving at that speed you’re getting your doors blown off’ by autos and trucks that are flying by. When will the Indiana State Police and other law enforcement more vigorously enforce speed limits in all of Indiana? If  ISP’s Supt. Douglas Carter and other law enforcement leaders say a lack of personnel and equipment is due to insufficient funding, then it’s up to Gov. Eric Holcomb, the General Assembly and local government to provide law enforcement with the means to slow all drivers to posted speed limits. Until all driver’s speeding is reduced, the slaughter of innocent persons on Indiana highways will continue.

David Schellberg

Carmel

Boost law enforcement to stop speeding violations

Another tragedy on I-465 involving a big rig. And where is law enforcement? Anymore, it is absolutely frightening to travel I-465. Recently I took a grandson to the airport from the far east-side and while I was doing 60 mph, most were going much faster. Please put law enforcement back on the roadways to stop all of the many violations that occur by the minute.

William Hilton

New Palestine

Republicans justify Trump’s racism, hypocrisy

I find it amazing that Republicans profess so much love for Israel that they cite a Democratic congresswoman’s questioning of AIPAC’s undeniably undue influence in our politics as justification for their racist comments against her when the base of the Republican Party is seemingly filled with neo-nazis and other various white supremacists who actually are anti-Semitic. Remember all those “very fine” people marching in Charlottesville chanting “Jews will not replace us?” Of course hypocrisy, racism and ignorance are hallmarks of the Republican Party. I also suppose that anyone who actually believes that climate change is a hoax, that Russia is our friend and that President Trump is a stable genius cannot be held accountable for what they say and do.

James Clark

Indianapolis

Have something to say? Submit a letter to the editor.

Democratic Party fumbles election rules

Once again the Democratic Party is preparing to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. In order to qualify for the debate in September, the party leadership has decreed that candidates must not only have a required number of donors, but must also have support in certain polls. Let us hope not the same polls that showed Hillary Clinton winning in 2016.

The only thing that polls are good for is assessing name recognition. None of the current Democrat front runners are likely to garner Republican crossover voters. Only a relatively non-controversial moderate could do that, but the polling requirement will probably eliminate him or her. Having won the popular vote but lost the electoral college twice in the last 19 years, the Democrats are gearing up to do it again.

Antonia Sekula

Speedway

Trump encourages divisiveness in America

By definition a demagogue is a (political) leader who appeals to his or her constituency’s fears and prejudices and makes false promises to remedy their conceived problems. It seems to me that President Donald Trump’s picture ought to be next to this definition.

It causes me great consternation when I see Trump or Vice President Mike Pence at a rally where there are signs proclaiming, “Promises Made, Promises Kept.”  The reason for this is that I can think of absolutely nothing that our president has accomplished that has benefited our country.  Some would say that the tax cuts have benefited them, however, I challenge them to show me how. Others would say that appointing conservative judges will benefit our country and again I ask how. I have also heard that Trump has made our country safer and once again I am forced to ask how and from whom?

I am terribly tired of the divisiveness encouraged by Trump. With a slogan of Make America Great Again, I again have to ask how and for whom?

Mel Pfeiffer

Indianapolis

Humans disrupt ecosystem by killing turtles 

A recent front page story on Hoosiers killing turtles for food is disturbing to say the least. It truly depicts why humans are one of the cruelest species on this planet. When humans enter an ecosystem and begin killing, we disrupt a perfect balance. It’s no wonder the Asian Carp are flourishing — there are no more turtles to eat the larvae.

“Killing animals for sport, for pleasure, for adventure, and for hides and furs is a phenomena which is at once disgusting and distressing. There is no justification in indulging in such acts of brutality,” the Dalai Lama once said. A turtle has one defense — strong jaws. They will never win against a human predator. I feel very sorry for these poor, beautiful creatures who are terrified of these large men invading the creek homes they may have been inhabiting for a hundred years or more — not ever bothering those around them. These Hoosiers need to find a better Indiana tradition to keep alive, or better yet, start a new tradition. Teach compassion to the younger generations. The world will be a much better place when we treat those species who are smaller than us, and even other humans who may be different than us, with respect and kindness.

Lindsey Hehman

Indianapolis

‘Many of us love this country too much to leave it’

As the son of an immigrant I feel compelled to express my disgust for the president’s racist remarks and his suggestion that four congresswomen leave the country if they don’t love it. What he fails to realize is that many of us love this country too much to leave it. We love it too much to stand by in complacent and complicit silence as its moral fiber is shredded. We love it too much to see it become a nation scorned by the rest of the world. And, most of all, we love it too much to blindly wrap ourselves in the flag and cover our eyes to xenophobia, misogyny, and racism.

Jim Solomon

Indianapolis

Trump makes no racist references to Congresswomen

It is with continued disappointment that I read the July 18 front page article “New Lines of Division.” With no attribution, IndyStar published the sentence: “Trump’s aggressive condemnation of women of color in Congress…”  The president made no reference to these four women in any racial sense.

Had these ladies been Caucasian and from Canada, the president would have said the same thing — and no mention of race would have been made. However, all four of these ladies have made some awful, unpatriotic statements about our country in the past. They deserved to called out for them. The president’s statements had nothing to do with race.

Ever since President Barack Obama entered the White House, the Democrats have kept race on the front burner.  It is a shame, because It keeps these wounds from healing and it really shows that the Democrats do not really want racial harmony in America.

Gordon Rose

Fishers

Immigrants, nonwhites fight for American freedoms

In the July 18 Letters to the Editor, one could interpret by letter writer Ryan Sorg’s viewpoint that he is consumed by hate for anyone having a difference of opinion when it comes to President Trump, and he wants to draw a line whereby he labels certain people to have no right to be representation. He wants to automatically label everyone else not conforming to Republicanism (Trumpism actually) as those who do not love this country. He suggests that they are anti-Semitic, anti-Israel, racist, communist, and anti-American.

Yes, too many people died for this nation in past wars for the common good, and a number of those people who went to fight were of non-white skinned races, immigrants that were not yet citizens, and even Democrats. Sir, President Trump is the one dividing this country.

Dennis Henderson

Indianapolis

Humanitarian crisis exists at border

Last Thursday I listened to an interview on NPR that Ari Shapiro conducted with Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio). Jordan is the ranking member of the House Oversight Committee who had, that day, heard testimony from Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan. Jordan played some semantic games in order to deflect attention from the Inspector General’s finding that the conditions were deplorable in border detention centers, and then blamed Democrats for failing to provided funding.

Shapiro tried several times to ask why the Republicans didn’t provide the funding in 2018 when they controlled both the House and the Senate, but Jordan, as he is prone to do, just kept talking. McAleenan, at the hearing, testified that he had warned Congress a year ago that there was a humanitarian crisis coming at the border. When Shapiro finally was able to ask his question, Jordan said he was only talking about the last two-and-a-half months when he blamed the Democrats. These are the games our politicians play on both sides. We have our fellow human beings caged in conditions that would not be allowed in a dog kennel and Congress just wants to point fingers. It seems that politics is more important than humanity.

Doug Broberg

Fishers

Read or Share this story: https://www.indystar.com/story/opinion/readers/2019/07/21/holcomb-refuses-to-listen-to-constituents-about-hoosier-state-train-letter-to-editor-says/1756194001/

Source link Train Your Dog

[alexsmitposts]

YouTube and the War on Truth As of June 2019, YouTube, owned by Google Corporation, with a long history of peddling “big data” to spy agencies and right-wing extremist groups, is going to “clean house.” Their claim, that they will remove all “hate speech” and unspecified other “objectionable material” is a huge threat against free speech around the world. You see, Google’s YouTube has actively molded a world of its own, financially partnering with the fake, the inane, the absurd while deeply censoring free speech from day one. For years, YouTube has run an obscure system of fake volunteers financed by think tanks and spy agencies, hundreds of them housed in special facilities in Haifa, Israel, that ban users whose material reflects badly in Israeli apartheid. Moreover, YouTube has provided, in partnership with the highly secretive military contracting firms, Idea Groups and Jigsaw, to give terror groups like al Qaeda and their many “nephews” along with ISIS, “on the fly” covert communications and operational intelligence. The same “troll rooms” in Haifa that clean free speech from YouTube help secure private posting boards for ISIS and other terror groups who communicate their operational plans using comment boards on videos. This was the ISIS fallback when their use of Facebook chat was exposed, and the NSA began tracing terror cells through their “Zuckerman channel.” ISIS and al Qaeda members simply stay logged into their YouTube app and run “tear sheet” coded transmissions under the protection of Google Corporation. More than that, this process, using YouTube chat to plan terror bombings, mass shootings or gas attacks is taught by advisory groups financed under Google Jigsaw’s program of fostering “democratic resistance to tyranny.” Google financed resistance organizations have been active in support of what they term “democratic movements” in Syria, Egypt, Libya, Sudan, Somalia, Ghana, Cameroon, Nigeria, Ukraine, Georgia, Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Bahrain, Sri Lanka, Italy, France, Germany, Belgium and two dozen other nations. Our projections show that these groups have been tied to assassinations, literally hundreds of bombings, kidnappings and mass rape, theft of antiquities, massive arms trafficking and, of course, manipulation of the media. In fact, the Google-Facebook partnership which includes YouTube, operates cells on 3 continents with a playbook taken directly from NATO’s failed Gladio operation. For those unaware, Gladio was established by NATO in the late 1970s to train resistance fighters in case of a Soviet invasion of Europe. Gladio, however, soon became Black September, the Red Brigades and eventually ISIS, according to our sources. For 20 years, Gladio terror attacks, an organization intended to fight the Soviet Union, terrorized Europe. History is now repeating itself, but the scale is a thousand times greater. Liars Decide What is True YouTube’s earliest targets are to be BDS, the movement to force governments to use Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions to enforce UN resolutions involving Palestine. It is good to note that over 45 % of what is called Israel, without Gaza, Golan or the West Bank, is legally the Palestinian State of Judea and Samara, in accordance with UN resolutions with BDS programs directly in accord with international law as stated in the Fourth Geneva Convention. YouTube has decided to operate outside UN resolutions and to oppose the authority of the International Criminal Court at The Hague and the Geneva Convention. Naming YouTube-Google-Facebook a “rogue state” is legally supportable. Calling them the Deep State may well be even more accurate. From the New York Times, June 5, 2019: “YouTube announced plans on Wednesday to remove thousands of videos and channels that advocate neo-Nazism, white supremacy and other bigoted ideologies in an attempt to clean up extremism and hate speech on its popular service. The new policy will ban “videos alleging that a group is superior in order to justify discrimination, segregation or exclusion,” the company said in a blog post. The prohibition will also cover videos denying that violent events, like the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, took place. YouTube did not name any specific channels or videos that would be banned. But on Wednesday, numerous far-right creators began complaining that their videos had been deleted, or had been stripped of ads, presumably a result of the new policy. “It’s our responsibility to protect that, and prevent our platform from being used to incite hatred, harassment, discrimination and violence,” the blog post said.” It is funny that the Times mentions Sandy Hook. A prominent American academic is facing a defamation trial for editing a series of papers by independent journalists who comment on inconsistencies in the official narrative. Our own investigation of the incident, from a counter-terrorism, counter-intelligence standpoint found massive irregularities in the investigation and handling of evidence and, moreover, the fact that funds used to punish or silence members of the independent press, is of mysterious origin. In fact, so many investigations are botched or rather faked. For some years, I managed security firms that, among other capabilities, investigated critical incidents, including air crashes, mine disasters and terrorism. Most of our investigators and forensics experts came from the FBI or other agencies. The mechanism believed to have been employed at Sandy Hook was certainly employed at 9/11, at Khan Sheikhoun in Syria, during the murders of John and Robert Kennedy along with the alleged Skripal poisonings in Britain. In case after case, as is easy to ascertain, governments are overthrown, bombing attacks ordered, countries invaded, sanctions employed, all based on “findings” from fake investigations of incidents where the real perpetrators are those who benefit, as is always the case, from the mayhem and suffering caused. Of course now, YouTube has stepped in to remove the offending videos, which include CBS anchor Dan Rather reporting the arrest of Mossad agents with explosives on the George Washington Bridge on 9/11, videos of tactical nuclear weapons used against Yemen or outside Damascus in May 2013 and, most telling of all, the statements of dozens of witnesses describing how the White Helmets stage gas attacks including, in one video, 40 former White Helmets themselves. Are we seeing an agenda here? This reminds me of a personal experience. I had just returned from Nairobi where I was tasked with making recommendations to the Interior Ministry after the infamous shopping mall attack that killed 71 people. When I got home, a local attorney asked for pro bono aid in investigating a fatal car crash involving two vehicles that hit head on outside Wauseon, Ohio. The police investigation, made entirely on the scene in less than 30 minutes, found a young woman driving one of the vehicles responsible of homicide. Our investigation showed that, at the scene, the young woman was refused medical care though in critical condition and was later arrested based on a coerced confession made while she was in a semi-coma in the intensive care unit of a local hospital. She nearly died during the helicopter ride, something worth note. There was one problem. Both cars were found in the lane where the young woman was driving and the other driver, an older woman, had actually crossed over the line and caused the accident. Review of medical records showed the older woman to have been heavily drugged on Ambien, a hypnotic sedative and a cocktail of opioids and anti-psychotic drugs. She was, medically, a “zombie.” Worse still, when the “black boxes” were downloaded from each vehicle and uploaded into a “full physics” crash simulator, the animations, which exactly mimic car movements, steering, speed, braking, easily demonstrated that the police had faked the investigation. A review of the officers involved showed that they had performed hundreds of similar investigations, all with no forensic evidence, all simply fabricated. It isn’t just traffic accidents, criminal investigations of all kinds are much the same, pick a guilty person, engineer fake evidence, and send them to prison. There’s a pattern here. If an official source comes forward, then we have a whistleblower, a “criminal.” They can’t be believed. In fact, they must be hunted down and imprisoned. If it is an independent journalist, they are “conspiracy theorists” and YouTube erases their work. If video evidence is so compelling it cannot be ignored, then it is “fostering hate” and is removed. Being policed by the police is bad enough, being policed by tech companies controlled by extremist political movements, which aptly describes all Google and Facebook functions, redefines tyranny.

[pgoeltz]

6 questions on Neoliberalism und alternatives

Noam Chomsky answers to Michael Albert’s questions

ZNetCommentary 30.9.2001

Michael Albert: I sent six questions to Noam Chomsky. His answers, by email, are below.

M.A.: (1) There has been an immense movement of troops and extreme use of military rhetoric, up to comments about terminating governments, etc. Yet, to many people there appears to be considerable restraint...what happened?

Noam Chomsky: From the first days after the attack, the Bush administration has been warned by NATO leaders, specialists on the region, and presumably its own intelligence agencies (not to speak of many people like you and me) that if they react with a massive assault that kills many innocent people, that will be answering bin Laden's most fervent prayers. They will be falling into a "diabolical trap," as the French foreign minister put it. That would be true -- perhaps even more so -- if they happen to kill bin Laden, still without having provided credible evidence of his involvement in the crimes of Sept. 11. He would then be perceived as a martyr even among the enormous majority of Muslims who deplore those crimes, as bin Laden himself has done, for what it is worth, denying any involvement in the crimes or even knowledge of them, and condemning "the killing of innocent women, children, and other humans" as an act that "Islam strictly forbids...even in the course of a battle" (BBC, Sept. 29). His voice will continue to resound on tens of thousands of cassettes already circulating throughout the Muslim world, and in many interviews, including the last few days. An assault that kills innocent Afghans -- not Taliban, but their terrorized victims -- would be virtually a call for new recruits to the horrendous cause of the bin Laden network and other graduates of the terrorist networks set up by the CIA and its associates 20 years ago to fight a Holy War against the Russians, meanwhile following their own agenda, from the time they assassinated President Sadat of Egypt in 1981, murdering one of the most enthusiastic of the creators of the "Afghanis" -- mostly recruits from extremist radical Islamist elements around the world who were recruited to fight in Afghanistan.

After a little while, the message apparently got through to the Bush administration, which has -- wisely from their point of view -- chosen to follow a different course.

However, "restraint" seems to me a questionable word. On Sept. 16, the New York Times reported that "Washington has also demanded [from Pakistan] a cutoff of fuel supplies,...and the elimination of truck convoys that provide much of the food and other supplies to Afghanistan's civilian population." Astonishingly, that report elicited no detectable reaction in the West, a grim reminder of the nature of the Western civilization that leaders and elite commentators claim to uphold, yet another lesson that is not lost among those who have been at the wrong end of the guns and whips for centuries. In the following days, those demands were implemented. On Sept. 27, the same NYT correspondent reported that officials in Pakistan "said today that they would not relent in their decision to seal off the country's 1,400- mile border with Afghanistan, a move requested by the Bush administration because, the officials said, they wanted to be sure that none of Mr. bin Laden's men were hiding among the huge tide of refugees" (John Burns, Islamabad). According to the world's leading newspaper, then, Washington demanded that Pakistan slaughter massive numbers of Afghans, millions of them already on the brink of starvation, by cutting off the limited sustenance that was keeping them alive. Almost all aid missions withdrew or were expelled under the threat of bombing. Huge numbers of miserable people have been fleeing to the borders in terror, after Washington's threat to bomb the shreds of existence remaining in Afghanistan, and to convert the Northern Alliance into a heavily armed military force that will, perhaps, be unleashed to renew the atrocities that tore the country apart and led much of the population to welcome the Taliban when they drove out the murderous warring factions that Washington and Moscow now hope to exploit for their own purposes. When they reach the sealed borders, refugees are trapped to die in silence. Only a trickle can escape through remote mountain passes. How many have already succumbed we cannot guess, and few seem to care. Apart from the relief agencies, I have seen no attempt even to guess. Within a few weeks the harsh winter will arrive. There are some reporters and aid workers in the refugee camps across the borders. What they describe is horrifying enough, but they know, and we know, that they are seeing the lucky ones, the few who were able to escape -- and who express their hopes that ''even the cruel Americans must feel some pity for our ruined country,'' and relent in this savage silent genocide (Boston Globe, Sept. 27, p. 1). Perhaps the most apt description was given by the wonderful and courageous Indian writer and activist Arundhati Roy, referring to Operation Infinite Justice proclaimed by the Bush Administration: "Witness the infinite justice of the new century. Civilians starving to death while they're waiting to be killed" (Guardian, Sept. 29).

M.A.: (2) The UN has indicated that the threat of starvation in Afghanistan is enormous. International criticism on this score has grown and now the U.S. and Britain are talking about providing food aid to ward off hunger. Are they caving in to dissent in fact, or only in appearance? What is their motivation? What will be the scale and impact of their efforts?

N. Ch.: The UN estimates that some 7-8 million are at risk of imminent starvation. The NY Times reports in a small item (Sept. 25) that nearly six million Afghans depend on food aid from the UN, as well as 3.5 million in refugee camps outside, many of whom fled just before the borders were sealed. The item reported that some food is being sent, to the camps across the border. If people in Washington and the editorial offices have even a single gray cell functioning, they realize that they must present themselves as humanitarians seeking to avert the awesome tragedy that followed at once from the threat of bombing and military attack and the sealing of the borders they demanded. "Experts also urge the United States to improve its image by increasing aid to Afghan refugees, as well as by helping to rebuild the economy" (Christian Science Monitor, Sept. 28). Even without PR specialists to instruct them, administration officials must comprehend that they should send some food to the refugees who made it across the border, and at least talk about air drop of food to starving people within: in order "to save lives" but also to "help the effort to find terror groups inside Afghanistan" (Boston Globe, Sept. 27, quoting a Pentagon official, who describes this as "winning the hearts and minds of the people"). The New York Times editors picked up the same theme the following day, 12 days after the journal reported that the murderous operation is being put into effect.

On the scale of aid, one can only hope that it is enormous, or the human tragedy may be immense in a few weeks. But we should also bear in mind that there has been nothing to stop massive food drops from the beginning, and we cannot even guess how many have already died, or soon will. If the government is sensible, there will be at least a show of the "massive air drops" that officials mention.

M.A.: (3) International legal institutions would likely ratify efforts to arrest and try bin Laden and others, supposing guilt could be shown, including the use of force. Why does the U.S. avoid this recourse? Is it only a matter of not wishing to legitimate an approach that could be used, as well, against our acts of terrorism, or are other factors at play?

N. Ch.: Much of the world has been asking the US to provide some evidence to link bin Laden to the crime, and if such evidence could be provided, it would not be difficult to rally enormous support for an international effort, under the rubric of the UN, to apprehend and try him and his collaborators. However, that is no simple matter. Even if bin Laden and his network are involved in the crimes of Sept. 11, it may be quite hard to produce credible evidence. As the CIA surely knows very well, having nurtured these organizations and monitored them very closely for 20 years, they are diffuse, decentralized, non-hierarchic structures, probably with little communication or direct guidance. And for all we know, most of the perpetrators may have killed themselves in their awful missions.

There are further problems in the background. To quote Roy again, "The Taliban's response to US demands for the extradition of Bin Laden has been uncharacteristically reasonable: produce the evidence, then we'll hand him over. President Bush's response is that the demand is non-negotiable'." She also adds one of the many reasons why this framework is unacceptable to Washington: "While talks are on for the extradition of CEOs can India put in a side request for the extradition of Warren Anderson of the US? He was the chairman of Union Carbide, responsible for the Bhopal gas leak that killed 16,000 people in 1984. We have collated the necessary evidence. It's all in the files. Could we have him, please?" Such comparisons elicit frenzied tantrums at the extremist fringes of Western opinion, some of them called "the left." But for Westerners who have retained their sanity and moral integrity, and for great numbers among the usual victims, they are quite meaningful. Government leaders presumably understand that.

And the single example that Roy mentions is only the beginning, of course, and one of the lesser examples, not only because of the scale of the atrocity, but because it was not explicitly a crime of state. Suppose Iran were to request the extradition of high officials of the Carter and Reagan administrations, refusing to present the ample evidence of the crimes they were implementing -- and it surely exists. Or suppose Nicaragua were to demand the extradition of the US ambassador to the UN, newly appointed to lead the "war against terror," a man whose record includes his service as "proconsul" (as he was often called) in the virtual fiefdom of Honduras, where he surely was aware of the atrocities of the state terrorists he was supporting, and was also overseeing the terrorist war for which the US was condemned by the World Court and the Security Council (in a resolution the US vetoed). Or many others. Would the US even dream of responding to such demands presented without evidence, or even if the ample evidence were presented?

Those doors are better left closed, just as it is best to maintain the silence on the appointment of a leading figure in managing the operations condemned as terrorism by the highest existing international bodies -- to lead a "war on terrorism." Jonathan Swift would also be speechless.

That may be the reason why administration publicity experts preferred the usefully ambiguous term "war" to the more explicit term "crime" -- "crime against humanity as Robert Fisk, Mary Robinson, and others have accurately depicted it. There are established procedures for dealing with crimes, however horrendous. They require evidence, and adherence to the principle that "those who are guilty of these acts" be held accountable once evidence is produced, but not others (Pope John Paul II, NYT Sept. 24). Not, for example, the unknown numbers of miserable people starving to death in terror at the sealed borders, though in this case too we are speaking of crimes against humanity.

M. A.: (4) The war on terror was first undertaken by Reagan, as a substitute for the cold war -- that is, as a vehicle for scaring the public and thus marshalling support for programs contrary to the public's interest -- foreign campaigns, war spending in general, surveillance, and so on. Now we are seeing a larger and more aggressive attempt to move in the same direction. Does the problem that we are the world's foremost source of attacks on civilians auger complications for carrying through this effort? Can the effort be sustained without, in fact, a shooting war?

N. Ch.: The Reagan administration came into office 20 years ago declaring that its leading concern would be to eradicate the plague of international terrorism, a cancer that is destroying civilization. They cured the plague by establishing an international terrorist network of extraordinary scale, with consequences that are -- or should be -- well-known in Central America, the Middle East, Africa, Southeast Asia, and elsewhere -- while using the pretexts, as you say, to carry out programs that were of considerable harm to the domestic population, and that even threaten human survival. Did they carry out a "shooting war"? The number of corpses they left in their wake around the world is impressive, but technically, they did not usually fire the guns, apart from transparent PR exercises like the bombing of Libya, the first crime of war in history that was timed precisely for prime time TV, no small trick considering the complexity of the operation and the refusal of continental European countries to collaborate. The torture, mutilation, rape, and massacre were carried out through intermediaries.

Even if we exclude the huge but unmentionable component of terrorism that traces back to terrorist states, our own surely included, the terrorist plague is very real, very dangerous, and truly terrifying. There are ways to react that are likely to escalate the threats to ourselves and others; there are ample precedents for more sane and honorable methods, which we've discussed before, and are not in the least obscure, but are scarcely discussed. Those are the basic choices.

M. A.: (5) If the Taliban falls and bin Laden or someone they claim is responsible is captured or killed, what next? What happens to Afghanistan? What happens more broadly in other regions?

N. Ch.: The sensible administration plan would be to pursue the ongoing program of silent genocide, combined with humanitarian gestures to arouse the applause of the usual chorus who are called upon to sing the praises of the noble leaders committed to "principles and values" and leading the world to a "new era" of "ending inhumanity." The administration might also try to convert the Northern Alliance into a viable force, perhaps to bring in other warlords hostile to it, like Gulbudin Hekmatyar, now in Iran. Presumably they will use British and US commandoes for missions within Afghanistan, and perhaps resort to selective bombing, but scaled down so as not to answer bin Laden's prayers. A US assault should not be compared to the failed Russian invasion of the 80s. The Russians were facing a major army of perhaps 100,000 men or more, organized, trained and heavily armed by the CIA and its associates. The US is facing a ragtag force in a country that has already been virtually destroyed by 20 years of horror, for which we bear no slight share of responsibility. The Taliban forces, such as they are, might quickly collapse except for a small hard core. And one would expect that the surviving population would welcome an invading force if it is not too visibly associated with the murderous gangs that tore the country to shreds before the Taliban takeover. At this point, most people would be likely to welcome Genghis Khan.

What next? Expatriate Afghans and, apparently, some internal elements who are not part of the Taliban inner circle have been calling for a UN effort to establish some kind of transition government, a process that might succeed in reconstructing something viable from the wreckage, if provided with very substantial reconstruction aid, channeled through independent sources like the UN or credible NGOs. That much should be the minimal responsibility of those who have turned this impoverished country into a land of terror, desperation, corpses, and mutilated victims. That could happen, but not without very substantial popular efforts in the rich and powerful societies. For the present, any such course has been ruled out by the Bush administration, which has announced that it will not be engaged in "nation building" -- or, it seems, an effort that would be more honorable and humane: substantial support, without interference, for "nation building" by others who might actually achieve some success in the enterprise. But current refusal to consider this decent course is not graven in stone. What happens in other regions depends on internal factors, on the policies of foreign actors (the US dominant among them, for obvious reasons), and the way matters proceed in Afghanistan. One can hardly be confident, but for many of the possible courses reasonable assessments can be made about the outcome -- and there are a great many possibilities, too many to try to review in brief comments.

M. A.: (6) What do you believe should be the role and priority of social activists concerned about justice at this time? Should we curb our criticisms, as some have claimed, or is this, instead, a time for renewed and enlarged efforts, not only because it is a crisis regarding which we can attempt to have a very important positive impact, but also because large sectors of the public are actually far more receptive than usual to discussion and exploration, even it other sectors are intransigently hostile?

N. Ch.: It depends on what these social activists are trying to achieve. If their goal is to escalate the cycle of violence and to increase the likelihood of further atrocities like that of Sept. 11 -- and, regrettably, even worse ones with which much of the world is all too familiar -- then they should certainly curb their analysis and criticisms, refuse to think, and cut back their involvement in the very serious issues in which they have been engaged. The same advice is warranted if they want to help the most reactionary and regressive elements of the political-economic power system to implement plans that will be of great harm to the general population here and in much of the world, and may even threaten human survival.

If, on the contrary, the goal of social activists is to reduce the likelihood of further atrocities, and to advance hopes for freedom, human rights, and democracy, then they should follow the opposite course. They should intensify their efforts to inquire into the background factors that lie behind these and other crimes and devote themselves with even more energy to the just causes to which they have already been committed. The opportunities are surely there. The shock of the horrendous crimes has already opened even elite sectors to reflection of a kind that would have been hard to imagine not long ago, and among the general public that is even more true. Of course, there will be those who demand silent obedience. We expect that from the ultra-right, and anyone with a little familiarity with history will expect it from some left intellectuals as well, perhaps in an even more virulent form. But it is important not to be intimidated by hysterical ranting and lies and to keep as closely as one can to the course of truth and honesty and concern for the human consequences of what one does, or fails to do. All truisms, but worth bearing in mind.

Beyond the truisms, we turn to specific questions, for inquiry and for action.

From ZNet: http://www.zmag.org/55qaframe.htm

[thisdaynews]

Impeachment timeline in flux as evidence against Trump piles up

New Post has been published on https://thebiafrastar.com/impeachment-timeline-in-flux-as-evidence-against-trump-piles-up/

Impeachment timeline in flux as evidence against Trump piles up

Democratic leaders still view the end of 2019 as a rough deadline to complete the impeachment process, and have started to talk privately about the topline logistics of moving the investigation into a public forum. But the unexpected deluge of testimony that investigators have received in private from witnesses willing to defy the White House’s efforts to silence them has left lawmakers reluctant to stanch the flow — and possibly miss crucial details.

“There has not been some date picked that we’re not telling you,” Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-N.Y.), a member of the House Intelligence Committee, said in an interview.

“The concern that the chairman has, that I share, is that we do a thorough job because it’s really important that we get it right. And you’ve got to balance that with being quick,” Maloney added of the impeachment inquiry, which is examining Trump’s efforts to pressure Ukraine’s leaders to launch investigations of his political rivals in exchange for releasing military aid.

Schiff, whose panel is leading the impeachment investigation, told a meeting of House leaders this week that he hoped to expedite the closed-door process by occasionally holding two witness depositions per day.

Schiff underscored the need for a public aspect to the investigation, according to attendees, but he did not lay out a time frame to complete the private depositions. The California Democrat has already assured colleagues that the House intends to make the transcripts of its witness interviews public.

“We also anticipate that at an appropriate point in the investigation, we will be taking witness testimony in public, so that the full Congress and the American people can hear their testimony firsthand,” Schiff said in an Oct. 16 letter to House members.

Democratic leaders have defended the secrecy of the evidence-gathering process, arguing it prevents witnesses from coordinating their testimony and permits more thorough questioning of witnesses by professional lawyers of both parties — who typically are not permitted to ask questions in public sessions. They’ve also pointed out that Republicans who serve on the three panels leading the inquiry have the same access to the closed-door interviews as Democrats.

“Every member has a right to ask questions, and time is equally divided between the two parties. I don’t know where they’re getting this secrecy stuff,” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said.

Though Democrats acknowledge the pressure Republicans are putting on them to open the inquiry to the public, Wednesday’s GOP-led storming of the secure facility where impeachment depositions are being conducted was never going to change the House’s path, they said.

“We’re not going to allow a stupid stunt to affect our approach to what needs to be a thorough inquiry,” said Rep. Tom Malinowski (D-N.J.), a Foreign Affairs Committee member. “We’re going to hear from the people we need to hear from and then we’ll move to public areas.”

Democrats have long acknowledged the competing pressures they face to be both thorough and rapid — to capitalize on a political climate for impeachment that has suddenly shifted in their favor, and to wrap up the process before the 2020 presidential primaries begin. So far, rank-and-file Democrats have largely been kept in the dark about House leaders’ intentions.

“We’re operating in the shadow, also, of a political calendar,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), who sits on the Oversight and Reform Committee. “We would like to deal with all of this before we get into the voting next year.”

Lawmakers and aides say there has been very little discussion, even at leadership meetings, about another complicated aspect of the impeachment process: how the public impeachment proceedings would work. Democrats have not settled on a list of witnesses they would like to call publicly or on procedures that would allow Trump and Republicans to summon their own witnesses and cross-examine others.

Several lawmakers have said they want to see William Taylor — the top American diplomat in Kyiv whose damaging testimony earlier this week directly tied Trump to the Ukraine controversy — appear before the cameras.

Through Taylor and other witnesses, impeachment investigators have unearthed evidence that Trump used the nation’s military and diplomatic power as leverage to pressure Ukraine to investigate his political adversaries, including former Vice President Joe Biden.

Democrats say the evidence to support this allegation is already overwhelming: Trump himself provided a summary of his July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in which he pressed Zelensky to investigate spurious allegations against Biden. He also pushed Ukraine to probe a debunked theory that Ukraine, rather than Russia, hacked a Democratic Party server in 2016.

Democrats also obtained text messages between ambassadors who oversaw Ukraine policy. The messages raised concerns that Trump was withholding military aid to Ukraine and refusing a White House meeting with Zelensky in order to bend the newly elected leader to his will — even as Ukraine desperately needed the aid to fend off Russian aggression from its east.

Trump himself has publicly called on Ukraine and China to investigate Biden, and his acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, recently acknowledged that military aid to Ukraine was conditioned in part on whether the European ally agreed to Trump’s demands. Mulvaney later walked the statement back.

There are several other unknowns, including how many articles of impeachment the House intends to consider. Democrats expect that when the Ukraine investigation is concluded, its findings will be passed on to the Judiciary Committee to craft articles. But there has been no determination yet as to when that transition would occur —to the private frustration of some Democrats who serve on the panel.

Lawmakers seem intent on drafting articles for “abuse of power” and “obstruction of Congress,” both of which can serve as catchalls for various allegations against the president. But there is still internal debate on whether to consider former special counsel Robert Mueller’s findings, in addition to evidence that Trump has benefited from foreign government spending at his properties.

Republicans have griped for weeks that the majority of their 197 members have been shut out of the impeachment process so far, and those that are permitted to review transcripts say they have been closely monitored by Democrats. Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), who has sat in on most depositions, said he is still hopeful Democrats will call some of the GOP’s preferred witnesses.

Georgia Rep. Doug Collins, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, has complained that Democrats are violating House rules by depriving members of access to the material collected by the committees running the impeachment process. He has written to Schiff and other committee leaders, asking them to prepare materials for him to review — but it is unclear whether he has received a response.

Democrats maintain that they are following standard procedures similar to the early stages of impeachment proceedings against Presidents Bill Clinton and Richard M. Nixon. And, as members of the three committees leading the probe, nearly a quarter of the House Republican Conference can sit in on the depositions.

Rep. Dean Phillips of Minnesota, a swing-district Democrat who has sat in on several of the depositions, said the GOP’s complaints about secrecy won’t speed up the timeline to finish closed-door investigations — but he acknowledged the importance of a public airing of allegations against the president.

“I understand why people say, more transparency, more in the public. I totally understand,” Phillips said. “The transcripts should be released to the public. The hearings should be conducted publicly, and certainly, the trial, should be fully publicly, as it will be.”

Sarah Ferris contributed to this report.

Read More

[queernuck]

again, i think that it is necessary to look at critiques and judge them based on their value, not just as flippant “takes” and so on

some great examples include discussing US Imperialism in Syria, the US support for the YPG and other Kurdish groups was absolutely, without a single doubt, conditional and was based on a shift from “YPG are terrorists” to “YPG are brave and fighting against ISIS” that was conditional on the YPG accepting US Aid, allowing for US military power to direct their actions, effectively using the Kurdish people as a kind of extension of military power. This meant that the US could go to war against ISIS, could do so in a way that opposed Assad, and kept with the general direction of US imperialist violence while only committing air assets and small deployments of Special Operations troops, ones who could be themselves part of the propaganda used to sell this to American audiences.

Now? The recoil of accepting American aid, of allowing American Imperialist support to dictate one’s own goals is occuring, and another American ally, Turkey, is almost certainly going to commit atrocities against the Kurdish people. This is going to go unanswered, America is not going to do anything about this and moreover any discussion of “our allies in Syria” leaves out the reasoning both behind Turkey’s actions and the way in which establishing a certain sort of governance was a goal of the YPG, how the YPG was at least nominally (if one does not want to claim genuinely) leftist. American joint patrols with Turkish forces, allied on the basis of NATO, American use of Turkey in strategic nuclear and other military considerations, American sales of arms to Turkey are not contradictory with this, but in fact a continuing policy of America using Kurds to justify imperialism before themselves watching the violence continue so long as it is convenient.

Liberals decrying this move are not doing so because they believe in. the YPG, its principles, or likely even particularly care about what will follow. They will do little, if anything, to discuss the role of Turkey as an American ally in breaking the YPG. Instead, ISIS and its supposed-existential threat to America will become the focus, will become part of what is discussed. It is not in support of the YPG that these politicians speak, it is in support of the Forever War, it is from the same place of imperialist ideology that criticizes Trump for attempting to better relations between the RoK and the DPRK by cancelling military exercises, it is Democrats determined to stay in Iraq and Afghanistan to continue Obama’s legacy and Republicans who will claim that, in fact, it is still Bush’s legacy but this is in fact a good thing.

discussing American imperialists leaving Syria is a question that genuinely at once poses two other questions: was the support given to the YPG ultimately worthwhile considering how it made them vulnerable to attack by ISIS and Turkey at the same time? and as a result, what exactly is a meaningful position when discussing it? weak and ineffective sanctions, war with a NATO member, misdirection at Iran? The meaningful discussion of exactly why accepting American imperialist support is counterrevolutionary, will lead to this exact kind of downfall, is coupled with how groups like Turkish Marxist-Leninists joined the YPG: the genuine ability to fight ISIS was an opportunity that was new, genuinely potentially-revolutionary, but Kurds were simply being used as a buffer between a target of invasion (Syria) and an ally (Turkey) until it was no longer so much. Leaves plenty of troops to go to Mali, or say, get ready for an invasion of Iran.

Similarly, the means by which large corporations such as the NBA, Disney (through ESPN), Blizzard, and others discuss Hong Kong in relation to China, two converging scandals (both involving voicing support for protests in Hong Kong) provides a phenomenal insight into how right-wing ideology is inserted into supposedly left-leaning discussions through various ideological maneuvers.

For players, they are well aware that their paycheck can be on the line when it comes to discussing issues, and so they often are sticking to ones where the demographics are on their side, where the league can monetize their supposed protest and use it to portray an image as a league that is socially conscious, that is self-aware, something beyond the corporation at hand. However, the careful means by which this is done become apparent rather quickly: discussions of racial justice and police brutality are allowed when it comes to NBA stars too big to shut down, but WNBA players can be silenced if they break too many boundaries. There is an awareness that they can only make so much critique before they begin to make themselves targets.

And indeed, American media thrives off of a kind of dual-acknowledgement: there is a recognition of China as an irreconcilable Other, but none at all of the means by which similar measures are instituted in American contexts. A right-winger talks about how easily China crumbles, comparing it to a “paper tiger” while talking about an effort to hamstring Blizzard in response to proactive censorship on their own part. Another discusses the way in which “free speech” should not be determined by corporations, a worthwhile discussion perhaps but one being offered specifically because it allows for an easy reactionary reading, because it dovetails with various platforms attempting to purge fascist content (again, not because fascism is to be opposed, but because it is harder to monetize in a polite, neoliberal fashion)

so much of politics has been signified by processes of consumption-production, so much of it is linked to the way in which one identifies with regard to acts of consumption, and this is not to contrast the “West” with that “Other” in China. Again, the NBA is at a crossroads here specifically because of how it is widely-watched across China, and it was the Rockets’ owner who started the whole thing, one of the most-watched teams within the league in China. The superficiality of expression in American culture begins to become clear when one looks at how exactly American companies control speech in America, couple willingly with a surveillance state, and the discourse on China coming from the right being openly anticommunist when linking it to various conspiracies, imagined or worse, resignified, that allow for the stoking of their fascist libidos.

the simplification of protests in Hong Kong to “pro-democracy” is so often a euphemism for the kind of protest supported by The Economist, a paper whose triumph-of-colonialism ideology is well-known, perhaps one of the most neoliberal and neocolonial publications running today. it is in desire of liberalization that they support these protests, in interest of creating embarrassments for the PRC in order to gain leverage within trade rather than any genuine concern for Hong Kongers, for the implication of extradition on leftist thought with regard to leftist criticism of China.

more generally, this ties into just how deeply-embedded fascism and its ironic aesthetics are in this website. equistrianrepublican is back as vaporwavevocap, fun or funny blogs are only a step or two removed from posters like thivus or porko-rosso (who have certainly not abandoned previous tendencies in posting) and the ability of posts of various sorts to find their way over to reactionary sides of tumblr is abundant. and yes, this includes reactionary leftism like stalin-defender having great posts about the IRA but worrying about how transness is a honeypot on tumblr and the REAL reason Yahoo let the website get devalued, how attempts to critique liberal ideation of sex work are supported as being against degeneracy, rather than in defense of sex workers, in defense of their arming and the recognition of exploitation in sex work as a fundamental issue and the changing of the work-form more generally a necessary discussion, in the way that some reject postmodernism as decadent and unnecessary in ways that attract reactionaries like flies and honey. it is in official-mugi being the person who least deserves that good url. it is in a lot of things, so many of them deniable or subtle, so many of them based on accepting a good-faith reading and spreading implicitly reactionary ideologies.

[esprit-de-corps-magazine]

ON TARGET: Canadian Military Is In Way Over It's Head In Iraq

By Scott Taylor

It was reported last week that a weapons cache valued at over $10 million is sitting in limbo in a Montreal warehouse. This arsenal includes .50 caliber sniper rifles equipped with silencers, 60mm mortars, Carl Gustav anti-tank rocket launchers, pistols, carbines, thermal binoculars, cameras, scopes and medical supplies.

The intended recipients of this sophisticated, lethal hardware was the Kurdish militia in northern Iraq. At the time that Prime Minister Trudeau pledged to provide this weaponry – February 2016 – the Kurdish militia were battling Daesh (aka ISIS or ISIL) with assistance of Canadian Special Forces advisors.

So far, so good. Canadian troops were training Kurdish fighters, and to assist them in the fight, Canada scrounges up $10 million worth of high-tech weapons. The lethal aid package was assembled at the Canadian Forces’ supply depot in Montreal, but that was as far as it got. Before flights could be arranged to transport this arsenal to the Kurds, Canadian officials got a sudden lesson in the Middle East complexities. 

The Iraqi government in Baghdad got wind of the weapon shipment and ordered it halted. While Canadian trained Kurds were fighting the common enemy in Daesh, they were also openly fighting to establish an independent state of Kurdistan.

On Canadian maps, the city of Erbil is in northern Iraq, but when our military trainers arrived there, the sign at the airport boldly proclaimed “Welcome to Kurdistan”. The flags flying atop every official building and military outpost was the red, green and white stripes with a central yellow sunburst, aka the flag of Kurdistan.

This same symbol of Kurdistan was worn as a Velcro patch on the combat uniforms of all the Kurdish militia which the Canadians were training. Despite the fact that these very colourful patches defeat the concept of camouflage in a tactical situation, our Special Forces troops soon added the flag of Kurdistan patches to their own uniforms.

The decision to allow Canadian soldiers to adorn their uniforms with this symbol was taken at the highest level and clearly illustrates just how naïve our commanders were at the time.

Given the complexity of ethnic and religious divisions in northern Iraq, this would be akin to a law enforcement agency having its officials wear a biker gang’s colours in the middle of an urban turf war.

Even if our troops wanted to bond better with their Kurdish trainees, the wearing of a symbol depicting a non-recognized, separatist entity should have never been considered. 

More importantly, the official policy of Canada’s Global Affairs department was, and remains that of supporting a unified Iraq in a post-Daesh era.

Knowing that the Kurdish militia would eventually turn their guns on the Iraqi Army, the Baghdad regime said ‘no dice’ to Canada providing the Kurds with all of that sophisticated weaponry. That prediction became a reality in the fall of 2017, when Kurdish leader Masood Barzani announced his intention to declare independence. The Iraqi Army clashed briefly with the Canadian trained Kurds and successfully recaptured the oil-rich city of Kirkuk. 

Since that juncture, Canadian Special Forces operatives have remained in Iraq, but they have removed their Kurdistan patches and ceased their direct assistance to the Kurdish separatist forces.

It should be noted that Baghdad was not the only voice which objected to Canada providing weapons too the Kurds. Turkey – a vital NATO ally, also expressed concern due to the on-going three decade long, armed Kurdish separatist insurrection in their eastern provinces. Since 1978, this conflict has claimed the lives of over 30,000 people, including over 8,200 Turkish security personnel. 

At the time of the official announcement, the Trudeau government said they would exercise controls to prevent the Canadian- provided weapons from falling into the wrong hands. Anyone familiar with the ebb and flow of loyalties and alliances in this region knows such a claim of controlling weapons after delivery was also hopelessly naïve.

The good news is that but for a few fanatical holdouts, Daesh is defeated in both Iraq and Syria. This scourge of evil-doers temporarily brought together an unholy alliance that included Kurdish separatists, Iraqi Shiite militia, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, Putin’s bad old Russians, Bashar al-Assad’s murderous henchmen, his Hezbollah allies, the U.S. and of course Canada.

Now that the unifier has been eliminated, Canada should follow Trump’s lead and get our troops out of there. We have no skin in the game, and we will definitely not have a seat at the big boy table when an eventual resolution is drawn up.

Our policy makers have already illustrated their ignorance of this complex conflict in authorizing our soldiers to wear the Kurdistan flag.

Thank goodness we did not actually compound that error by pouring in another $10 million of weaponry to add to the endless killing. Simply put, if you don’t know the players, you have no place being in the game. Bring our troops home.

[rightsinexile]

Turkey is using Syrian refugees as bargaining chips as it moves against the Kurds

This piece, written by Ali Bilgic, was originally published by The Conversation  and is reprinted here with permission from the author.

When Turkish ground troops rolled into Afrin, a Kurdish enclave in northern Syria, in January, the regime was making a considered political calculation. The campaign, which Ankara called Operation Olive Branch, involves Turkish Army Forces and Free Syrian Army troops supported by an air campaign, and aims to oust fighters from the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) from Afrin.

One of the reasons the Turkish presidency gave for the operation was so that it could start sending some of the 3.5m Syrian refugees living in Turkey, back to a safe zone in Syria. It was doing this in the name of “European security”.

This marks a return of rhetoric in which Turkey presents itself as useful to Europe’s security. Such rhetoric dominated Turkey’s security culture during the Cold War, when it was aligned with the West against the Soviet Union, but was abandoned in the 1990s and 2000s as it developed relations with Russia and Middle Eastern states.

Once again, Turkey’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, argues that the country can help fight terrorism in Europe by stopping onward irregular migration. Today, Turkey’s message to Europe is clear: we are dealing with your threats, so you should help and allow us to address ours.

This new operation is not the first time Erdoğan’s regime has strategically used Syrian refugees in its dealings with Europe. After the collapse of the peace negotiations between the government of Turkey and the Kurdish movement in 2015-16, the Turkish Armed Forces launched military operations in south-east Turkey against the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), which is linked to the Kurdish Democratic Union Party. According to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, more than 2,000 civilians were killed and 355,000 people were displaced during these operations. Several towns were wiped off the map, including the historical city of Sur.

The regime played the Syrian refugees card to quieten criticism from Europe. The result was the March 2016 EU-Turkey refugee deal, in which irregular migrants arriving in the EU from Turkey were to be returned – with €6 billion pledged to Turkey by the EU. The deal was negotiated as journalists and academics, critical of the the military operations against the Kurds, were being targeted by Turkish authorities.

Linking refugees to Europe’s security

Erdoğan played the refugee card once again in November 2016 when the European Parliament voted to freeze negotiations on Turkey joining the EU. Realising how important it was to Europe that Syrian refugees were kept in Turkey rather than attempting the dangerous sea crossing to Greece, he said “if you go any further, these border gates will be opened”. In July 2017, the European Parliament called for the suspension of Turkey’s accession process. The issue of Turkish accession became a heated issue during Germany’s election in September 2017, when the chancellor, Angela Merkel, said she would seek to end membership talks.

With Operation Olive Branch, Syrian refugees are being used to further Turkey’s strategic interests beyond its borders – with an explicit reference made at the same time to “securing” Europe.

In the initial days of the operation, Turkey’s official presidential Twitter account explained that one of the operation’s objectives was “to ensure the safe return of displaced Syrians to their homes” and that it would “curb the flow of terrorist elements and undocumented migrants into Europe”. The logic was that once the operation was concluded, it would allow “500,000 refugees to return to Afrin”.

Reflecting on this on January 30, the Brussels representative for the ruling Justice and Development party said: “The operation will lead to the return of Syrian refugees in Turkey. The fewer refugees in Turkey, the less migrant flow to Europe.”

Reviving Cold War rhetoric

It’s unclear whether the EU and its member states’ relative silence on the operation in Afrin is related to Turkey’s strategic use of refugees. Yet, given the Erdoğan regime’s practices in recent years, it appears Turkey has revived the mentality that dominated Turkey’s security culture during the Cold War: securing Turkey means securing Europe, and by extension, NATO.

The EU recognises that its security is under threat from “illegal migrants” and terrorism. Turkey’s military operation in Syria against the Kurdish autonomous region – which is a threat to Turkey itself – will also help Europe address its own threat. The news outlet of a pro-regime thinktank, SETA, recently put this in plain terms: “If Europe and the EU want to protect their own values, then they should support Turkey’s operation.”

By broadly linking undocumented migration and terrorism, Erdoğan is reflecting an issue that has captured the EU’s security mentality in the post-9/11 era. Turkey has clearly learned that linking an issue with migration offers advantages in its dealings with the EU. It is a transit country for undocumented migrants and is likely to ask the EU to launch new mechanisms and financial aid in the area of counter-terrorism cooperation in return for preventing future irregular migration.

Turkey needs to position itself as Europe’s security provider in order to pursue its own strategic interests of weakening the Kurdish autonomous region in Syria and replacing it with a pro-Turkey or neutral “safe zone”. And to do so without invoking disturbing noises from Europe.

Turkey has embraced its position as the EU’s border guard. The regime realises that migrants contained in Turkey will be useful to further its interests both domestically and internationally. And Europe appears content, for now, to play Turkey’s neo-Cold War game.