Look at this distasteful article by Ms. Barnard. Notice that she invoked the clearly racist terminology of “Muslims-versus-Muslims”. This racist terminology was borrowed from Apartheid South Africa when the regime talked about “blacks-killing-blacks”, as if Muslims are killing other Muslims for being Muslims or as if when “Muslims-are-killing-Muslims” the Western governments are not involved.
There is no case of civil war or conflict in the Middle East in which Western governments are not directly involved in arming or abetting or inciting or funding one side against another, and in perpetuating the conflict. Name one conflict in the last fifty years in which US/Israel were not directly involved. Just one. But it is rather classic that Ms. Barnard basically is lamenting that the US did not invade and occupy Syria.
Because she can’t be complaining about US not intervening in Syria; US intervened in Syria and bombed and funded and armed rebel groups but it was not to the tune that Ms. Barnard and other Western correspondents in Beirut wanted. Notice that their only concern about Trump’s bombing (as much as they cheered it) was that it was not more massive bombing.
Those are the correspondents who are not happy unless the US invades and attacks massively. Of course, the motives of Ms. Barnard and others can’t be humanitarian: can you imagine her daring to call for US to intervene militarily to attack Saudi Arabia? Ms. Barnard covered the last Israeli war on Gaza, and she never wrote an article in which she lamented the lack of Western intervention against Israel.
Also, notice that her article did not mention Palestinians once. Not once. Western correspondents are only allow to cry and emote over cases when the one side is approved by Western governments. So the tears have to be authorized before hand. Also, look at this delicious quotation by a White Man: ““We’ve thrown values by the wayside, but also not been able to act in our own interests, because we let things go too long,” said Joost Hiltermann, a Dutch citizen who is the Middle East director for the International Crisis Group.”
What are “our values” here exactly? Are those the values of conquest and war and destruction and occupation? What values? And I like how Westerners act as if US reluctance to invade and attack Syria is the only glaring exception to US promotion of democracy and human rights throughout. They make it sound as if the US is promoting democracy and human rights in Morocco, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Jordan, Qatar, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Oman and that Syria is the only exception to US democracy rule and that US needs to invade and occupy Syria in order for the Middle Eat regional order of democracy to complete.
I mean, if you are someone form another planet, the scenario seems benevolent enough. Finally, has there been a regime change in which the US has been able to replace a lousy regime by a regime more lousy than the past one? Ever? The US in fact achieves miracles by arranging for a worse regime to always replace a brutal and lousy regime. It never fails. But Ms. Barnard was saying that Western governments upheld humanitarian values since WWII and for that reason she wants US to invade and occupy Syria to uphold those values.
The war loot by the OSS in the Philippines during WW II was a launching pad for the intelligence agency to become a shadow power in the world.
Well known men Nixon, Allen Dulles, Allen McArthur, Truman , Dulles, Reed, Haig GEORGE H. W. BUSH, AND SONS ROTHSCHILDS, OPPENHEIMER, WARBURGS, ROCKEFELLERS, KISSINGER and most of other so called presidents used secrecy and power to plunder and destroy nations and people.
The Seagraves name names and document events even explaining how and where the funds were discovered, deposited and later used. After setting up the Black Eagle Trust and other accounts, elections were rigged, world leaders assassinated and drug running was taken to a whole new level through the use of their black ops slush fund.
A secret chapter in the history of WW II, perhaps the most important one, is revealed here. Wars are ultimately about gold, money and power and in this case what happened to the treasures of Asia have been illegally hidden from the American public for over 60 years.
In addition, interestingly, some of the same names who secretly kept the treasures of the Asian countries plundered by the Japanese in WW II show up again and again, even surrounding the assassination of JFK.
Capt. Edward Lansdale, later identified at Dallas, Dealey Plaza on 11-22-63, was involved in the torture sessions that released the info on where the Japanese gold (loot) was. Robert Anderson, who served at high levels in the Eisenhower Administration, and who Lyndon Johnson personally wanted to meet with (or have his aide Walter Jenkins meet with) in the first 2 days after the JFK assassination, this same Robert Anderson was the one who helped the Americans launder the stolen Japanese war loot.
US President Bill Clinton continued his predecessors’ secrecy surrounding Yamashita’s gold. He allowed the CIA to remove Golden Lily documents from declassified US records on the war in Asia, to avoid embarrassment for Washington. According to the Seagraves, two weeks into George Bush junior’s presidency, two US Navy ships and navy commandos were dispatched to the Philippines to recover more gold to replenish US gold reserves.
It was secretly put to work by all US presidents to “interfere in the political life of sovereign nations, to buy elections, to undercut the rule of law, to control the media, to carry out assassinations, in short to impose America’s will, write the Seagraves.
It was used by the CIA to manipulate post-war elections in Italy, Greece and Japan, to fund the dictator Diem in South Vietnam, to spread anti-communist propaganda during the Cold War, and to reinforce the treasuries of Washington’s anti-communist allies.
For 50 years, the recovery of Golden Lily war loot and its continuing political deployment by Washington has been a state secret. However, Sterling and Peggy Seagrave’s extensive research and investigation ” as well as racy tales from the publicity-shy world of gangsters, spooks, private detectives, gold brokers and ruthless politicians ” have produced a rich and painstakingly detailed (and occasionally speculative) epic of greed, cover-up and covert political intervention.
Reactionary anti-communism and war loot, which brought Washington and former Nazi leaders and Gestapo torturers together, were also the political mating signals that worked their dirty magic between Washington and Japan’s war criminals and looters.
“You can’t understand what’s been going on around the world with American covert operations and the Israeli covert operations until you understand that the two countries have this secret arrangement.”
The U.S. military rolled out the red carpet for him. Everywhere he went, generals and colonels wined and dined him—and gave him pretty much free rein to see the war up close and personally. Although McNamara told Westmoreland (according to Dayan) not to expose him to “too much danger,” lower-level American officers let him “see all the action [he] wanted.”
Moshe Dayan with U.S. Brig. Gen. William Stiles, assistant commanding general, 1st Marine Division. Dayan toured the Vietnam battleground in the summer of 1966, to write a series of newspaper articles on the political situation there, though he wrote mostly about military strategy and tactics. (National Archives)
July 12, 1966, former Israeli Defense Forces Chief of Staff Moshe Dayan—the flamboyant, controversial fighting [Zionist] general who led the resoundingly successful assault into the Sinai Peninsula during the 1956 war with Egypt—boarded a commercial jet in London on a sojourn to South Vietnam.
Da Nang, South Vietnam – August General Moshe Dayan (left, with eyepatch), former chief of staff of the Israeli Army, fords a stream with U.S. Marines
The 51-year-old Dayan had resigned his military position in 1958, went into politics the next year and had served for five years as his nation’s minister of agriculture. He was now a newly minted author (Sinai Diary), a backbencher in the Israeli Parliament (the Knesset) and a private citizen hankering to go where the action was.
Moshe Dayan arrived in Saigon on July 25. He likened the situation there—with heavily armed South Vietnamese and American soldiers hunkering down behind sandbagged bunkers at the city’s big intersections—to what life was like in Jerusalem and other cities in Palestine under British colonial rule. Not a promising situation.
The U.S. military rolled out the red carpet for him. Everywhere he went, generals and colonels wined and dined him—and gave him pretty much free rein to see the war up close and personally. Although McNamara told Westmoreland (according to Dayan) not to expose him to “too much danger,” lower-level American officers let him “see all the action [he] wanted.”
Before heading into the field, though, Dayan met with influential South Vietnamese political and military leaders, including Nguyen Van Thieu, then the No. 2 man in the government under Prime Minister Nguyen Cao Ky. Thieu told him—of all things—how much he admired the commanding North Vietnamese Army General Vo Nguyen Giap, who defeated the French at Dien Bien Phu in 1954.
Two days later, bedecked in American fatigues, jungle boots and an olive drab baseball cap, Dayan was on board a brown-water U.S. patrol boat in the Mekong Delta looking on as American sailors stopped and searched Vietnamese river craft looking for contraband.
The next day Dayan had a VIP tour of USS Constellation, the huge aircraft carrier sitting in the South China Sea from which a constant stream of combat aircraft blasted off on their way to missions over North and South Vietnam. As would be the case during his entire visit to Vietnam, Dayan was very impressed by the might of the U.S. war machine and by the capability and dedication of the American troops.
But he voiced doubts about whether overwhelming power, dedication and ability would enable the Americans to prevail in what was then primarily a guerrilla war against an elusive enemy. He also was skeptical of the official explanation of American war aims.
Despite what he saw and was told, Dayan said, he thought that the Americans were “not fighting against infiltration to South [Vietnam] or against guerrillas, or against…Ho Chi Minh, but against the entire world. Their real aim was to show everybody—including Britain, France, and the USSR—their power and determination so as to pass this message: wherever Americans go, they are irresistible.”
Dayan continued to be impressed by American firepower and the military’s can-do spirit after he flew back to South Vietnam from the Constellation. His first stop was a three-day tour of duty with a Marine company on patrol just south of the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ).
He tagged along with a company of Marines commanded by 1st Lt. Charles Krulak, the son of Marine Lt. Gen. Victor “Brute” Krulak, then the commanding general of the Pacific Fleet Marine Force, and a man who had a strong hand in guiding Marine Corps policy in Vietnam.
Dayan peppered the younger Krulak (who later became commandant of the Marine Corps) with questions about American aims in Vietnam, and also told the young lieutenant what his own assessment was of the situation on the ground. Dayan, according to Charles Krulak, said the Americans should be “where the people are,” not trying to ferret out the VC in the boonies.
From the DMZ, Dayan went to Danang, then to Pleiku in the Central Highlands, where the Israeli general saw action for the first time. Dayan was met in Pleiku by the commanding general of the 1st Cavalry Division, Maj. Gen. John “Jack” Norton, West Point 1941, who had jumped behind German lines during D-Day with the 82nd Airborne Division.
“I’ve had word from General Westmoreland,” Dayan quoted Norton as saying, “For you, mon général, all doors are open. Just take care of yourself, and for heaven’s sake, don’t pick one of my units to get killed in.”
Four days later, Dayan was on a helicopter accompanying the Cav in Operation Paul Revere, a continuation of Operation Hastings near the Cambodian border. Again, he was impressed with America’s military might, especially with the Army’s innovations in helicopter-borne warfare. “There are altogether 1,700 in the country,” he wrote, “more than all the helicraft in Europe.”
But Dayan was less than impressed by the American tactics and strategy, and expressed serious reservations about the efficacy of U.S. intelligence. As the Cav went out to search and destroy, Dayan said, “One small item is missing: no one knows exactly where are the positions of the Viet Cong battalions. The air photos and air reconnaissance fail to pick out the Viet Cong encampments, entrenched, bunkered and camouflaged to merge with the jungle vegetation.”
Dayan and company landed in a hot landing zone. “All around came sounds of exploding shells and machine-gun fire,” he wrote in his newspaper report. The Americans responded as per normal, with a massive display of firepower. Then Dayan looked on in amazement as what he called “the assembly line of the 1st Cavalry’s fighting machine” was soon dropped onto the landing zone: 105mm howitzers, mountains of artillery shells, more guns and ammo, bulldozers, command and control equipment.
“But where was the war?” Dayan asked rhetorically. “It was like watching military maneuvers—with only one side. Could they have operated in this way, I wondered, if the Viet Cong had also possessed warplanes, artillery and armor? The heaviest weapon in a Viet Cong unit, a medium mortar, could be carried on a man’s back. But anyway, where were the Viet Cong? And where was the battle?”
That answer came soon enough—a half-hour later, when a 1st Cav company that landed 300 yards away was ambushed and cut to ribbons. According to Dayan, the company took 70 percent casualties, a total of 25 killed and 70 wounded. Among the dead was a platoon leader who “was killed when a chance bullet hit and detonated the grenade hanging from his belt.”
Dayan then spent two days at the Special Forces camp at Plei Me, three miles from the Cambodian border. Soon after arriving, he was out on patrol with a Green Beret squad. But Dayan left the patrol abruptly when Norton sent word that there was a heavy VC attack against a South Korean unit close by. Dayan rushed to the scene and reported that about 130 Korean troops had repulsed a force of about 1,000 attacking Viet Cong, with the critical help of a massive American artillery barrage. Dayan was suitably impressed.
American “support units laid down more than 21,000 shells,” he reported. “This is more than the total volume of artillery fire by the Israeli army during the Sinai campaign and the War of Independence together.”
Dayan found similar situations wherever he went. He concluded that Viet Cong tactics and strategy were working, but that American strategy was, at best, barely succeeding. The Viet Cong’s M.O., he said, “was to attack American units with the aim of destroying them when the prospect of success seemed bright….Ninety out of every one hundred battles in the Vietnam War began as this one did, on Viet Cong initiative, when they deemed the circumstances favorable.”
As for the Americans, Dayan wrote that they did not make the destruction of the enemy “conditional on a favorable tactical situation.” American commanders, he said, “were eager to make contact with the Viet Cong at all times, in any situation, and at any price.”
He continued to be impressed by American firepower. “What the Americans have at their disposal,” he said in his newspaper dispatch, “is all that a commander can visualize in a dream: helicopters to rush his men to any location; well-trained troops with the aggressive spirit and ready for action; air and artillery support; equipment, ammunition and fuel in virtually unlimited supply.”
Despite that, Dayan said, the Americans “have not succeeded in routing the Viet Cong.” Worse, “they have not succeeded in bringing them to decisive battle. They do not always know where the Viet Cong units are; and when they do run across them—the enemy slips from their grasp after the initial encounter, defeating attempts to seal him off.”
Dayan was impressed by the enemy’s determination. He gave one example, after he was permitted to watch the interrogation of a VC prisoner at a Civilian Irregular Defense Group (CIDG) camp near Pleiku on August 16. Near the end of the session, Dayan wrote, the prisoner looked his American interrogator in the eye and spat in his face. “In an even voice, he said, ‘Now you can kill me. I’m not afraid. It’s you who are afraid.’”
Despite the enemy’s determination and the success of their strategy, Dayan voiced doubts that the Viet Cong could defeat the Americans, mainly because of the overwhelming U.S. superiority in “planes, artillery, armor, modern communications, aircraft carriers, helicopter-cavalry, against an enemy that has none.” The only way Dayan saw a victory for the Communists was a political—not military—one: if the Americans “for political reasons (domestic or foreign)…decide to call a halt to the war before achieving total victory.”
Dayan went on, though, to point out other ways that the Hanoi government could frustrate the Americans off and on the battlefield. “Hanoi can refuse to go to the negotiating table,” he said, and “refuse to sign any arrangement whereby she recognizes the division of Vietnam….” On the field of battle, he said, the VC could prevent the Americans and South Vietnamese from “pacifying the country” by refraining “from pitting regular units against regular units in frontal engagements and organize guerrilla warfare.”
The Viet Cong, he concluded, “cannot drive out the Americans, but they can avoid being driven out themselves. They can deny the normalization of life in the south.”
Dayan was particularly critical of the much-maligned South Vietnamese-American Strategic Hamlet program and its successor, hearts-and-minds initiatives, which since 1962 had relocated Vietnamese villagers from areas threatened by the enemy into stockaded hamlets for their own protection. In his last days in-country, Dayan visited two such places, which he called “refugee settlements.” Dayan did not like most of what he saw.
“The atmosphere was not pleasant,” he wrote in his newspaper article. The women, he said, refused to be interviewed. “When we approached them, they sullenly backed away. Even the children, who are usually bright and jolly in these parts, looked wretched, stretching forth a begging hand while silently following their mothers.”
At a second settlement, Dayan reported that most of the people seemed happier, with the younger children attending a U.S.-supported school and the older ones working in decent-paying jobs in a safe environment. Still, Dayan said, things seemed amiss.
What “the Americans call ‘resettlement of refugees on the land,’” Dayan reported, “is not really the building of farm villages but the creation of slums around their Army camps.”
Dayan spent his last week in Vietnam, from August 20-27, in the Delta and in Lai Khe in the company of Maj. Gen. William Depuy, the commander of the 1st Infantry Division. He came away with more criticism of the Americans’ search and destroy, war of attrition strategy, and predicted again that the Viet Cong could prevail if they stuck to hit-and-run guerrilla tactics.
And he reiterated his disdain for the hearts and minds approach, as exemplified in the village resettlement programs. “I do not believe the Americans can bring pacification to Vietnam,” Dayan wrote in his last dispatch from the war zone. “The Americanization of the war can, from the military point of view, succeed, but the Americanization of the peace, of daily life, can only serve the Viet Cong with terrorist objectives and propagandist arguments against ‘American hegemony in Vietnam.’”
Or as Dayan put it in his book, Vietnam Diary, which was published in Israel in 1977, “the Americans are winning everything—except the war.”
Less than a year after Moshe Dayan left Vietnam, he was thrust back into the forefront of Israeli politics. He was named defense minister on June 1, 1967, and—along with General Yitzhak Rabin—led Israel to its overwhelming victory during the Six-Day War from June 5-10, 1967.
Vietnam veteran Marc Leepson is the editor of Webster’s New World Dictionary of the Vietnam War, and is senior writer and books editor for The VVA Veteran. His latest book is Lafayette: Lessons in Leadership from the Idealist General.
To all offended readers, I apologize for the one-sidedness. How could I not maintain a balance between the murderer and the murdered; the thief and his victim; and the occupier and the occupied?
I was saddened to read in Tuesday’s Hebrew edition of Haaretz that you’ve decided to cancel your subscription. I don’t know you, but I will miss you as readers. As someone who is partly responsible for your decision, as your article indicated, allow me to apologize.
To apologize for writing the truth all these years. I should have taken into account that this truth wasn’t palatable to you, and acted accordingly.
It was not pleasant for you to read the theory put forward by me and my fellow Haaretz correspondent Amira Hass about the occupation. You, who are active in Rotary Israel, who come from the business world, who are so proud of your children and the fact that they live in the West Bank.
Your son was educated at the Eli premilitary academy, and your granddaughters proudly carry the last name Sheetrit. You, who are so pleased with yourselves and your values, with your children and your morals, don’t think you should be forced to read unpleasant truths. You simply don’t deserve it.
Indeed, how could I have spent all these years publishing articles that even you, generously, admitted were touching, without ever, to my shame, checking how these Palestinian families ended up in their serious predicaments? Really, how did that happen?
Of course it was their own fault, but I keep blaming the Israel Defense Forces – how could I? And how could Amira Hass be so one-sided and lacking in perspective that would explain how a people could prefer the elimination of another people over a democratic society? Really, how could you, Amira?
I assume, Moshe, that if they were to lock you in a cage for years, you would continue your Rotary membership and refuse to back a struggle against your incarceration.
I assume, Orna, that if foreign soldiers were to burst into your home in the middle of the night and arrest your Moshe before your eyes, kick him, force him to his knees, blindfold him, handcuff him, and beat him in front of your children who study in Eli – and then snatch him from your home for months without trial – you would be looking for some “creative leadership” for your people.
I assume that you, who come from the business world, would lovingly accept those who confiscate your property and ban you from your own land. I’m sure it would never occur to you to struggle against those who have tortured you with such evil for so many years.
The first thing to remember is that the Zionists’ military-industrial complex is interlinked with that of the US and Western Europe, and that the political-lobbyist bodies active in those areas are very strong and influential.
Moreover, establishment voices in those states reflexively accuse anyone of “anti-Semitism” the moment that they try to raise awareness about ‘Israel’s’ crimes , hoping that this will succeed in defaming and silencing all opposition. Journalists and politicians alike who dare to exercise their rights to free speech and critical thinking stand to lose their careers and thus be unable to sustain their livelihoods, which is especially threatening if they have a family to take care of.
These factors combine in such a way as to self-censor many political and media activists who would otherwise do the right thing by talking about this issue. Sometimes, though, those who speak up are part of the ‘controlled opposition’ that works to discredit this cause, so this further complicates the whole state of affairs and is responsible for why social justice has yet to be served.
How similar are the Zionist and American officials’ mindset about state terrorism?
There is no difference between the two because they are one and the same entity. The interlinked military-industrial complexes between the two are supported by political-lobbyist ties that seal them together. ‘Israel’ is the 51st state of the US just as much as the US is the godfather of ‘Israel’. They are inseparable and thus have the same grand strategic outlook as one another.
In pertinence to the question, this means that they both support state terrorism and actively practice it whenever it suits their interests. A perfect example of these actors working together can be seen through the decades-long oppression of the Palestinians and the War of Terror on Syria, both of which are tragedies that would never have taken place had it not been for the complicity of these two entities in working hand-in-hand with one another.
Zionist intelligence service confirmed its role in killing Iranian nuclear scientists, over the last few years. The occupying forces of Palestine also have committed the most heinous crimes and atrocities against Palestinians during past decades. Is it safe to say the Zionist entity is the flagrant instance of state terrorism?
Absolutely. The creation of the Zionist entity itself is due to a combination of state terrorism and what Harvard scholar Kelly M. Greenhill termed as “Weapons of Mass Migration” in her 2010 publication of the same name. Everyone needs to “Acknowledge Weapons of Mass Migration Or ‘Legitimize’ “Israel””, but the main point is that European governments encouraged the post-World War II mass migration of their Jewish citizens to Palestine for the purpose of colonizing it on the grounds that this is some sort of geopolitical “reparation” for everything that this demographic suffered during the war.
This ‘normative’ pretext is exposed for the shallow falsehood that it always has been when one considers that the Palestinians have been forced to undergo similarly torturous hardships as the Jews did during World War II, except this time it’s ironically one of the victimized classes of that global conflict inflicting this on a people that had absolutely nothing at all to do with their wartime suffering.
Which of the running US presidential candidates would serve more to the idea of state terrorism?
The differences between the Bush and Obama Presidencies in regards to their support and defense of state terrorism are only stylistic and superficial. Both Presidents unwaveringly pursue this policy in their own country’s actions, they just carried it out in different ways.
Bush was brash and unashamedly told the whole world what he was doing, whereas Obama is much craftier and cunningly disguises his actions behind the rhetoric of “human rights” and “democracy”, taking care to also exploit the fact that he’s the US’ first black president in order to infer that all of his critics are “racists”. In my opinion, this makes Obama infinitely more dangerous that Bush ever was, because at least no one in the world was fooled by Bush, though so many people have fallen under Obama’s spell.
Concerning the Zionist occupation of Palestine, Bush was a loud defender of the state terrorism being committed against the original inhabitants, although Obama has sought a more publicly nuanced approach. The personal animosity that defines relations between the sitting US President and Netanyahu is well known, but this hasn’t had any negative effects whatsoever on ties between the two polities.
This is attributable to the fact that both of their “deep states” (the permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies) are in coordinated alignment as to their shared grand strategic goals, so public drama between their two leaders is of no tangible consequence to the essence of their deeper relationship. It’s important at this point to mention that Obama’s actions in this regard are just posturing intended to mislead Muslim audiences and disarm the suspicions of their gullible audiences into falsely thinking that the US supports them.
The attempt by Western countries to derail Russia’s fact-finding initiative in Syria to examine the site of the chemical incident in Idlib province exposes their aim to topple the Syrian government, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said.
“I believe that it’s a very serious situation, because now it’s obvious that false information about the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government is being used to move away from implementing Resolution 2254, which stipulates a political settlement with the participation of all the Syrian parties, and aims to switch to the long-cherished idea of regime change,” Lavrov said, speaking at a press conference with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi in Astana.
UNSC Resolution 2254 calls for an inclusive government in Syria and a peace process that would involve a new constitution and free and fair elections.
According to the minister, the decision displayed “complete incompetence” on the part of his Western colleagues, who, in fact, are “prohibiting the OPCW from sending their experts to the site of the incident, as well as to the airfield from where aircraft loaded with chemical weapons allegedly flew out.”
“Yesterday [April 20], our proposal that experts from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons [OPCW] visit the sites of the suspected chemical attack in Syria was blocked by Western delegations without any explanations,” Lavrov said.
In the meantime, the UK and France claim their experts have received samples from the site of the incident, Lavrov added.
Interestingly, the attack came in the aftermath of a trip by traitor Senator John McCain to meet with groups known to associate with radical jihadist factions in Syria, at a time when the United States government has been engulfed in a power struggle between different political factions who disagree strongly over what should be appropriate policy in regards to the Syrian civil war. Evidence Calls Western Narrative About Syrian Chemical Attack Into Question
The nerve! Asking for evidence is unpatriotic!
Just saying so isn’t evidence! We are getting more like Israel everyday.
Wolf Blitzer asked Gabbard if she didn’t believe the President, the secretary of state and Pentagon officials, all of whom came to the same conclusion: that Assad’s regime was responsible. Gabbard mentioned the previous invasion of Iraq, and the intelligence that suggested Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, which turned out to be false. “So, yes, I’m skeptical,” she said.
On CNN’s “Situation Room,” hosted by Zionist Jew Wolf Blitzer, Gabbard said in response to a question about intelligence showing Assad is to blame for the attack, “Last time I checked, Wolf, Congress had the authority and responsibility for declaring war, for authorizing the use of military force, so whether the president or the Pentagon or the secretary of state says that they have the evidence, the fact remains that they have not brought that evidence before Congress, they have not brought that evidence before the American people and they have not sought authorization from Congress to launch this military attack on another country.”
Many on both sides of the political aisle immediately attacked Gabbard for her comments made on CNN and elsewhere.
It is widely known that the U.S.-led NATO intervention to topple Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi in 2011 resulted in a power vacuum that has allowed terror groups like ISIS [US/Israel mercenaries] to gain a foothold in the country.
Despite the destructive consequences of the 2011 invasion, the West is currently taking a similar trajectory with regard to Syria. Just as the Obama administration excoriated Gaddafi in 2011, highlighting his human rights abuses and insisting he must be removed from power to protect the Libyan people, the Trump administration is now pointing to the repressive policies of Bashar al-Assad in Syria and warning his regime will soon come to an end — all in the name of protecting Syrian civilians.
But as the U.S. and its allies fail to produce legal grounds for their recent air strike — let alone provide concrete evidence to back up their claims Assad was responsible for a deadly chemical attack last week — more hazards of invading foreign countries and removing their heads of state are emerging.
This week, new findings revealed another unintended consequence of “humanitarian intervention”: the growth of the human slave trade.
The Guardian reports that while “violence, extortion and slave labor” have been a reality for people trafficked through Libya in the past, the slave trade has recently expanded. Today, people are selling other human beings out in the open.
“The latest reports of ‘slave markets’ for migrants can be added to a long list of outrages [in Libya],” said Mohammed Abdiker, head of operation and emergencies for the International Office of Migration, an intergovernmental organization that promotes “humane and orderly migration for the benefit of all,” according to its website. “The situation is dire. The more IOM engages inside Libya, the more we learn that it is a vale of tears for all too many migrants.”
The North African country is commonly used as a point of exit for refugees fleeing other parts of the continent. But since Gaddafi was overthrown in 2011, “the vast, sparsely populated country has slid into violent chaos and migrants with little cash and usually no papers are particularly vulnerable,” the Guardian explains.
How far humanity has come via US/Israel
One survivor from Senegal said he was passing through Libya from Niger with a group of other migrants attempting to flee their home countries. They had paid a smuggler to transport them via bus to the coast, where they would risk taking a boat to Europe. But rather than take them to the coast, the smuggler took them to a dusty lot in Sabha, Libya. According to Livia Manente, an IOM officer who interviews survivors, “their driver suddenly said middlemen had not passed on his fees and put his passengers up for sale.”
“Several other migrants confirmed his story, independently describing kinds of slave markets as well as kinds of private prisons all over in Libya,” she said, adding IOM Italy had confirmed similar stories from migrants landing in southern Italy.
Those held inside are forced to work without pay, or on meager rations, and their captors regularly call family at home demanding a ransom. His captors asked for 300,000 west African francs (about £380), then sold him on to a larger jail where the demand doubled without explanation.
When migrants were held too long without having a ransom paid for them, they were taken away and killed. “Some wasted away on meager rations in unsanitary conditions, dying of hunger and disease, but overall numbers never fell,” the Guardian reported.
“If the number of migrants goes down, because of death or someone is ransomed, the kidnappers just go to the market and buy one,” Manente said.
Giuseppe Loprete, IOM Niger’s chief of mission, confirmed these disturbing reports. “It’s very clear they see themselves as being treated as slaves,” he said. He arranged for the repatriation of 1,500 migrants just in the first three months of this year and is concerned more stories and incidents will emerge as more migrants return from Libya.
“And conditions are worsening in Libya so I think we can also expect more in the coming months,” he added.
As the United States government continues to entertain regime change in Syria as a viable solution to the many crises in that country, it is becoming ever-more evident that ousting dictators — however detestable they may be — is not effective. Toppling Saddam Hussein led not only to the deaths of civilians and radicalization within the population, but also the rise of ISIS.
As Libya, once a beacon of stability in the region, continues to devolve in the fallout from the Western “humanitarian” intervention – and as human beings are dragged into emerging slave trades while rapes and kidnappings plague the population — it is increasingly obvious that further war will only create even further suffering in unforeseen ways.
The Senegalese survivor said he was taken to a makeshift prison, which the Guardian notes are common in Libya.
A questioner asks: where is the safest place to be during nuclear war? Sheik answers: The Middle East will survive the Armageddon. 33:42The Zionist Jews are not going to lay to waste their prized ‘Greater Israel”.
The topic is an “Islamic view of the modern international monetary system and our anticipation of the replacement, in toto, of bogus paper-money with even-more-bogus electronic, digital, virtual money in the not-too-distant future. We should prepare for that monetary Guantanamo by stocking-up on gold and silver coins, and we should also prepare ourselves to defy the IMF and its satraps by trading with gold and silver. If we do not act now, the future world of money will enslave us, so we should prepare ourselves for that slavery.
What kind of credibility does Human Rights Watch have when it has been ruled since 1993 iron-fistedly by one man, and one man alone. All other Western human rights organizations allow for transfer of power in the leadership and the infusion of female leadership except this organization: what kind of message does this send when one man has ruled that organizations for several decades now?