Category Archives: Crimes against Humanity

Nuclear terrorist, Genocidally Racist and International Law-violating Apartheid Israel among World Leaders for Killing Kids

Apartheid Israel in its illegal, war criminal and 55-year occupation of the Occupied Palestinian Territory is among world leaders in “children killed per year per million of total territory population” with a value of  25.8 as compared to 75.7 (Honduras), 53.6 (Ituri Province, Democratic Republic of the Congo), 7.6 (the World), and 2.6 (Kashmir, India).

In censorship by killing journalists in the Occupied Palestinian Territory Apartheid Israel leads the World in terms of “average number of journalists killed per 10 million of population per year”: in Occupied Palestine, over 6.164; Syria, 4.733; Afghanistan, 2.563; Israel-Palestine, over 2.190; Somalia, 1.751; Yemen, 1.278; Iraq, 0.897;  Mexico, 0.750; Colombia, 0.366; Philippines, 0.283; Pakistan, 0.152; World, 0.084; India, 0.027. On a per capita basis, the killing of journalists by Apartheid Israel in  Occupied Palestine  leads the World, and is 73.4 times greater than for the World as a whole. In contrast,  India scores 3.1 times lower than the World.

Further, in addition to 54,000 violent deaths of children in the World each year,  presently 5.3 million under-5 year old infants (100 times more) die each year world-wide, overwhelmingly in non-European countries, and overwhelmingly  from deprivation and deprivation-exacerbated disease. “Under-5 infant deaths per year per million of total population” (2020 data) is as follows: pro-apartheid Australia (43.8), Apartheid Israel (59.2), Europe (62.6), China (123.8), Honduras (421.0), Occupied Palestinian Territory (537.7), India (628.2), Non-European World (789.4), and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (3,869.7) (see Gideon Polya, “Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950”, Korsgaard Publishing, Germany, updated second edition, 2022).

Thou shalt not kill children. Decent people must (a) inform everyone they can, (b) condemn nuclear terrorist, racist Zionist-run, genocidally racist, serial war criminal, human rights-abusing, international law-violating, child-killing, mendacious and journalist-killing Apartheid Israel, and  (c) urge and apply Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against  Apartheid Israel and all its supporters.

For details and documentation see here.

The post Nuclear terrorist, Genocidally Racist and International Law-violating Apartheid Israel among World Leaders for Killing Kids first appeared on Dissident Voice.

Killing Palestinian Journalists and The Silence of Israeli Apartheid

Within the cacophony of the Middle East and war in Ukraine, Israel’s brutal occupation of the West Bank and Gaza had drifted into the shadows. But the assassination of Al Jazeera journalist Shireen Abu Akleh served as a vicious reminder of Israel’s criminality

Abu Akleh was murdered on 11 May in Jenin on the West Bank, as she stood (wearing a Press vest) alongside colleagues, while covering Israeli army raids. Her funeral took place two days later in East Jerusalem and was attended by thousands of Palestinians. In chaotic unprovoked scenes, Israeli police, who said mourners were “disrupting public order”, attacked the funeral procession, indiscriminately kicking and hitting people with batons, causing pall bearers to drop the coffin.

In a crass attempt to shift the blame, the Israeli army claimed that Abu Akleh was killed by Palestinian fire, during clashes with Israeli soldiers. This is completely untrue; other journalists at the scene confirmed that there had been no shooting by Palestinian gunmen. Trade Unions around the world have united to demand an independent investigation into her death “and that the perpetrator be brought to justice.” CNN unsurprisingly adopted Israel’s false narrative, BBC coverage was ambiguous, neutral they would say – spineless.

The Israeli foreign minister, Yair Lapid said that Tel Aviv was offering a “joint pathological investigation”, and, failing to see the vile hypocrisy, added that, “journalists must be protected in conflict zones”. Human Rights Watch (HRW) is investigating and has decried Israeli investigations of such incidents “as whitewashed mechanisms ……the reality is there is no accountability for those sorts of abuses when it comes to actions by the Israeli authorities.”

Journalists and media workers have been targeted by Israel for years: murdered and intimidated by uniformed thugs in order to silence them, to stop them telling the truth and bear witness to the criminality and violence of the Israeli regime inside Palestine.

The killing of Abu Akleh is but the most recent. At least 46 journalists have been killed in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) since 2000, and no one has yet been held to account. The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) has recently submitted a case to the International Criminal Court (ICC) alleging that Israel’s systematic “targeting of journalists working in Palestine and its failure to properly investigate killings of media workers amount to war crimes.” Lawyers presenting the cases said they “are emblematic of the ongoing, systematic attacks and use of lethal force against journalists and media organizations in Palestine by the Israeli security services.”

It’s not just media workers/journalists who are targeted by Israel, it’s virtually all Palestinians living in the OPT, including children. Since 2000 “at least 10,349 Palestinians” have been killed by Israel, (1,304 Israeli’s killed), including 2,349 children, and (up to 2018) over 100,000 Palestinians have been injured, according to information gathered by the Israel-Palestine Timeline.

Apartheid writ large

The Israeli Machine of Brutality and Control is relentless and merciless. Palestinians within the Occupied Territories live under a shadow of suffocating violence, which manifests in a variety of forms: Targeted and indiscriminate killings and maiming;  destroying farms/olive groves and stealing land; the de-humanizing ordeal of passing through Israeli checkpoints, which makes moving around the country long-winded and stressful; limiting fishing off the Gaza coast; building illegal Israeli settlements  (which is a war crime) inside the West Bank; banning Palestinian civil society groups – by labelling them terrorist organizations – in October 2021 Israel shut down three Palestinian human rights groups, detained and prosecuted their employees under completely false counterterrorism claims. And evicting Palestinians and demolishing their homes – in the first eight months of 2021, according to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), Israel demolished “666 Palestinian homes and other structures in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, displacing 958 people, a 38 percent increase compared to the same period in 2020.”

All of this and what Michael Lynk, the UN Special Rapporteur for human rights in the OPT describes as “a deeply discriminatory dual legal and political system, that privileges the 700,000 Israeli Jewish settlers living in the 300 illegal Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank,” is the collective daily lot of the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, and amounts to Apartheid (segregation, political/social/economic discrimination).

Conditions in the Gaza Strip, where around 2.4 million Palestinians live, are even worse than those found in the West Bank. The population have inadequate access to power, water and health services, and the UN states, are threatened by a “collapsing economy and [have] no ability to freely travel to the rest of Palestine [West Bank] or the outside world.” Widely spoken of as the largest prison in the world, the sense of imprisonment was intensified during Covid when Israel used the pandemic to justify tightening what where already suffocating restrictions.

Across both territories – Gaza and the West Bank, Israel is imposing, what Amnesty International describe as, “a system of oppression and domination against Palestinians…….in order to benefit Jewish Israelis. This amounts to apartheid as prohibited in international law.” Propped up by the US, militarily and politically, the Israeli State machine ignores such facts and does as it pleases. Blind support from successive American administrations and their mealy-mouthed allies gives rise to Israeli Impunity and Bristling Arrogance.

Israel has been crushing Palestinians since it was established in 1948: Palestinians have always been seen as a threat to the Jewish State and consequently were expelled, segregated, controlled; thrown off their land and deprived of economic, social and human rights. The expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians and the destruction of hundreds of Palestinian villages post-1948 constitutes ethnic cleansing, which has morphed into a highly organized form of Apartheid. As Michael Lynk has said, “Israel’s military rule in the occupied Palestinian territory has been deliberately built ……to demographically engineer a permanent, and illegal, Israeli sovereign claim over occupied territory, while confining Palestinians in smaller and more confined reserves of disconnected land.” As part of this containment, Palestinian refugees living outside Israel and the OPT are legally denied the right to return, another flagrant violation of international law.

The UN, HRW and Amnesty International describe the treatment of Palestinians by the Israeli State as Apartheid. In its 2021 report Human Rights Watch confirm what has been the case for decades, that, “repression against Palestinians living in the OPT (West Bank and Gaza Strip), amounts to the crimes against humanity of apartheid and persecution.” In its report, ‘Israel’s Apartheid Against Palestinians’, Amnesty confirm that Israel operates a system of “suppression and oppression”, one “which operates with varying levels of intensity and repression based on Palestinians’ status in the separate enclaves where Palestinians live today, and violates their rights in different ways, ultimately seeks to establish and maintain Jewish hegemony wherever Israel exercises effective control.”

Amnesty describes the suppressive methodology of Israel as systemized and highly organized. Laws, policies and practices are designed and enforced to prevent Palestinians from claiming equal rights to Jewish Israelis within Israel and the OPT, and are thus “intended to oppress and dominate the Palestinian people.”

Apartheid is not just systemized suppression and wholesale control, it’s a mental attitude of extreme prejudice that leads to and enables inhumane acts of violence, exploitation and humiliation.  It allows the killing of civilians, the assassination of a prominent journalist, destruction of family homes and the litany of horrors that Israel is carrying out against the Palestinian people; atrocities that are visible to all who care to look.

For decades Palestinians have been crying out, pointing to Israel’s apartheid rule, but western nations, submissive to the US, have ignored them, turning a blind eye to Israel’s violence and criminality. Amnesty found that, “almost all of Israel’s civilian administration and military authorities, as well as governmental and quasi- governmental institutions, are involved in the enforcement of the system of apartheid against Palestinians across Israel and the OPT and against Palestinian refugees and their descendants outside the territory.”

Israel has no intention of allowing the fabled two state solution to become a reality. What it wants is clear – total domination. As Michael Lynk puts it, Israel’s military rule confines “Palestinians in smaller and more confined reserves.” It is allowed to do this because of US support and the power of the Israeli lobby in America – a highly organised Zionist group, The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is comparable to the NRA in influence and destructive impact.

Over the last 40 years or so there have been hundreds of UN resolutions underlining that Israel’s annexation of the OPT, the construction of Jewish settlements and denial of Palestinian self-determination, is illegal. Such resolutions are routinely ignored, and so Apartheid continues, the killings, destruction and injustices continue. It’s time the West, with or without the US, woke up, found some backbone and collectively acted against Israel, and for the oppressed, victimized people of Palestine.

The post Killing Palestinian Journalists and The Silence of Israeli Apartheid first appeared on Dissident Voice.

Russia-Ukraine war: George Bush’s admission of his crimes in Iraq was no “gaffe”

It was apparently a “gaffe” of the kind we had forgotten since George W Bush stepped down from the US presidency in early 2009. During a speech in Dallas last week, he momentarily confused Russian President Vladimir Putin’s current war of aggression against Ukraine and his own war of aggression against Iraq in 2003.

Bush observed that a lack of checks and balances in Russia had allowed “one man to launch a wholly unjustified and brutal invasion of Iraq… I mean, Ukraine. Iraq too. Anyway… I’m 75.”

It sounded like another “Bushism” – a verbal slip-up – for which the 43rd president was famous. Just like the time he boasted that people “misunderestimated” him, or when he warned that America’s enemies “never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people – and neither do we”.

Maybe that explains why his audience laughed. Or maybe not, given how uncomfortable the laughter sounded.

Bush certainly wanted his mistake to be seen as yet another slip-up, which is why he hurriedly blamed it on his age. The senility defence doubtless sounds a lot more plausible at a time when the incumbent president, Joe Biden, regularly loses track of what he is saying and even where he is.

The western media, in so far as it has bothered to report Bush’s speech, has laughed along nervously too. It has milked the incident largely for comic effect: “Look, we can laugh at ourselves – unlike that narcissist Russian monster, Putin.”

The BBC accorded Bush’s comment status as a down-page brief news item. Those that gave it more attention preferred to term it a “gaffe” or an amusing “Freudian slip”.

‘Putin apologists’

But the focus on the humour of the moment is actually part of the media’s continuing war on our understanding of recent history. It is intended to deflect us, the audience, from thinking about the real significance of Bush’s “gaffe”.

The only reason the media is now so belatedly connecting – if very indirectly – “a wholly unjustified and brutal invasion” of Ukraine and what happened in Iraq is because of Bush’s mistake.

Had it not happened, the establishment media would have continued to ignore any such comparison. And those trying to raise it would continue to be dismissed as conspiracy theorists or as apologists for Putin.

The implication of what Bush said – even for those mockingly characterising it in Freudian terms – is that he and his co-conspirator, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, are war criminals and that they should be on trial at the Hague for invading and occupying Iraq.

Everything the current US administration is saying against Putin, and every punishment meted out on Russia and ordinary Russians, can be turned around and directed at the United States and Britain.

Should the US not be under severe economic sanctions from the “civilised world” for what it did to Iraq? Should its sportspeople not be banned from international events? Should its billionaires not be hunted down and stripped of their assets? And should the works of its long-dead writers, artists and composers not be shunned by polite society?

And yet, the western establishment media are proposing none of the above. They are not calling for Blair and Bush to be tried for war crimes. Meanwhile, they echo western leaders in labelling what Russia is doing in Ukraine as genocide and labelling Putin as an evil madman.

The western media are as uncomfortable taking Bush’s speech at face value as his audience was. And for good reason.

That is because the media are equally implicated in US and UK crimes in Iraq. They never seriously questioned the ludicrous “weapons of mass destruction” justification for the invasion. They never debated whether the “Shock and Awe” bombing campaign of Baghdad was genocidal.

And, of course, they never described either Bush or Blair as madmen and megalomaniacs and never accused them of waging a war of imperialism – or one for oil – in invading Iraq. In fact, both continue to be treated by the media as respected elder statesmen.

During Trump’s presidency, leading journalists waxed nostalgic for the days of Bush, apparently unconcerned that he had used his own presidency to launch a war of aggression – the “supreme international crime”.

And Blair continues to be sought out by the British and US media for his opinions on domestic and world affairs. He is even listened to deferentially when he opines on Ukraine.

Pre-emption excuse

But this is not simply about a failure to acknowledge the recent historical record. Bush’s invasion of Iraq is deeply tied to Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. And for that reason, if no other, the western media ought to have been driving home from the outset the parallels between the two – as Bush has now done in error.

That would have provided the geopolitical context for understanding – without necessarily justifying – Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the West’s role in provoking it. Which is precisely why the media have worked so hard to ignore those parallels.

In invading Iraq, Bush and Blair created a precedent that powerful states could redefine their attack on another state as “pre-emptive” – as defensive rather than aggressive – and thereby justify the military invasion in violation of the laws of war.

Bush and Blair falsely claimed both that Iraq threatened the West with weapons of mass destruction and that its secular leader, Saddam Hussein, had cultivated ties with the extreme Islamists of al-Qaeda that carried out the 9/11 attacks on the US. These pretexts ranged from the entirely unsubstantiated to the downright preposterous.

Putin has argued – more plausibly – that Russia had to take pre-emptive action against covert efforts by a US-led Nato to expand its military sphere of influence right up to Russia’s borders. Russia feared that, left unchecked, the US and Nato were preparing to absorb Ukraine by stealth.

But how does that qualify Russia’s invasion as defensive? The Kremlin’s fears were chiefly twofold.

First, it could have paved the way for Nato stationing missiles minutes away from Moscow, eroding any principle of mutual deterrence.

And second, Nato’s incorporation of Ukraine would have drawn the western military alliance directly into Ukraine’s civil war in the eastern Donbass region. That is where Ukrainian forces, including neo-Nazi elements like the Azov Brigade, have been pitted in a bloody fight against ethnic Russian communities.

In this view, absent a Russian invasion, Nato could have become an active participant in propping up Ukrainian ultra-nationalists killing ethnic Russians – as the West is now effectively doing through its arming of Ukraine to the tune of more than $40bn.

Even if one discounts Russia’s concerns, Moscow clearly has a greater strategic interest invested in what its neighbour Ukraine is doing on their shared border than Washington ever had in Iraq, many thousands of miles away.

Proxy wars

Even more relevant, given the West’s failure to acknowledge, let alone address, Bush and Blair’s crimes committed in Iraq, is Russia’s suspicion that US foreign policy is unchanged two decades on. On what basis would Moscow believe that Washington is any less aggressive or power-hungry than it was when it launched its invasion of Iraq?

The western media continue to refer to the US attack on Iraq, and the subsequent bloody years of occupation, as variously a “mistake”, a “misadventure” and a “blunder”. But surely it does not look that way to Moscow, all the more so given that Washington followed its invasion of Iraq with a series of proxy wars against other Middle Eastern and North African states such as Libya, Syria and Yemen.

To Russia, the attack on Iraq looks more like a stepping stone in a continuum of wars the US has waged over decades for “full-spectrum dominance” and to eradicate competitors for control of the planet’s resources.

With that as the context, Moscow might have reasonably imagined that the US and its Nato allies were eager for yet another proxy war, this time using Ukraine as the battlefield. Recent comments from Biden administration officials, such as Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin, noting that Washington’s tens of billions of dollars in military aid to Kyiv is intended to “weaken Russia”, can only accentuate such fears.

Back in March, Leon Panetta, a former US secretary of defence and the CIA director under Barack Obama, who is in a position to speak more freely than serving officials, observed that Washington was waging “a proxy war with Russia, whether we say so or not”.

He predicted where US policy would head next, noting that the aim would be “to provide as much military aid as necessary”. Diplomacy has been a glaringly low priority for Washington.

Barely concealed from public view is a desire in the US and its allies for another regime change operation – this time in Russia – rather than end the war and the suffering of Ukrainians.

Butcher versus blunderer

Last week, the New York Times very belatedly turned down the war rhetoric a notch and called on the Biden administration to advance negotiations. Even so, its assessment of where the blame lay for Ukraine’s destruction was unambiguous: “Mr Putin will go down in history as a butcher.”

But have Bush or Blair gone down in history as butchers? They most certainly haven’t. And the reason is that the western media have been complicit in rehabilitating their images, presenting them as statesmen who “blundered” – with the implication that good people blunder when they fail to take account of how entrenched the evil of everyone else in the world is.

A butcher versus a pair of blunderers.

This false distinction means western leaders and western publics continue to evade responsibility for western crimes in Iraq and elsewhere.

That was why in late February – in reference to Ukraine – a TV journalist could suggest to Condoleezza Rice, who was one of the architects of the illegal war of aggression on Iraq as Bush’s national security adviser: “When you invade a sovereign nation, that is a war crime.” The journalist apparently did not consider for a moment that it was not just Putin who was a war criminal but the very woman she was sitting opposite.

It was also why Rice could nod solemnly and agree with a straight face that Putin’s invasion of Ukraine was “against every principle of international law and international order – and that’s why throwing the book at them [Russia] now in terms of economic sanctions and punishments is a part of it”.

But a West that has refused to come to terms with its role in committing the “supreme international crime” of invading Iraq, and has been supporting systematic crimes against the sovereignty of other states such as Yemen, Libya and Syria, cannot sit in judgment on Russia. And further, it should not be trying to take the high ground by meddling in the war in Ukraine.

If we took the implications of Bush’s comment seriously, rather than treating it as a “gaffe” and viewing the Iraq invasion as a “blunder”, we might be in a position to speak with moral authority instead of flaunting – once again – our hypocrisy.

First published in Middle East Eye

The post Russia-Ukraine war: George Bush’s admission of his crimes in Iraq was no “gaffe” first appeared on Dissident Voice.

Is Europe Really More Civilized? Ukraine Conflict a Platform for Racism and Rewriting History

When a gruesome six-minute video of Ukrainian soldiers shooting and torturing handcuffed and tied up Russian soldiers circulated online, outraged people on social media and elsewhere compared this barbaric behavior to that of Daesh.

In a rare admission of moral responsibility, Oleksiy Arestovych, an adviser to the Ukrainian President, quickly reminded Ukrainian fighters of their responsibility under international law. “I would like to remind all our military, civilian and defense forces, once again, that the abuse of prisoners is a war crime that has no amnesty under military law and has no statute of limitations,” he said, asserting that “We are a European army”, as if the latter is synonymous with civilized behavior.

Even that supposed claim of responsibility conveyed subtle racism, as if to suggest that non-westerners, non-Europeans, may carry out such grisly and cowardly violence, but certainly not the more rational, humane and intellectually superior Europeans.

The comment, though less obvious, reminds one of the racist remarks by CBS’ foreign correspondent, Charlie D’Agata, on February 26, when he shamelessly compared Middle Eastern cities with the Ukrainian capital, Kyiv, stating that “Unlike Iraq or Afghanistan, (…) this is a relatively civilized, relatively European city”.

The Russia-Ukraine war has been a stage of racist comments and behavior, some explicit and obvious, others implicit and indirect. Far from being implicit, however, Bulgarian Prime Minister, Kiril Petkov, did not mince words when, last February, he addressed the issue of Ukrainian refugees. Europe can benefit from Ukrainian refugees, he said, because “these people are Europeans. (…) These people are intelligent, they are educated people. This is not the refugee wave we have been used to, people we were not sure about their identity, people with unclear pasts, who could have been even terrorists.”

One of many other telling episodes that highlight western racism, but also continued denial of its grim reality, was an interview conducted by the Italian newspaper, La Repubblica, with the Ukrainian Azov Battalion Commander, Dmytro Kuharchuck. The latter’s militia is known for its far-right politics, outright racism and horrific acts of violence. Yet, the newspaper described Kuharchuck as “the kind of fighter you don’t expect. He reads Kant and he doesn’t only use his bazooka.” If this is not the very definition of denial, what is?

That said, our proud European friends must be careful before supplanting the word ‘European’ with ‘civilization’ and respect for human rights. They ought not to forget their past or rewrite their history because, after all, racially-based slavery is a European and western brand. The slave trade, as a result of which millions of slaves were shipped from Africa during the course of four centuries, was very much European. According to Encyclopedia Virginia, 1.8 million people “died on the Middle Passage of the transatlantic slave trade”. Other estimations put the number much higher.

Colonialism is another European quality. Starting in the 15th century, and lasting for centuries afterward, colonialism ravaged the entire Global South. Unlike the slave trade, colonialism enslaved entire peoples and divided whole continents, like Africa, among European spheres of influence.

The nation of Congo was literally owned by one person, Belgian King Leopold II. India was effectively controlled and colonized by the British East India Company and, later, by the British government. The fate of South America was largely determined by the US-imposed Monroe Doctrines of 1823. For nearly 200 years, this continent has paid – and continues to pay – an extremely heavy price of US colonialism and neocolonialism. No numbers or figures can possibly express the destruction and death toll inflicted by Western-European colonialism on the rest of the world, simply because the victims are still being counted. But for the sake of illustration, according to American historian, Adam Hochschild, ten million people have died in Congo alone from 1885 to 1908.

And how can we forget that World War I and II are also entirely European, leaving behind around 40 million and 75 million dead, respectively. (Other estimations are significantly higher). The gruesomeness of these European wars can only be compared to the atrocities committed, also by Europeans, throughout the South, for hundreds of years prior.

Mere months after The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was formed in 1949, the eager western partners were quick to flex their muscles in Korea in 1950, instigating a war that lasted for three years, resulting in the death of nearly 5 million people. The Korean war, like many other NATO-instigated conflicts, remains an unhealed wound to this day.

The list goes on and on, from the disgraceful Opium Wars on China, starting in 1839, to the nuclear bombings of Japan in 1945, to the destruction of Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, in 1954, 1959 and 1970 respectively, to the political meddling, military interventions and regime change in numerous countries around the world. They are all the work of the West, of the US and its ever-willing ‘European partners’, all done in the name of spreading democracy, freedom and human rights.

If it were not for the Europeans, Palestine would have gained its independence decades ago, and its people, this writer included, would have not been made refugees, suffering under the yoke of Zionist Israel. If it were not for the US and the Europeans, Iraq would have remained a sovereign country and millions of lives would have been spared in one of the world’s oldest civilizations; and Afghanistan would have not endured this untold hardship. Even when the US and its European friends finally relented and left Afghanistan last year, they continue to hold the country hostage, by blocking the release of its funds, leading to actual starvation among the people of that war-torn country.

So before bragging about the virtues of Europe, and the demeaning of everyone else, the likes of Arestovych, D’Agata, and Petkov should take a look at themselves in the mirror and reconsider their unsubstantiated ethnocentric view of the world and of history. In fact, if anyone deserves bragging rights it is those colonized nations that resisted colonialism, the slaves that fought for their freedom, and the oppressed nations that resisted their European oppressors, despite the pain and suffering that such struggles entailed.

Sadly, for Europe, however, instead of using the Russia-Ukraine war as an opportunity to reflect on the future of the European project, whatever that is, it is being used as an opportunity to score cheap points against the very victims of Europe everywhere. Once more, valuable lessons remain unlearned.

The post Is Europe Really More Civilized? Ukraine Conflict a Platform for Racism and Rewriting History first appeared on Dissident Voice.

Gaza’s Forthcoming Crisis Might Be Worse than Anything We Have Ever Seen

“The water is back,” one family member would announce in a mix of excitement and panic, often very late at night. The moment such an announcement was made, my whole family would start running in all directions to fill every tank, container or bottle that could possibly be filled. Quite often, the water would last for a few minutes, leaving us with a collective sense of defeat, worrying about the very possibility of surviving.

This was our life under Israeli military occupation in Gaza. The tactic of holding Palestinians hostage to Israel’s water charity was so widespread during the First Palestinian Intifada, or upirising, to the extent that denying water supplies to targeted refugee camps, villages, towns or whole regions was the first measure taken to subdue the rebellious population. This was often followed by military raids, mass arrests and deadly violence; but it almost always began with cutting Palestinians off from their water supplies.

Israel’s water war on the Palestinians has changed since those early days, especially as the Climate Change crisis has accelerated Israel’s need to prepare for grim future possibilities. Of course, this largely happens at the expense of the occupied Palestinians. In the West Bank, the Israeli government continues to usurp Palestinian water resources from the region’s main aquifers – the Mountain Aquifer and the Coastal Aquifer. Frustratingly, Israel’s main water company, Mekorot, sells stolen Palestinian water to Palestinian villages and towns, especially in the northern West Bank region, at exhorbitant prices.

Aside from the ongoing profiteering from water theft, Israel continues to use water as a form of collective punishment in the West Bank, while quite often denying Palestinians, especially in Area C, the right to dig new wells to circumvent Israel’s water monopoly.

According to Amnesty International, Palestinians in the occupied West Bank consume, on average, 73 liters of water a day, per person. Compare this to an Israeli citizen, who consumes approximately 240 liters of water a day, and, even worse, to an illegal Israeli Jewish settler, who consumes over 300 liters per day. The Palestinian share of water is not only far below the average consumed by Israelis, but is even below the recommended daily minimum of 100 liters per capita as designated by the World Health Organization (WHO).

As difficult as the situation for West Bank Palestinians is, in Gaza the humanitarian catastrophe is already in effect. On the occasion of the World Water Day on March 22, Gaza’s Water and Environmental Quality Authority warned of a ‘massive crisis’ should Gaza’s water supplies continue to deplete at the current dangerous rate. The Authority’s spokesman, Mazen al-Banna, told reporters that 98 percent of Gaza’s water supplies are not fit for human consumption.

The consequences of this terrifying statistic are well known to Palestinians and, in fact, to the international community as well. Last October, Muhammed Shehada of the Euro-Med Monitor, told the 48th UN Human Rights Council session that about one-quarter of all diseases in Gaza are caused by water pollution, and that an estimated twelve percent of deaths among Gaza’s children are “linked to intestinal infections related to contaminated water.”

But how did Gaza get to this point?

On May 25, four days after the end of the latest Israeli war on Gaza, the charity Oxfam announced that 400,000 people in besieged Gaza have had no access to regular water supplies. The reason is that Israeli military campaigns always begin with the targeting of Palestinian electric grids, water services and other vital public facilities. According to Oxfam, “11 days of bombardment … severely impacted the three main desalination plants in Gaza city.”

It is important to keep in mind that the water crisis in Gaza has been ongoing for years, and every aspect of this protracted crisis is linked to Israel. With damaged or ailing infrastructure, much of Gaza’s water contains dangerously high salinity levels, or is extremely polluted by sewage and other reasons.

Even before Israel redeployed its forces out of Gaza in 2005 to impose a siege on the Strip’s population from land, sea and air, Gaza had a water crisis. Gaza’s coastal aquifer was entirely controlled by the Israeli military administration, which diverted quality water to the few thousand Jewish settlers, while occasionally allocating high saline water to the then 1.5 million Palestinian people, granted that Palestinians did not protest or resist the Israeli occupation in any way.

Nearly 17 years later, Gaza’s population has grown to 2.1 millions, and Gaza’s already struggling aquifer is in a far worse shape. The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) reported that water from Gaza’s aquifer is depleting due to “over-extraction (because) people have no other choice”.

“Worse, pollution and an influx of seawater mean that only four percent of the aquifer water is fit to drink. The rest must be purified and desalinated to make it drinkable,” UNICEF added. In other words, Gaza’s problem is not the lack of access to existing freshwater reserves as the latter simply do not exist or are rapidly depleting, but the lack of technology and fuel that would give Palestinians in Gaza the ability to make their water nominally drinkable. Even that is not a long term solution.

Israel is doing its utmost to destroy any Palestinian chances at recovery from this ongoing crisis. More, it seems that Tel Aviv is only invested in making the situation worse to jeopardize Palestinian chances of survival. For example, last year, Palestinians accused Israel of deliberately flooding thousands of Palestinian dunums in Gaza when it vented its southern dams, which Israel uses to collect rain water. The almost yearly ritual by Israel continues to devastate Gaza’s ever shrinking farming areas, the backbone of Palestinian survival under Israel’s hermetic siege.

The international community often pays attention to Gaza during times of Israeli wars; and even then, the attention is mostly negative, where Palestinians are usually accused of provoking Israel’s supposed defensive wars. The truth is that even when Israel’s military campaigns end, Tel Aviv continues to wage war on the Strip’s inhabitants.

Though militarily powerful, Israel claims that it is facing an ‘existential threat’ in the Middle East. In actuality, it is the Palestinian existence that is in real jeopardy. When almost all of Gaza’s water is not fit for human consumption because of a deliberate Israeli strategy, one can understand why Palestinians continue to fight back as if their lives are dependent on it; because they are.

The post Gaza’s Forthcoming Crisis Might Be Worse than Anything We Have Ever Seen first appeared on Dissident Voice.

Remember the Nazi-CIA Connection

Reminder: When attempting to unravel the behaviors of today’s ruling class, it helps to educate yourself about their actions in the past. For example, the U.S. and the CIA rescued and recruited Nazi war criminals after World War II to bolster their intelligence, military, and space program efforts.

The most well-known of these men was Wernher von Braun — a man described as the “leading figure in the development of rocket technology in Nazi Germany and a pioneer of rocket and space technology in the United States.” His career — from exploiting Jewish slave labor to becoming a decorated NASA architect — is well-documented here. For the purposes of this article, I’ll focus on some of the other, lesser-known Nazis who were assimilated into America’s “Greatest Generation.”

Reinhard Gehlen as a Wehrmacht Major General in 1945

“I am a general and chief of the intelligence department of the High Command of the German Army. I have information of the highest importance for your Supreme Commander and the American government, and I must be taken immediately to your senior commander.”

It was with these words that General Reinhard Gehlen, Hitler’s notorious eastern front espionage chief, began his relationship with the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) and the budding U.S. intelligence community. As the OSS was transformed into the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), yet another of many dark alliances emerged.

After surrendering on May 22, 1945, Gehlen, or “Reinhard the Fox,” was eventually interviewed by OSS founders “Wild” Bill Donovan and Allen Dulles after flying to Washington — in the uniform of a U.S. general. According to his biographer, Leonard Mosley, Dulles recommended that the Nazi super-spy be given a budget of $3,500,000 and “set up in business as the supplier of Russian and East European intelligence.”

But the shrewd Gehlen had some conditions:

  1. His organization would not be regarded as part of the American intelligence services but as an autonomous apparatus under his exclusive management. Liaison with American intelligence would be maintained by a U.S. officer whose selection Gehlen would approve.
  2. The Gehlen Organization would be used solely to procure intelligence on the Soviet Union and the satellite countries of the communist bloc.
  3. Upon the establishment of a German government, the organization would be transferred to it and all previous agreements and arrangements canceled, subject to discussions between the new sovereign authority and the United States.
  4. Nothing detrimental or contrary to German interests must be required or expected from the organization, nor must it be called upon for security activities against Germans in West Germany.

Considering that Gehlen was essentially a prisoner of war who could have been brought up on charges of war crimes, these demands were remarkable. Even more remarkable, at first blush, is the fact that the U.S. complied. However, when viewed through the prism of the rapidly escalating Cold War, a Nazi-CIA alliance becomes rather predictable.

With German defeat imminent, Gehlen instructed several members of his staff to begin microfilming intelligence on the USSR beginning in March 1945. After secretly burying this material throughout the Austrian Alps, Gehlen and his men sought a deal.

Upon his surrender, Gehlen was taken to Fort Hunt, Virginia, where he convinced his U.S. counterparts that the Soviets were planning a westward expansion. Before the end of 1945, Gehlen and most of his high command were freed from POW camps and ready to supply what rabid American cold warriors were dying to hear.

By way of the torture, interrogation, and mass starvation of the four million-plus Soviet POWs at his disposal, Gehlen procured the information that would save him and some of his Third Reich cohorts from the gallows. He and his staff eventually became known as “the Gehlen Org,” which was funded by the United States until a new German government came to power.

For nearly a full decade, the Gehlen Org was essentially the CIA’s singular source for Eastern European intelligence. The fruits of this relationship manifested themselves in a deadly Cold War and, true to his job experiences in the war-torn Soviet Union, Reinhard the Fox did whatever it took to stay in business.

1947 publication by the Catechetical Guild Educational Society of St. Paul, MN

“Gehlen had to make his money by creating a threat that we were afraid of, so we would give him more money to tell us about it,” explains Victor Marchetti, formerly the CIA’s chief analyst of Soviet strategic war plans and capabilities.

When Allen Dulles became CIA Director in 1953, (brother John was already President Eisenhower’s Secretary of State by that time), his response to the claim that Gehlen, a known Nazi war criminal, was purposely intensifying the Cold War and influencing American public opinion was: “I don’t know if he’s a rascal. There are few archbishops in espionage…Besides, one needn’t ask him to one’s club.”

Other salaried U.S. recruits from the pool of available sociopaths included:

  • Hermann Lauterbacher, former deputy leader of the Hitler Youth.
  • Franz Buensch, a propagandist who worked for Goebbels and authored the pornographic book, The Sexual Habits of Jews.
  • SS Obersturmführer Hans Sommer, widely known for setting fire to seven Paris synagogues in October 1941.
  • Adolf Eichmann’s chief aide, Alois Brunner (a.k.a. “Georg Fischer”). Said to be responsible for 128,500 murders, Brunner was sentenced to death (in absentia) by the French government for crimes against humanity. He was known for his lack of compassion for Jewish children, labeling them “future terrorists” who must be murdered.
  • SS officer Baron Otto von Bolschwing, a senior aide to the notorious Adolf Eichmann, assisted in drawing up the SS’s “first comprehensive program for the systematic robbery of Europe’s Jews.” Under orders from von Bolschwing, some of the many Jewish victims in a 1941 Bucharest pogrom were butchered in a meatpacking plant, hung on hooks, and literally branded as “kosher meat,” while others — including a five-year-old girl — were skinned alive and left hanging by their feet like slaughtered livestock. Von Bolschwing himself stated that in 1945, “he volunteered his services to the Army CIC, which used him for interrogation and recruitment of other former Nazi intelligence officers” — an offer the U.S. readily accepted.
  • SS Obersturmführer Robert Verbelen, who had once been sentenced to death in absentia for war crimes, including the torture of two U.S. Air Force pilots. After the war, he served in Vienna as a contract spy for the U.S. Army, which was completely aware of his background.
  • Dr. Kurt Blome admitted in 1945 that he had been a leader of Nazi biological warfare research, a program known to have included experimentation on prisoners in concentration camps. In 1947, he was acquitted of crimes against humanity and then hired by the U.S. Army Chemical Corps to conduct a new round of biological weapons research.
  • Blome’s colleague, Dr. Arthur Rudolph, who was accused in sworn testimony at Nuremberg of committing atrocities at the Nazis’ underground rocket works near Nordhausen but was later given U.S. citizenship and a major role in the U.S. missile program.

There was also General Walter Dornberger. He was never indicted nor tried for war crimes, but was brought over to this country by the U.S. Air Force in 1947 for his expertise in rocketry and missile technology.

What the Air Force and Corporate America chose to ignore is the fact that much of Dornberger’s research at the underground Nazi factory near Nordhausen was carried out with help of slave labor from the nearby Mittelbau-Dora concentration camp. At least 20,000 prisoners were killed in the course of Dornberger’s project.

Supervised by American soldiers, German civilians bury the corpses of prisoners found at the Mittelbau-Dora concentration camp in mass graves. This rare color photograph was taken in 1945.

While it may be pointed out that Dornberger did not directly control the slaves used to do his work, he did set the schedule that eventually worked them to death. Even after food ran out for the slave laborers in early 1945, Dornberger — who had visited the Nordhausen factory on many occasions and was familiar with the goings-on there — never slowed down his work orders.

Despite all this, once he was safely in Cold War-crazed America, the valuable Herr Dornberger rose to the level of senior vice-president in the Bell Aerosystems Division of Textron Corporation and died a well-respected anti-communist in 1980.

How does the CIA justify its post-Good [sic] War activities — some of which involved working side-by-side with mass murderers in order to raise the stakes in an already pernicious Cold War?

“We are not Boy Scouts,” explained agency director Richard Helms.

Again: When attempting to unravel the behaviors of today’s ruling class, it helps to educate yourself about their actions in the past.

The post Remember the Nazi-CIA Connection first appeared on Dissident Voice.

Paralysing Afghanistan: Washington’s Regime Change Agenda

Nation states are habitually doomed to defeat their best interests.  Conditions of mad instability are fostered.  Arms sales take place, regimes get propped up or abandoned, and the people under them endure and suffer, awaiting the next criminal regime change.

Nothing is more counter-intuitive than the effort to isolate, cripple and strangulate the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.  For all the talk about terrorism and concerns about failing regimes, the Biden Administration is doing every bit to make this regime fail and encourage the outcome it decries. Along the way, a humanitarian catastrophe is in the making.

Prior to the fall of Kabul to the Taliban in August 2021, foreign aid constituted a mainstay of the economy, covering roughly three-quarters of public spending.  After August 15, an almost immediate cessation of funding took place, led by the United States, and those less than noble institutions, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.  But it did not stop there.  Billions of dollars in Afghanistan’s own funds were frozen.  (For the US alone, this amounted to $9.4 billion.)

This particularly nasty bit of statecraft was justified by UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson as necessary to coerce the Taliban into good conduct.  Releasing such reserves was “no guarantee that the Taliban will actually use it effectively to solve problems.”

Johnson should know, given his government’s profligate tendency of waste and dissoluteness during the COVID-19 pandemic.  Ever one to relish hypocrisy, he claimed that Britain and its allies needed “to ensure that that country does not slip back into being a haven for terrorism and a narco-state.”  Ironically, the sanctions and asset freezing regime will be an incitement to just that.

The move did not only paralyse the Central Bank of Afghanistan but impose dramatic limits on the use of bank accounts by Afghans.  Loans have been left unrepaid, the amount in deposits has declined, and the liquidity crisis has become acute.  In November 2021, the UN Development Programme observed that the economic cost of a banking collapse in the country “would be colossal.”

The UNDP also remarked that the banking situation had to be “resolved quickly to improve Afghanistan’s limited production capacity and prevent the banking system from collapsing.”  Unfortunately, the organisation’s Afghanistan head, Abdallah al Dardari, was wishing to do the impossible.  “We need to find a way to make sure that if we support the banking sector, we are not supporting the Taliban.”

This foggy-headed reasoning typifies much policy towards Afghanistan, dooming humanitarian programs and other measures of assistance.  It also renders Washington, and its allies, culpable in fostering famine, starvation, and death.  As long as they can focus their attention on the wickedness, and lack of competence, of the Taliban regime, this monumental bit of callous gangsterism can be justified.  The Afghan civilian can thereby be divorced from the government official disliked and disapproved of by foreign powers.

With pestilential force, this contorted line of thinking finds its way into the heart of the US State Department, which has expressed its desire to cooperate with the UNDP and other institutions “to find ways to offer liquidity, to infuse, to see to it that the people of Afghanistan can take advantage of international support in ways that don’t flow into the coffers of the Taliban”.

In January, the crisis was becoming so grave as to compel the UN Secretary General António Guterres to describe a landscape of catastrophe: the selling of babies to feed siblings, freezing health facilities overrun by crowds of malnourished children and people “burning their possessions to keep warm.”  Without a full-fledged effort by the international community, the Secretary warned, “virtually every man, woman and child in Afghanistan could face acute poverty.”

A modest request was made: that Afghanistan receive $5 billion in aid.  The UN chief has also urged the release of international funding to pay the salaries of public sector workers and aid the distribution of health care, education “and other vital services.”

The international community, or at least a portion of it, is certainly not listening.  Sanctions continue to be the mainstay of the treatment of Afghanistan, as orchestrated through the UN Security Council.  Perversely, this is done, in the words of the Australian Department of Trade and Foreign Affairs to “promote the peace, stability and security of Afghanistan.”  This is darkly witty stuff indeed, given that sanctions are, by their very purpose, designed to destabilise and target governments, while impoverishing the populace and creating desperation.

What President Biden has done this month is tinker with the freezing order by decreeing the release of $7 billion.  But there is a huge catch: half of the funds will be reserved to satisfy legal claims brought by the families of US 9/11 victims; the rest will be placed in a designated humanitarian fund for Afghanistan.  In doing so, a foreign government has effectively determined how to deal with a country’s national assets and foreign reserves, effectively initiating a de facto theft.

Many a famine and societal collapse has been a product of engineered circumstances.  “This impending mass murder of Afghan civilians,” argue the undersigned luminaries of a note published in CounterPunch, “is preventable.”  For those on a list including Noam Chomsky, Richard Falk and Tariq Ali, the Biden Administration should “immediately end these cruel and inhumane policies by lifting the sanctions, unfreezing Afghanistan’s foreign assets, and increasing humanitarian aid.”

For those wedded to the canard and moral excitement of the “rules-based” order, causing a degree of horrendous harm comes as second nature.  Having lost Afghanistan, as every great power has tended to do, revenge is being sought.

The post Paralysing Afghanistan: Washington’s Regime Change Agenda first appeared on Dissident Voice.

Regime Change: Up Close and Personal

Let me start out by openly and unequivocally stating that most of the individuals who are in the decision-making and decision-influencing positions which determine U.S. foreign policy and drive its recklessness are a truly shameful bunch. They are morally bankrupt, ignorant, myopic, barbaric, drunk on power, and as far as I can tell, without any redeeming merit.

There are too many examples to cite here. But there’s one who comes to mind because of rumors which recently started circulating.

Hillary Clinton is one of the most vile, disgusting, inhumane, homicidal, hypocritical, sociopathic persons to ever hold high office.

And yes, she’s back in the news, and as cruelly absurd as such matters can be, threatening a redux of the presidential campaign debacle of 2016.

Let’s objectively look at what a full-blown psychopath does when pulling the levers of power.

It’s easy to get glassy-eyed when phrases like ‘regime change’ and ‘responsibility to protect’ are tossed around by politicians and pundits. Which is how such slick terminology is used to cover the ugliest of sins: blatant, pre-meditated war crimes; homicidal, genocidal, spiteful, nation-destroying terrorism; greedy, barbaric, raid-and-plunder of other countries. Hillary Clinton and her ilk love to hide behind such high sounding euphemisms.

So let’s unpack this, make it less abstract, more “up close and personal”. Let’s see what ‘regime change’ looks like on the ground to everyday citizens, the victims of such geopolitical ploys, as everything familiar and comfortable crumbles around them.

First off, I’m going to confess total prior ignorance of what I’m about to describe here. Until, of course, it was too late. Like 99% of the public, yours truly was totally brainwashed at the time. Most still are. Not that I personally could have stopped what happened. But if enough of us had been aware of the truth, there’s some off-chance we could have mounted some opposition. Or at least gone on record. But like good Germans, we smiled and cheered on the destroyers.

I’m talking about …

Libya 2011. Installing “democracy”. Rescuing a country ruled by a “brutal dictator”. (Now there’s a phrase, wantonly and often maliciously floated for public consumption, I don’t need to hear again.)

History will record that Hillary Clinton was instrumental in the overthrow and assassination of Muammar Gaddafi. Don’t take my word for it. Listen to the words of this war criminal, the sick lady herself, in an interview that perfectly illustrates her lack of character, diabolical sense of humor, and deranged world view.

“We came, we saw, he died.” (Or here in case that posting is removed.)

The ‘he’ she was referring to was Gaddafi. Classy, eh? She was Secretary of State at the time. For some reason, she didn’t get the Nobel Peace Prize that year.

Now, to give you “up close and personal” exactly what the calculated, callous, criminal overthrow of the Gaddafi government meant, let me put some questions to you. Simple questions. And just relax! You’re not on trial. There’s nothing confrontational about any of this. I’m just making some comparisons to give a sense of the situation in Libya when Gaddafi was in power, and what changed along with his regime. Spoiler alert: The people there now are not at all pleased with the chaos, civil wars, criminal gangs, and what now passes for a government in Libya.

So …

What do you pay for gasoline? Ballpark. If you’re in California $4.65? In North Dakota $3.30?

Under Gaddafi, the price of gasoline was 42 cents a gallon. Now it would be maybe 65 cents. Libya was and is an oil-rich country. Under Gaddafi the oil wealth was owned by the state. Every cent of profit went into the public coffers to benefit citizens.

Which reminds me, cars are so darn expensive these days. How much did the government help you in purchasing a car? Nothing, you say?

Under Gaddafi, whenever a Libyan bought a car, the government subsidized 50% of the price.

What about electricity? I realize this varies from place to place and season to season. Overall, I don’t hear many people saying anything heartwarming about the amount of money they have to lay out for this most basic form of energy.

Well, under Gaddafi, electricity was FREE to everyone. Period.

How about bank loans, credit cards, other forms of credit? I realize that interest rates are pretty low right now. But credit card interest always seems excessive, would you agree?

Under Gaddafi, there was no interest on loans, banks in Libya were state-owned and loans given to all its citizens at zero percent interest by law.

How about when you got married? How big was the check from the U.S. Treasury as a wedding present? You didn’t get one. What a surprise!

Under Gaddafi, all newlyweds in Libya received $60,000 dinar ($50,000 USD) from the government to buy their first apartment, and to help start their family.

How much do you pay for health insurance?

Under Gaddafi, all health care was completely free to everyone.

How much did you pay for your education? Or how much are you paying for your kids?

Under Gaddafi, all education was free, right up through university. Before Gaddafi, only 25% of Libyans were literate. When he was assassinated, the figure was 83%. 25% of Libyans had a college degree.

Side note: If Libyans could not find the education or medical care they needed, the government funded them to go abroad. Not only did they pay for the medical treatments and education in full, Libyans abroad got the equivalent of $2,300/month USD for accommodation and car allowance.

Then there’s the problem young people graduating from college have finding a job. I read that kids are living at home until they’re 30, unable to support themselves, even with impressive college credentials. What is the U.S. government doing to address this? Anything? You know the answer.

Under Gaddafi, if a new college graduate was unable to find employment, the state would pay the average salary of the profession they studied for, until proper employment was found.

How about government assistance for becoming an independent farmer? We, of course, know the government has given tens of billions in farm subsidies over the past three decades, almost all of which ends up in the bank accounts of huge agricultural corporations. Essentially a hand-out to agri-conglomerates for doing nothing. But how about the family farmer?

Under Gaddafi, when citizens wanted to take up a farming career, they received from the Libyan government farm land, a farm house, all necessary equipment, seeds and livestock, everything needed to kick start their farms . . . ALL FOR FREE!

Of course, families are the core of a healthy society. When you or someone you know had children, how much did the folks in Washington DC send you to help with expenses? Still checking the mailbox?

Under Gaddafi, a mother who gave birth to a child received $5,000 USD.

How about having a place to live? We all know about the homelessness problem in the U.S. with an estimated 552,830 people living on the streets, in the alleys, behind dumpsters.

Under Gaddafi, having a home was considered a human right.

Of course, under Gaddafi Libya was one of those horrible socialist governments. You know how they are. Gaddafi put his own extreme twist on this cruel form of dictatorial rule, with its boot constantly on the necks of its citizens. Libya was and still is an oil-rich country. So …

Under Gaddafi, a portion of every oil sale was credited directly to the bank accounts of all Libyan citizens.

The guy just didn’t know when to quit, eh? What an a**hole!

But the U.S. and its NATO allies took care of all that. Thanks to the efforts of Hillary Clinton and a generous and decisive dose of regime change, all of that is gone now. The U.S. brought the American Way to Libya and now all that we’re lacking here, they’re lacking there. Success! And, lo and behold, ready for a euphemism to justify our war crimes? We knew that under Gaddafi, the people were craving “democracy”. So we brought “democracy” to them. Go Team America!

Having said all of that, I will concede that the new “liberated” Libya does has one new thing going on, which they didn’t have before. This is something we don’t even have here … not yet anyway.

Let me illustrate by asking one more set of questions.

Have you bought a slave lately? Maybe as a Christmas gift? Or maybe to just have some help around the house? Think of how SURPRISED someone would be if you bought them a slave for their birthday!

Because now that Gaddafi, the “evil dictator” is gone, there are open slave markets in Tripoli. You could fly there, pick up some sandals and a hijab for the lady, then buy a black man or woman as your own personal slave. Do as you see fit. You could work them to the bone or maybe f*ck them when you get the urge. Maybe both! That’s how slaves are treated.

Ladies, gentlemen, non-binaries, bi-binaries, multi-genders, snowflakes, trollers and ghost bots …

This is the “up close and personal” face of regime change. In real time. In real lives. People like you and me going from day to day, trying for a decent life for ourselves and those we love. This is what the U.S. under the enlightened leadership of people like Killary and Obomber inflict on real people.

The reality is, it’s not at all abstract on the ground. We might see a change in the color on a map. Or hear mention in the media of “new leadership”. People in those countries see their lives destroyed, their hopes vanquished, their dreams trashed.

Hillary Clinton in 2024? If this is not fake news, and there are enough people out there supporting her candidacy to make it happen, then there’s only one possible conclusion …


The post Regime Change: Up Close and Personal first appeared on Dissident Voice.