I really cannot begin to fathom how stupid you would have to be to believe that Iran would attack a Japanese oil tanker at the very moment that the Japanese Prime Minister was sitting down to friendly, US-disapproved talks in Tehran on economic cooperation that can help Iran survive the effects of US economic sanctions. The Japanese-owned Kokuka Courageous was holed above the water line. That rules out a torpedo attack, which is the explanation being touted by the neo-cons.
The second vessel, the Front Altair, is Norwegian owned and 50% Russian crewed (the others being Filipinos). It is owned by Frontline, a massive tanker leasing company that also has a specific record of being helpful to Iran in continuing to ship oil despite sanctions.It was Iran that rescued the crews and helped bring the damaged vessels under control.
That Iran would target a Japanese ship and a friendly Russian crewed ship is a ludicrous allegation. They are however very much the targets that the USA allies in the region – the Saudis, their Gulf Cooperation Council colleagues, and Israel – would target for a false flag. It is worth noting that John Bolton was meeting with United Arab Emirates ministers two weeks ago – both ships had just left the UAE.
I'm opposed to Iran's Islamic theocracy but don't see Iran having done anything so far that would justify a war under US law. As far as I can see, it's the US and Israel that have been doing all the wrong things. US economic sanctions against Iran are grounds for Iran legally militarily attacking the US, though Iran won't attack the US even though it could.
The attack on the tankers could have been Iran or could have been a false-flag attack to look like Iran or could have been a signal to Japan and others not to try to help Iran or a combination of the last two.
Iran did say that if Iran can't ship oil, then no other countries will be allowed to ship oil out of the gulf. However, Iran said it did not attack the tankers. My impression of Iran is that after Iran attacks, it won't claim it didn't. I also think it won't be a light attack on a couple of tankers but an attack designed to literally shut the gulf to all traffic.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on Were the latest tanker attacks a warning to any country that won't treat Iran as a pariah?
... since the precedent has been set and Golunov is now making international headlines, I advise you to look into the case of Kirill Vyshinsky, a Ukrainian journalist who was working for Russia’s RIA Novosti in Ukraine and who has been in custody in Kiev for over a year now on the charges of…treason.
Or maybe you should look into names such as Oles Buzina, a Ukrainian opposition journalist who was murdered in 2015 by two members of the C14 neo-nazi group who still walk free, or Oleg Kalashnikov, or the dozensof other journalists and political activists who have been either assassinated or repressed in Ukraine since the 2014 Euromaidan regime change.
If you get your information exclusively from the Western mainstream media, the chances are that you’ve never heard of those cases, because the current Kiev government is pro-US, so it is okay with the, so-called, “international community”.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on "... tell me again how all Russian media is state-controlled ...." Russian media does for Ivan Golunov what US media has refused to do for Julian Assange.
I lived in Chile first in 1968 and then for a year in 1970-71, which was Allende’s first year in office. Then came the coup in 1973, and the question of democracy became paramount. There were two aspects to this question: the first had to do with which reforms could be achieved through democratic means, and the second was how democracies could be destroyed.
This was when I realized that while we were dreaming of transitions to democracy, we never thought about democracy itself. At that time, we thought of democracies as everything good, and dictatorships as everything bad. All we wanted was to stop the killing and establish democracy, and we assumed everything would be fine. We used to joke—first you have liberalization, then you have transition, and then you have disillusionment. It was during this time that I started thinking about democracy systematically.
ma: I'd like to ask more about your experience in Chile. I've always thought of the lessons from Chile in terms of the power of the capital strike: property relations were highly unequal at the time Allende took power, and investment came to a standstill in response to his policies, so the economy collapsed and political chaos ensued. Do you agree with this analysis?
ap: I was actively sympathetic towards the “Allende experiment” as it was called. He put forward a reasonably moderate program; it included some nationalizations, but they were mainly motivated by the highly monopolized and inflationary nature of the Chilean economy. It was not ideological. The problem was that Allende did not control his supporters, and the movement was divided over whether to prioritize socialism or democracy. There were some people who said that socialism could not be reached through democratic means because those whose interests were going to be adversely affected would necessarily resort to violence to prevent socialism. And there were some, like Allende, who had a reformist strategy, who basically held that they could do everything for which they had popular support, and nothing more. If they were to lose the next election, they would simply hope to win again some time in the future and make further progress.
The problem was that Allende’s own party did not believe in socialism through democratic means. In fact, the only responsible people in his coalition were the communists. They were very disciplined and they took a long term perspective. But many other groups in the coalition urged him to do things that were undemocratic and illegal. It was not completely infeasible that they would have gone further, because the center left party agreed to compromise on nationalization. But this agreement broke down, and once it did there were no legal instruments for Allende to make use of and the situation turned to violence.
I think the entire left learned a big lesson from that experience. As a matter of fact, the Italian communist party published a document written by Enrico Berlinguer titled “Reflections After Events in Chile.” The conclusion was basically that jeopardizing democracy is a big tactical error. From a strategic angle, the idea of democratic socialism was then theorized mainly by the Italian political philosopher Norberto Bobbio, who said that liberal values are fundamental to any socialist vision.
... the Assange indictment targets a foreigner whose “crimes” were committed on foreign soil, and the British government now bears a very heavy responsibility. If it turns Assange over to the United States and he is successfully prosecuted, we’ll now reserve the right to snatch up anyone, anywhere on the planet, who dares to even try to learn about our secret activities. Think of all the ways that precedent could be misused.
Britain is in a box. On the one hand, thanks to Brexit, it’s isolated itself and needs the United States more than ever. On the other hand, it needs to grow some stones and stand up to America for once, if it doesn’t want to see the CIA as the World’s Editor-in-Chief for a generation. This case is bigger than Assange now, and let’s hope British leaders realize it.
Trump is quickly approaching the point where he is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.
If Julian is extradited to the US and faces trial, it will be as no other before it. It will cause more disruption than the "powers that be" can imagine. The force to free him will grow and grow and grow and bring down anything in its way. The youth of America, youth that is quickly growing up of necessity, will rally behind freeing Assange for all the right reasons. The entire process will permanently and fundamentally alter US politics for the better.
Press freedom will become a huge US Presidential election issue. The press, including the MSM, will back the loudest Democratic Party voice for freedom of the press, for freedom for the publisher Julian Assange.
If Julian is not extradited, it will mean the end of US hegemony over not only Britain but the world. Nations will forever see little Britain's stand as proof the US can not bully its way through everything.
The timing of all of this couldn't be more metaphysical.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on Matt Taibbi nails it on Julian Assange's possible extradition, but I'm not at all worried the way Matt is.
Again: "Hypocritical priorities: MSM seems to love "Gay Pride" and LGBT everything but doesn't rescue trans Manning again rotting in prison for exposing US war crimes." Should I say it again?
It's plastered all over the Internet that it's "Pride Month," though I have no idea why anyone is proud about anything. Article after article touts LGBT this, that, and the other when anything happens around the world. The MSM is always for LGBT. Meanwhile, Chelsea (nee Bradley) Manning is locked up and heavily fined for refusing to participate in the unconstitutional Grand Jury effort against publisher Julian Assange, who published proof of US war crimes that Manning leaked to WikiLeaks. Where's that same LGBT-touting press on that? It's nowhere to be found.
What kind of priorities does the MSM have? How many LGBT people are murdered as a result of US war crimes? Isn't their right not to be thusly murdered a high enough priority?
How many LGBT people are part of the conspiracy against Manning? Plenty!
Money makes people afraid to be consistently honest.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on Hypocritical priorities: MSM seems to love "Gay Pride" and LGBT everything but doesn't rescue trans Manning again rotting in prison for exposing US war crimes
The federal police raid [Australia] on the ABC last week produced an unexpected benefit. Journalists are being forced to decide: whose side are they on. ...
If Assange is left to swing in the breeze, it will be an open invitation for any journalist, anywhere in the world, to be extradited to the US if the administration deems that they have published material that threatens US national security.
Well, I'm press right here, right now with this blog post, and I'm with Assange in his fight against Trump, global neocon-fascists.
I'll be anti-establishment until the establishment is with me.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on Whose side are the "journalists" on?
United States officials say they are outraged by a government-funded troll campaign that has targeted American citizens critical of the administration’s hardline Iran policy and accused critics of being loyal to the Tehran regime.
This is nothing new. I'm telling you, the so-called government of the US has been rogue for decades.
I'm calling for a revolution in the hearts, minds, and souls of all of the American People to peacefully, democratically replace the illegal, unconstitutional thing currently masquerading as the government of, by, and for the People with a real, legal, constitutional government truly of, by, and for the People, not the anti-democratic plutocrats.
To name the operatives of the U.S. government as criminals, you often must reveal “classified” evidence. It is that revelation that instantly becomes the primary offense. What the revealed information might say about government wrongdoing recedes into the shadows, and it is the truth teller who becomes the primary criminal.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on You say you want a revolution. Free Manning & Assange. Bring Snowden home a hero.
Does Kim Iversen's presentation convince you that Iran did not attack the oil tankers?
What's my view? I've studied every false-flag attack by the US. The US has never gone into a war "clean." What I mean by that is that the US has never gone into a war that was based upon what the US was claiming it was based upon. The US government has lied its way into every single war. That doesn't mean everyone the US has ever fought was clean at the time. Many were, however, vastly cleaner than was the US.
Iran has been being mischaracterized by the US since the early 1950s. Truman wouldn't go along with the British plans concerning Iran. Eisenhower jumped in with both feet. The region has been paying for it ever since.
Iran never had a nuclear-weapons program. I don't mean they had one and then stopped it around 2003. I mean they never had one. That's why Obama did the nuclear deal with Iran. He finally had to admit that the US had no proof. I remember railing against him when he would claim Iran had an ongoing nuclear-weapons program. I called him a liar in public more times than I can remember. I did the exact same thing concerning Syria and chemical-weapons attacks. He finally cut the deal with Assad after James Clapper admitted to Obama that the US did not have proof! Trump comes along and trashes the Iran deal and attacks Syria after a false-flag attack: Idiot!
Iran does not want war with the US. Iran does not want to incinerate Israel. Iran wants for the Palestinians what the Palestinians want. If the Jewish Zionists in Israel and the Arab Muslims of Palestine were to agree to one country together based on democracy and a constitution under which everyone would enjoy the exact same rights, Iran would be totally fine with that, even though Iran is an Islamic theocracy right now.
Did the Iranian military or government actors attack the tankers? I don't think they did. I know the US government has zero proof. Without proof, it would be a clear war crime for the US to attack Iran.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on Kim Iversen says "Iran attack on oil tankers" is another US orchestrated false-flag attack