John Pilger

Eleven miles by ferry from Perth is Western Australia's "premier tourist destination". This is Rottnest Island, whose scabrous wild beauty and isolation evoked for me Robben Island in South Africa. Empires are never short of devil's islands; what makes Rottnest different, indeed what makes Australia different, is a silence and denial on an epic scale.

"Five awesome reasons to visit!" the brochure says. These range from "family fun" to "historical Rottnest", which describes the island as "a guiding light, a defender of the peace". In eight pages of prescribed family fun, there is just one word of truth: prison.

More than any colonial society, Australia consigns its dirtiest secrets, past and present, to a wilful ignorance or indifference. When I was at school in Sydney, standard texts often dismissed the most enduring human entity on earth: the indigenous first Australians. "It was quite useless to treat them fairly," wrote the historian Stephen Roberts, "since they were completely amoral and incapable of sincere and prolonged gratitude." His acclaimed colleague Russel Ward was succinct: "We are civilised today and they are not."

More »

Wayne Madsen

Through a myriad of «civil society» organizations, the United States has been financing Chechen groups inside the autonomous republic, in Russia, and abroad. However, large portions of U.S. assistance money has «bled» over to support Chechen and other North Caucasus terrorist groups, which the U.S. State Department and U.S. intelligence agencies insist on referring to as «separatist guerrillas», «nationalists», «insurgents», and «rebels», instead of terrorists.

The U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) has continuously refused to refer to Chechen and Islamic Emirate terrorists operating in Russia as «terrorists». NSA analysis reports of signals intelligence (SIGINT) intercepts of Russian police, Federal Security Bureau (FSB), Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR), and Russian military communications, including radio, landline and cellular telephone, fax, text message, and fax, have, since 2003, referred to Chechen and North Caucasus terrorists as «guerrillas». Prior to that year, TOP SECRET Codeword internal NSA directives stated that Chechen terrorists were to be called «rebels».

Imagine the surprise if the United States began referring to «Al Qaeda» as Islamist guerrillas and rebels instead of terrorists. Yet, that is exactly how the NSA and CIA have referred to terrorists in Russia that have launched deadly attacks on airports, trains, subway stations, schools, and movie theaters throughout the Russian Federation.

More »

Paul Craig Roberts

Dear Readers: If you have not read “You Are The Hope” please do so now and make a donation. Due to readers’ inquiries about last Friday’s job numbers, I have had to shorten the time between the quarterly appeal and a new posting. Also, those who have asked if there would be a second printing of How The Economy Was Lost, that book is now available on the CounterPunch website in electronic form. For those readers who have asked for a print version of The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism, one might soon be appearing. As the government’s lies come faster and more furious, more demands my attention. Please keep this in mind if you do not receive answers to your emails.

Dave Kranzler of Golden Returns Capital declares the April payroll jobs report that was released on May 3 by the Bureau of Labor Statistics to be “fictitious.” Statistician John Williams (shadowstats.com) says both the jobs report and unemployment rate are “nonsense.”

I agree with both. But don’t expect the financial press to report the facts. Let’s take a walk through the BLS report and you can arrive at your own conclusion.

The BLS report says that the private sector created 185,000 service jobs in April. Even if this report were true, it would have negligible effect on the unemployment rate as about 127,000 new jobs are needed each month just to stay even with population growth and current unemployment rate. But is the BLS report true?

More »

Thomas Gaist

The wolf turned to the lamb and said, "How dare you make the water muddy? Can't you see that I am drinking water from the same stream?" The lamb got so much frightened that it could not speak for a while. Then it replied, "Sir, I beg your pardon. The water is running down from you to me. How can I make it muddy?" The wolf said, "But you bleated me and called me names last year" The lamb replied, "Sir, I was not even born then. How could I abuse you last year?" The wolf said to it, "Then it must have been your father or mother or brother." Saying so, the wolf caught him, tore him to pieces and ate him up. ~ Aesop

US officials continued to press for war against Syria yesterday, dismissing United Nations investigator Carla del Ponte’s statement that Western-backed opposition forces, not the Syrian regime of President Bashar al-Assad, had used chemical weapons.

Del Ponte’s comment, based on an investigation including extensive interviews by UN officials, tore to shreds the lie with which Washington has tried to justify its drive to war—namely, that it is attacking Syria to protect the people from Assad’s use of chemical weapons. (See also: “UN says US-backed opposition, not Syrian regime, used poison gas”).

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney summarily rejected del Ponte’s report without offering a shred of evidence to refute her statement. “We are highly skeptical of any suggestions that the opposition used chemical weapons. We find it highly likely that any chemical weapon use that has taken place in Syria was done by the Assad regime. And that remains our position,” Carney stated.

There is every reason to believe, in fact, that the opposition has used chemical weapons, as it has apparently received training on such weapons by the US or allied forces. According to a CNN report in December, the US has dispatched contractors and mercenaries for the purpose of training the rebels to “secure stockpiles and handle [chemical] weapons sites and materials.”

Opposition forces have received numerous shipments of weapons and equipment overseen by the United States and allied regimes such as Qatar, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Last December, opposition fighters posted a video on YouTube showing them testing chemical weapons and declaring their readiness to use them.

More »

Gilad Atzmon

Once again we see a familiar pattern: our united 'progressives' -- a veritable synagogue, a collective of great humanists -- lend their support to the oppressed. This time it is the ‘Syrian people’ whom they wish to liberate and their enemy is obviously Bashar Al-Asad.

It is a pattern we know only too well by now. Ahead of the ‘War Against Terror’ we witnessed years of intensive progressive Feminist and Gay’s rights groups campaigns for women’s rights in Afghanistan. The Progressive type also disapproves of the current state of the Iranian revolution. Too often he or she would insist that we must liberate the Iranians. This week, once again, we see a united front made by Tariq Ali, Ilan Pappe, Fredric Jameson, Norman Finkelstein and other very good people. They clearly want us to ‘liberate the Syrians’.

They campaign openly to topple Bashar al-Asad’s regime. They call the ‘people of the world’ to pressure the Syrian regime to end its oppression of and war on the ‘Syrian people.’ “We demand,” they say, that Bashar al-Asad leave immediately without excuses so that Syria can begin a speedy recovery towards a democratic future.”

So here we are. Ali, Jameson, Pappe, Finkelstein & Co, in light of recent Israeli attacks on Syria, will you be kind enough, gentlemen, to tell us whom you support? Is it Asad or Netanyahu you're siding with?

More »

Stephen Lendman

Israel and America are longstanding imperial partners. They spurn international laws. They do so repeatedly. They ignore their own.

They jointly plan and wage wars. Israel's attack on Syria was a joint US/Israeli provocation. Haaretz's military correspondent Amos Harel suggested it, saying:

"The (US) administration officials' familiarity with the nature of the Syrian targets seems to indicate that there had been advance coordination with Israel, and make the attacks look more and more like part of a larger campaign that isn't over yet."

Israel's weekend attacks were lawless acts of aggression. Post-WW I, the League of Nations failed to prevent them. So did Kellogg-Briand. In August 1928, America, Germany France, Britain, Italy, Japan, and nine other nations signed on. It promised wars would no longer resolve "disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them." Violators "should be denied the benefits furnished by this treaty."

More »

Alex Lantier

In a series of interviews, UN investigator Carla del Ponte said that sarin gas used in Syria was fired by the US-backed opposition, not the regime of President Bashar al-Assad.

Her account explodes the lies on which Washington and its European allies have based their campaign for war with Syria, according to which the US and its allies are preparing to attack Syria to protect its people from Assad’s chemical weapons. In fact, available evidence of sarin use implicates the Islamist-dominated “rebels” who are armed by US-allied Middle Eastern countries, under CIA supervision.

Del Ponte’s statements coincide with the flagrantly illegal Israeli air strikes on Syria, which have been endorsed by President Obama. These acts of war mark a major escalation of the US-instigated and supported sectarian war for regime-change in Syria, itself a preparation for attacks on the Syrian regime’s main ally in the region, Iran.

Del Ponte is a former Swiss attorney general who served on Western-backed international courts on Yugoslavia and Rwanda. She currently sits on a UN commission of inquiry on Syria.

More »

Paul Craig Roberts

From Boardwalk Empire by M. Scorsese & T. Winter

“From the end of the recession in 2009 through 2011 (the last year for which Census Bureau wealth data are available), the 8 million households in the U.S. with a net worth above $836,033 saw their aggregate wealth rise by an estimated $5.6 trillion, while the 111 million households with a net worth at or below that level saw their aggregate wealth decline by an estimated $600 billion.” (Pew Research, “An Uneven Recovery," by R. Fry & P. Taylor.)

Since the recession was officially declared to be over in June 2009, I have assured readers that there has been no recovery. Gerald Celente, John Williams (shadowstats.com), and no doubt others have also made it clear that the alleged recovery is an artifact of an understated inflation rate that produces an image of real economic growth.

Now comes the Pew Research Center with its conclusion that the recession ended only for the top 7 percent of households that have substantial holdings of stocks and bonds. The other 93% of the American population is still in recession. The Pew report attributes the recovery for the affluent to the rise in the stock and bond markets, but does not say what caused these markets to rise.

More »

Ellen Brown

“[W]ith Cyprus . . . the game itself changed. By raiding the depositors’ accounts, a major central bank has gone where they would not previously have dared. The Rubicon has been crossed.” — Sprott & Kargutkar, “Caveat Depositor”

The crossing of the Rubicon into the confiscation of depositor funds was not a one-off emergency measure limited to Cyprus. Similar “bail-in” policies are now appearing in multiple countries. (See my earlier articles here.) What triggered the new rules may have been a series of game-changing events including the refusal of Iceland to bail out its banks and their depositors; Bank of America’s commingling of its ominously risky derivatives arm with its depository arm over the objections of the FDIC; and the fact that most EU banks are now insolvent. A crisis in a major nation such as Spain or Italy could lead to a chain of defaults beyond anyone’s control, and beyond the ability of federal deposit insurance schemes to reimburse depositors.

The new rules for keeping the too-big-to-fail banks alive: use creditor funds, including uninsured deposits, to recapitalize failing banks. - But isn’t that theft?

Perhaps, but it’s legal theft. By law, when you put your money into a deposit account, your money becomes the property of the bank. You become an unsecured creditor with a claim against the bank. Before the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) was instituted in 1934, U.S. depositors routinely lost their money when banks went bankrupt. Your deposits are protected only up to the $250,000 insurance limit, and only to the extent that the FDIC has the money to cover deposit claims or can come up with it. - The question then is, how secure is the FDIC?

More »

Stephen Lendman

In late January, Lebanese military sources reported multiple Israeli violations of Lebanon's airspace. One or more targets on the Syrian-Lebanese border were struck. Around the same time, Israeli warplanes attacked a military research center in Jamraya. It's about 10 miles from the Lebanese border. Early Sunday morning, Israel struck it again. Video footage showed multiple explosions. Huge fires followed.

On May 5, the Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) headlined "Explosions Hit Scientific Research Center in Jamraya Caused by an Israeli Rocket Attack, Casualties Reported." The Damascus al-Hameh area was struck. Syrian state television said:

"The new Israeli attack is an attempt to raise the morale of the terrorist groups which have been reeling from strikes by our noble army." "This new Israeli aggression is a clear attempt to alleviate the pressure on the armed terrorist groups after our army beat them back in several regions and after the army's victories on the road to recovering security and stability in Syria." "This attack proves the direct involvement of the Israeli occupation in the conspiracy against Syria and its links with terrorist groups in the aggression supported by Western countries and some Gulf countries."

Israeli officials confirmed Saturday's attack. YNet News said an unnamed "senior" Israeli source corroborated the second one. He claimed missiles intended for Hezbollah were targeted. Previous articles suggested otherwise. Assad needs all the weapons he can get. If reports were accurate, evidence would have corroborated them. None was forthcoming.

Obama ignored Israel's naked aggression. He claimed it's entitled to defend itself against enemies, saying: "The Israelis, justifiably, have to guard against the transfer of advanced weaponry to terrorist organizations like Hezbollah." He shares responsibility for what happened. These type incidents are jointly planned. Both nations partner in imperial crimes. Doing so is longstanding.

More »

Stephen Lendman

Longstanding ties remain firm. Both nations are imperial partners. Naked aggression is official policy. Regime change in Syria is planned. Daily events head inexorably toward full-scale intervention.

The latest incident ups the stakes. On May 4, The New York Times headlined "Israel Bombs Syria as the US Weighs Its Own Options," saying: An unnamed US official said "Israel bombed a target in Syria overnight Thursday. (Washington) consider(s its own) military options, including carrying out (its) own airstrikes."

According to Reuters, "(t)he attack took place on Friday after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's security cabinet approved it in a secret meeting on Thursday night…."

These type meetings often precede imminent action. They're held to approve them.

CNN's Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr said "(t)he United States believes Israel has conducted an airstrike into Syria, two US officials tell CNN." "US and Western intelligence agencies are reviewing classified data showing Israel most likely conducted a strike in the Thursday-Friday time frame, according to both officials." "This is the same time frame that the US collected additional data showing Israel was flying a high number of warplanes over Lebanon." An unnamed Israeli military source said "(w)e will do whatever is necessary to stop the transfer of weapons from Syria to terrorist organizations. We have done it in the past and we will do it if necessary the future."

Pretexts are easy to create. Washington and Israel do so to justify crimes of war and against humanity.

More »

Matthew J. Nasuti

"CIA could control forces in 'Stan after 2014." (Army Times)

Scattered throughout Afghanistan are secret CIA militias that may be functioning as death squads. Reports of their activities have surfaced for years in eastern Afghanistan, especially in Khost Province, but they have also been reported in Spin Boldak, Kandahar and the latest in Maidan Wardak Province, where residents are rising up in protest. For the past month newspapers around the world have been filled with headlines about villagers and students disappearing and being killed in Maidan Wardak by CIA and Special Forces personnel and their allies. The reports have blackened America’s image. The stories are disturbingly similar. Villagers are seized in their homes at night and are never heard from again. Bodies are dumped in the countryside with signs of torture. The Taliban are ousted from areas only to have the vacuum filled by criminal gangs with ties to the CIA. The idea seems to replace one terror group with another, as long as the second group pledges loyalty to the United States. This is what U.S. security agencies call “counter-terrorism.” The flaws in the program are:

1. These local warlords are committing war crimes;
2. Support for such terrorists conflicts with fundamental American values; and
3. The fear and violence they generate are fueling anti-Americanism and aiding Taliban recruitment.

Over the long term, security has worsened in every area that these private militias have operated. There is nothing positive that can be said of these militias.

More »

Sherwood Ross

In a recent interview, Noam Chomsky said he never expected much of President Obama, adding, ”The one thing that did surprise me is his attack on civil liberties. They go well beyond anything I would have anticipated, and they don’t seem easy to explain.”

Maybe the reasons for Obama’s transformation from a Chicago law professor into a world-class totalitarian thug is that he is a creature of the Central Intelligence Agency; that both his parents were CIA payrollers; that the CIA financed his college education and gave him his first job afterwards—-so that we may well have a president beholden to this international criminal organization, an agency that has left a trail of blood, turmoil, and assassinations around the globe.

According to the May 6th The New Yorker, when General James Cartwright, vice-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, asked at an Obama Situation Room meeting why the U.S. was building a second air force in the form of a CIA drone attack fleet, Obama told him, “The CIA gets what it wants.” That Obama holds this view is reinforced by Cameron Munter, President Obama’s former ambassador to Pakistan. Munter questioned whether the drone strikes in Pakistan weren’t having a blowback effect on the Pakistani public. Writing in the magazine, Steve Coll says Munter learned under Obama: “It was what the CIA believed that really counted.”

Reporter Coll says America’s drone war is a major factor in why U.S. relations with Pakistan have “collapsed.” Today, he writes, “the U.S. has surpassed India as the most hated nation in Pakistan.” Coll adds, “Obama seems unwilling to confront the possibility that drone strikes may be creating more enemies than they’re eliminating.”

More »

Chris Floyd

Here's a really weird "alternative history" thought experiment on this day set aside to celebrate workers around the world. Try to imagine a President of the United States standing up before Congress and saying something like this:

"There is one point … to which I ask a brief attention. It is the effort to place capital on an equal footing with, if not above, labor in the structure of government. … Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."

Isn't that wild? Of course, it's the kind of thing only some ignorant goober from the sticks -- or maybe even from some other century -- would come out with. Today, fortunately, we know that people who work for wages are just moochers and takers: parasites feeding on the noble blood of their bosses and betters. Being advanced, savvy and modern, we now know that Labor deserves no 'consideration' at all (much less a higher one!): no safe work places, no job security, no secured pensions, no bargaining rights, no privacy, no decency, no dignity. Labor should be glad and grateful to give whatever it takes (and take whatever they give) to serve the interests of our precious elites -- our crusading corporate chieftains, our visionary venture capitalists, our wise shepherds of inherited wealth -- who graciously provide their beasts of burden with store of provender.

Unless, of course, the provender provisioning threatens to cut into the nobles' bloated profit margins too much. In that case, of course, the higher considerations of capital must take precedence, and the jobs have to go. And when that happens, Labor should humbly bow its head, without complaint, without whining, and quietly, meekly, accept its fate, in accordance with the ruling principle that governs our glorious modern world. And what is that principle?

More »

John Pilger

Yorkshire villagers still are struggling to come to terms with Thatcher's
Legacy. Emotions remain high in Yorkshire's former pit communities
about the miners' strike and the role of then Prime Minister Thatcher.

In the wake of Thatcher's departure, I remember her victims. Patrick Warby's daughter, Marie, was one of them. Marie, aged five, suffered from a bowel deformity and needed a special diet. Without it, the pain was excruciating. Her father was a Durham miner and had used all his savings. It was winter 1985, the Great Strike was almost a year old and the family was destitute. Although her eligibility was not disputed, Marie was denied help by the Department of Social Security. Later, I obtained records of the case that showed Marie had been turned down because her father was "affected by a Trade dispute".

The corruption and inhumanity under Thatcher knew no borders. When she came to power in 1979, Thatcher demanded a total ban on exports of milk to Vietnam. The American invasion had left a third of Vietnamese children malnourished. I witnessed many distressing sights, including infants going blind from a lack of vitamins. "I cannot tolerate this," said an anguished doctor in a Saigon paediatric hospital, as we looked at a dying boy. Oxfam and Save the Children had made clear to the British government the gravity of the emergency. An embargo led by the US had forced up the local price of a kilo of milk up to ten times that of a kilo of meat. Many children could have been restored with milk. Thatcher's ban held.

More »