1

US Army Tweet Inadvertently Triggers Responses Revealing ‘Real, Painful, and Horrifying Human Costs of War’

“This Memorial Day,” said Win Without War, “let us remember the real, painful, and horrifying human costs of war.” (Photo: Robert Couse-Baker/flickr/cc)

By Andrea Germanos | Common Dreams 

The U.S. Army may have gotten more than it bargained for when it recently asked on Twitter, “How has serving impacted you?”

The question, posed just before the nation officially marks Memorial Day, brought attention to “the real, painful, and horrifying human costs of war,” said advocacy group Win Without War.

Observers described the responses, which came from veterans, their loved ones, and people from countries where the U.S. has waged war, as “brutal” and “heartbreaking.”

A sampling of the responses follows:

Veterans for Peace also drew attention to war’s devastation

“Our message for Memorial Day is to remember all who have died in the war and to understand that no one wins,” said Michael McPhearson, the organization’s executive director.

“There are people who profit from war, mainly those who invest in the defense industry or possibly the oil sector. But the veterans and civilians who survive war suffer for the rest of their lives,” said McPhearson. “And the entire society is robbed of billions of tax dollars which could be spent on jobs, education, healthcare, infrastructure, and sustainable energy.”

Read more great articles at Common Dreams.




History’s Dire Warning: Beware False Flag Trigger for Long-Sought War with Iran

By Whitney Webb | Mint Press News

Four excerpts to show why you should read this article, and share widely:

“We are very worried about the risk of a [U.S.-Iran] conflict happening by accident, with an escalation that is unintended really on either side but ends with some kind of conflict.” [British Foreign Minister Jeremy Hunt on Monday, May 13, 2019, after a meeting with U.S. Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo].

“[The …] former Israeli Ambassador to the UN Danny Gillerman has stated that [John] Bolton, … in order to advance the goals of the Israeli government,… in more than one instance while in the Bush administration, … traveled to Israel in violation of State Department rules and negotiated privately with Israeli officials, including the then-head of the Mossad, Meir Dagan, to lay the groundwork for a war with Iran … Worse still, Bolton has pressured Israeli officials to initiate a war with Iran, even when they didn’t support such a move.”

“[C]urrent Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had also called for the preemptive bombing of Iran long before he joined the Trump administration … based on his fervent adherence to Christian Zionism … Pompeo sees an “apocalyptic” war between Israel and Iran as a necessary precursor to the Second Coming of Christ and the “rapture.”

“Sheldon Adelson — the top donor to Trump, the entire Republican Party, and also the top political donor to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu – has long sought war with Iran, and several of Adelson’s desired policies have already been enacted by Trump. These include recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, replacing H.R. McMaster with Bolton as National Security Advisor, and withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal.”

With the beat of Washington’s war drums continuing to grow, particularly following the Monday revelation of a government plan to send as many as 120,000 troops to counter Iran, the threat of an “accidental” provocation or a “false flag” is also becoming increasingly likely. As MintPress recently reported, the possibility of an “accident” leading to open conflict between the U.S. and Iran is now being openly stated by top European officials — such as U.K. Foreign Minister Jeremy Hunt — following meetings with noted Iran hawk and current Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

In Part I of this series, MintPress explored how current events — including seemingly unrelated regional events, such as the Israeli government’s bid to occupy the West Bank and the Syrian offensive against Al Qaeda-held Idlib — were converging to create a “now or never” scenario for those most eager for regime change in Iran and a U.S.-Iran military confrontation, particularly Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and U.S. National Security Advisor John Bolton.

This installment will also reveal how Trump’s top political patron Sheldon Adelson — who is also the top donor to Netanyahu and a long-time confidant of Bolton, whom he helped install in his powerful post in the Trump administration — may be the deciding factor whether Trump authorizes the use of military force against Iran.

Yet, while the endgame for Bolton, Adelson and Netanyahu, as well as Pompeo, has long been a U.S.-led war with Iran, public justification for such hostilities must be given in order to manufacture American consent for a war against a country significantly larger than Iraq, complete with a more powerful army. Historically, the U.S. government has frequently planned and used false flags in order to justify the initiation or expansion of hostilities, with the best-known examples being Operation Northwoods and the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

However, given the current situation, it is essential to revisit two other incidents that reveal that the key players pushing for war in Iran — Israel’s government and neoconservatives of the Bush era (Bolton chief among them) — have planned and attempted to execute false flag attacks to push the U.S. into a major war that the American public would not normally support.

Remembering the U.S.S. Liberty

On June 8, 1967, one of the worst attacks on a U.S. naval vessel during peacetime took place, an attack that the U.S. government has kept shrouded in secrecy over 50 years later in what many have called a cover-up.

Around two in the afternoon on a cloudless, sunny day, unmarked aircraft and torpedo boats attacked the U.S.S. Liberty — a largely defenseless naval intelligence vessel flying visible American flags — without provocation. The attack saw the aggressors commit several war crimes, including attacking with unmarked aircraft and vessels; shooting survivor-bearing lifeboats out of the water with machine-gun fire; and the jamming of the Liberty’s ability to use international distress frequencies.

Thirty-four American sailors lost their lives and 173 were wounded, and the Liberty — which cost U.S. taxpayers $40 million to build — was so badly damaged it was subsequently sold for scrap metal for pennies on the dollar.

During the attack and in its immediate aftermath, Liberty survivors were puzzled as to why the U.S. Department of Defense ordered the recall of U.S. ships that were on route to aid the Liberty from the hostile attack, which many sailors had assumed at the time was being conducted by Egyptian or Arab forces in light of the ship’s proximity to the Sinai Peninsula.

Indeed, the attack on the Liberty took place during the Israeli-Arab Six Day War, a war that Israel claimed to have started as a preemptive means of self-defense but that was later revealed to have been the culmination of years of planning for a war of aggression. This fact was openly admitted by former Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin in the early 1980s. Israel, an American ally, was not suspected by Liberty crewmen at the time of the attack as being their potential assailants.

However, no Arab nation had attacked the Liberty that day, though that assumption by Liberty sailors was what their true assailants had hoped they and the American public would believe. Instead, it had been Israeli aircraft and torpedo boats that had fired on the clearly-marked American vessel with torpedos, machine gun fire and even napalm. The Israelis “officially” maintain to this day, with little challenge from the U.S. government, that the attack was an accident, a fact that has been and continues to be heavily contested by the attack’s survivors.

Yet, beyond the testimony of survivors, the most compelling evidence that the attack on the Liberty was no accident comes from the Israelis themselves. Intercepted Israeli communications from the time of attack, made public only in recent years, reveal that the ship had been identified as American prior to the attack and, despite that, the plan was to sink the U.S.S. Liberty and ensure that there were no survivors. The goal of the attack was to place the blame on Egyptian forces, which necessitated there being no American survivors who could dispute the claim. If the Liberty had been sunk, it would have provided the United States legal cover and popular support for a more central role in the conflict and its crucial diplomatic aftermath. Indeed, the Israeli attack on the U.S.S. Liberty was a false flag, one that failed to achieve its intended goal of goading the U.S. into a major war.

Instead of responding with indignation, then-President Lyndon Johnson — whether it occurred before or during the attack is disputed — ordered that the Liberty not be rescued during the course of the attack, allegedly not wanting to harm relations with or “embarrass” an ally even if it meant consigning the 294-person crew of the Liberty to death.

Those who survived the assault of the Liberty owe their lives to the then-23-year-old Terry Halbardier, who valiantly navigated the Liberty’s napalm-glazed deck and managed to jury-rig an antenna and send out an SOS signal to the Navy’s Sixth Fleet. Upon intercepting that distress signal, the Israelis immediately broke off the attack. Halbardier’s heroism prevented the massacre of all 294 crewmen and allowed them to live to tell their stories, despite Johnson’s having left them for dead.

Yet many Liberty survivors were unable to tell their stories for decades, as the U.S. government issued gag orders and threatened them with being court-martialed for speaking to anyone, even their spouses, about the incident. The Navy’s Board of Inquiry, which abetted the cover-up, was headed by Admiral John S. McCain Jr., the father of the late Senator John McCain of Arizona.

To this day, the U.S. government has failed to conduct a full, public inquiry into the attack. Liberty survivors who have since spoken out have been accused of “anti-Semitism” and of slandering Israel for discussing their personal and traumatic experiences of the attack, significantly compounding their suffering and post-traumatic stress.

While the survivors of Israel’s assault on the Liberty have been denied closure, the U.S. government’s response has endangered the lives of American personnel by clearly signaling to Israel that they will suffer no consequences for such “false flag” attacks, regardless of whether American servicemen are wounded or killed. As former CIA intelligence analyst Ray McGovern has previously noted for Consortium News, “the U.S. cover-up [of the attack on the U.S.S. Liberty] taught the Israelis that they could literally get away with murder.”

In a 2015 interview on the Real News Network, McGovern warned that the attack on the Liberty still holds “current relevance” and that he felt that “the Israelis are capable of doing this kind of thing when they see their supreme national interests at stake.” McGovern further stated that Israeli officials may well have considered a provocation, such as false flag, to throw a wrench in the Iran nuclear deal, which was being negotiated at the time.

McGovern — in an open letter to President Barack Obama, co-authored with former Deputy National Intelligence Officer for the Near East in the National Intelligence Council Elizabeth Murray — noted that Admiral Mike Mullen, former member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the Bush administration, had flown to Israel in 2003 and told the Israeli government emphatically “to disabuse themselves of the notion that U.S. military support would be knee-jerk automatic if they somehow provoked open hostilities with Iran. According to the Israeli press, Mullen went so far as to warn the Israelis not to even think about another incident at sea like the deliberate Israeli attack on the U.S.S. Liberty.”

McGovern and Murray cited Mullen’s statements to Israeli officials as the first time that “a senior U.S. official braced Israel so blatantly about the Liberty incident.” In an email to MintPress, McGovern stated that he was unsure whether current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joseph Dunford “can be counted upon to play a similar restraining role” in preventing hostilities with Iran. Notably, Dunford was in attendance along with Bolton at the recent CIA meeting to discuss “highly sensitive covert actions” in relation to Iran.

An “accident” waiting to happen

Since Bolton announced the movement of the Lincoln carrier strike group towards the Persian Gulf, some have pointed out that the vessels could well be destined for use in a “false flag” provocation, such as one planned by former Vice President Dick Cheney in 2008 (to be discussed shortly) and another conducted by Israel in 1967. Indeed, as MintPress noted the day after Bolton’s announcement, the carrier strike group’s deployment was actually announced a month prior and was a routine deployment.

The political analysis blog Moon of Alabama also noticed that Bolton had framed this routine deployment as something more dire for his own purposes, writing:

The carrier deployment to the Gulf is routine. It had beenannounced on April 8. The U.S. has bomberson rotation in the Middle East since 2001. Moreover – a carrier in the Persian Gulf is a sure sign that the U.S. will not attack Iran. Within the restricted waters of the Persian Gulf a carrier is a too easy target. The idea though may be to provide for an ‘accident’’ as Iran’s Foreign Minister [Javad Zarif] described it in a recent CBS interview.”

In an interview late last month with CBS’ Face the Nation, Zarif explicitly told journalist Margaret Brennan his concern about an imminent “false flag” to trigger war with Iran by John Bolton in collaboration with Israeli, Saudi and Emirati leadership:

Foreign Minister Zarif | I don’t think military confrontation will happen. I think people have more prudence than allowing a military confrontation to happen. But, I think the U.S. administration is putting things in place for accidents to happen. And there has to be extreme vigilance, so that people who are planning this type of accident would not have their way.

Margaret Brennan | What do you mean? What kind of accident are you talking about?

Zarif | I’m talking about people who have — who are designing confrontation, whose interest —

Brennan | Who’s doing that?

Zarif | My ‘B’ team. I call —

Brennan | What do you mean ‘B’ team?

Zarif | I call the group ‘B’ team who have always tried to create tension, whose continued existence depends on tension. Ambassador Bolton, one ‘B,’ Bibi Netanyahu, second ‘B,’ Bin Zayed, third ‘B,’ Bin Salman, fourth ‘B.’ And I’m not just making accusations.

With an aircraft carrier little more than a sitting duck in the area amid rising tensions between the U.S. and Iran, an “accident” may well occur. As was noted in Part I of this mini-series, such a possibility was directly stated by British Foreign Minister Jeremy Hunt on Monday.

Hunt told reporters “We are very worried about the risk of a [U.S.-Iran] conflict happening by accident, with an escalation that is unintended really on either side but ends with some kind of conflict.” Hunt notably made the statement after meeting with Pompeo, who is currently in Europe meeting with European heads of state to discuss Iran. The Associated Press noted that the Trump administration had warned European officials, Hunt included, that “Iran or its proxies could be targeting maritime traffic in the Persian Gulf region.”

The possibility of such an “accident” is further compounded by Bolton’s aforementioned and “highly unusual” meeting about Iran and “highly sensitive covert actions” at CIA headquarters last week. Declassified CIA documents show that the agency had previously planned to stage terror attacks on U.S. soil and murder Americans to blame on Cuba in order to justify invading the Caribbean nation in the 1960s. That plan, known as Operation Northwoods, further called for the destruction of U.S. military vessels to be blamed on Cuba and also the staging of fires and mortar attacks on U.S. military installations in Cuba (i.e., Guantanamo Bay) or nearby (i.e., in Florida). Though Operation Northwoods was never enacted, the agency has been accused of orchestrating numerous “false flags” in the decades since.

As was recently seen with the alleged “sabotage” of Saudi oil tankers near Iran, there are many potential targets for provocation. However, the incident that would most assuredly force U.S. involvement in a military conflict would be an attack on an American military target. While some have dismissed Bolton’s announcement of the carrier’s movements as a self-serving manipulation of the facts, it may have had the added purpose of framing the lead-up to an unfortunate “accident” targeting American vessels in the area, particularly the Lincoln carrier strike group or one of the other subsequent U.S. naval deployments to the Middle East.

The neocon plan for a Liberty-like attack

If any sort of provocation blamed on Iran should occur, it is important to consider that a powerful group of U.S. politicians — the neo-conservatives — have long sought to plan provocations that would drag the U.S. into war with Iran. One of the most recent examples took place during the George W. Bush administration when then-Vice President Dick Cheney held a meeting with other administration officials in 2008 aimed at provoking war with Iran.

The details of that meeting were revealed by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh, who described some of the ideas considered in that Cheney-led meeting as follows:

There were a dozen ideas proffered about how to trigger a war. The one that interested me the most was why don’t we build in our shipyard four or five boats that look like Iranian PT boats. Put Navy seals on them with a lot of arms. And next time one of our boats goes to the Straits of Hormuz, start a shoot-up. Might cost some lives.

And it was rejected because you can’t have Americans killing Americans. That’s the kind of, that’s the level of stuff we’re talking about. Provocation.

Silly? Maybe. But potentially very lethal. Because … if you get the right incident, the American public will support bang-bang-kiss-kiss. You know, we’re into it.”

It is unknown if any Bush officials now in the Trump administration were present at that meeting where the use of a “false flag” pitting Americans against Americans disguised as Iranian was discussed. However, what is known is that John Bolton — who was a member of the neo-conservative Project for a New American Century, along with Cheney, and who also served in the Bush administration — has zealously sought war with Iran for nearly two decades. Indeed, the New York Times recently described Bolton as “one of the administration’s most virulent Iran hawks, whose push for confrontation with Tehran was ignored more than a decade ago by President George W. Bush.” It is also known that Bolton has a history of playing fast and loose with unconfirmed intelligence and also distorting intelligence to fit his pre-determined narrative.

As MintPress reported last year, former Israeli Ambassador to the UN Danny Gillerman has stated that Bolton, when serving in the Bush administration, was prone to “direct fire on his own forces,” — i.e., the U.S. government — in order to advance the goals of the Israeli government, especially with respect to Iran. For instance, in more than one instance while in the Bush administration, Bolton traveled to Israel in violation of State Department rules and negotiated privately with Israeli officials, including the then-head of the Mossad, Meir Dagan, to lay the groundwork for a war with Iran. As journalist Gareth Porter has noted, Bolton did this in an effort to directly undermine Colin Powell, Bolton’s superior, just as Powell “was saying administration policy was not to attack Iran.”

Worse still, Bolton has pressured Israeli officials to initiate a war with Iran, even when they didn’t support such a move. One such case was Shaul Mofaz, former Israeli defense minister, who told Israeli media last March that Bolton “tried to convince me that Israel needs to attack Iran,” even though Mofaz did not see such a war as “a smart move — not on the part of the Americans today or anyone else until the threat is real.”

Pompeo’s Holy war and rapture

Furthermore, Bolton is not the only top Trump administration official who has long promoted a war with Iran, as current Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had also called for the preemptive bombing of Iran long before he joined the Trump administration. Pompeo’s desire to push the U.S. towards war with Iran is based on his fervent adherence to Christian Zionism. As a result of the admitted influence his beliefs hold over his foreign policy, Pompeo sees an “apocalyptic” war between Israel and Iran as a necessary precursor to the Second Coming of Christ and the “rapture.”

Pompeo is on record speaking about the rapture on several occasions, particularly as CIA director when he spoke about the event — which holds that “true believers” will ascend to Heaven prior to the tribulations and trials of the “end times” — so often that he made veteran intelligence officers uncomfortable. As a result, some have asserted that Pompeo is “a man who appears to view American foreign policy as a vehicle for holy war.”

The fact that the actions of the current Secretary of State are influenced by his Christian Zionist faith was on display last month, when American Christian journalist Chris Mitchell of the Christian Broadcasting Network asked Pompeo: “Could it be that President Trump right now has been sort of raised for such a time as this … to help save the Jewish people from the Iranian menace?” Pompeo responded that this was definitely “possible.”

[Read more here]

Robert O’Leary, JD BARA, has had an abiding interest in alternative health products & modalities since the early 1970’s & he has seen how they have made people go from lacking health to vibrant health. He became an attorney, singer-songwriter, martial artist & father along the way and brings that experience to his practice as a BioAcoustic Soundhealth Practitioner, under the tutelage of the award-winning founder of BioAcoustic Biology, Sharry Edwards, whose Institute of BioAcoustic Biology has now been serving clients for 30 years with a non-invasive & safe integrative modality that supports the body’s ability to self-heal using the power of the human voice. Robert brings this modality to serve clients in Greater Springfield, Massachusetts and New England (USA) & “virtually” the world. He can also be reached at romayasoundhealthandbeauty@gmail.

 




Police Raid Venezuelan Embassy in DC, Arrest Last Remaining Members of Embassy Protection Collective

By Sputnik News | Mint Press News

“This morning, US Secret Service Uniformed Division Officers assisted US Department of State Diplomatic Security Service Special Agents in executing federal arrests warrants against individuals who were inside the Venezuelan Embassy”, the Secret Service statement said.

Benjamin cited Venezuela’s Deputy Foreign Minister Carlos Ron as denouncing the US actions as a violation of the Vienna Conventions and slamming the arrest of Embassy Protection Collective members.

“We call on the US government to sign a Protecting Power Agreement to ensure the integrity of our Embassy in DC and the US Embassy in Caracas. We do not authorize any of the coup representatives to enter the Embassy”, he was quoted as saying by the CODEPINK activist.

Marissa J. Lang [an eyewitness stated via Twitter that:]

Two officers, one in uniform bearing the word “POLICE” and another in green fatigues, were spotted in the 3rd floor window at which the remaining activists had been congregating for several days.

I couldn’t get a photo, but my colleague w/ a real camera may have. Stay tuned.

Marissa J. Lang
@Marissa_Jae

[She went on to state that, at 10:06 A.M. on May 16, 2019 that:] The press and a handful of activists have converged at the back of the building on 29th St. This is where a walkway to the back courtyard and the underground garage lead. Consensus seems to be police may bring any detainees out this way. Street is blocked. pic.twitter.com/mpiBBGgwy8 See Marissa J. Lang’s other Tweets

The activists from the Embassy Protection Collective have been living inside the embassy since 10 April in a bid to protect it from US attempts to seize the facility and hand it over to supporters of Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaido. The group was invited by the embassy’s Venezuelan diplomats, who were forced to leave US soil.

Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro earlier slammed US attempts to seize the property of the country’s embassy, pointing to its “inviolability” under international treaties regulating the activities of diplomatic missions.

[Read more here]

For more information on this topic, please check out: “What Our Government isn’t Telling Us About Venezuela.

Robert O’Leary, JD BARA, has had an abiding interest in alternative health products & modalities since the early 1970’s & he has seen how they have made people go from lacking health to vibrant health. He became an attorney, singer-songwriter, martial artist & father along the way and brings that experience to his practice as a BioAcoustic Soundhealth Practitioner, under the tutelage of the award-winning founder of BioAcoustic Biology, Sharry Edwards, whose Institute of BioAcoustic Biology has now been serving clients for 30 years with a non-invasive & safe integrative modality that supports the body’s ability to self-heal using the power of the human voice. Robert brings this modality to serve clients in Greater Springfield, Massachusetts and New England (USA) & “virtually” the world. He can also be reached at romayasoundhealthandbeauty@gmail.

 




To Counter Trump’s Hawks, CodePink’s Medea Benjamin Says It’s Time to “Build Up an Anti-War Movement Again”

Medea Benjamin speaks at the U. S. Hands Off Venezuela rally in Washington, D.C. on March 16, 2019. (Photo: Elvert Barnes/flickr/cc)

By Andrea Germanos | Common Dreams

Peace activist Medea Benjamin said Wednesday that the current political moment “is a time where we have to build up an anti-war movement again.”

Benjamin, a co-founder of the women-led advocacy organization CODEPINK, said her call is a response to the Trump administration manufacturing a crisis to push the U.S. into war with Iran.

The current situation, she told Democracy Now! Wednesday has echoes of the lead-up to the war in Iraq because “lies” and “misinterpretations” are put out by the White House and echoed by corporate media.

In the interview, Benjamin expressed concerns about “many measures just in the last year or two to move towards a war with Iran.”

They include the U.S. “pulling out of the nuclear deal, designating the Iran Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization, trying to get the Iranian oil exports down to zero, [and] creating chaos in the Iranian economy.”

Also driving her fear is John Bolton, President Donald Trump’s national security advisor, whom she said: “has been calling for an attack on Iran since before he ever got into the administration.”

An engaged citizenry is necessary to push lawmakers to act as a counter-force to the push for war, Benjamin said.

“We have to be pushing our members of Congress to speak out forcefully against what the Trump administration is now doing,” she said, “and to say this is a totally manufactured crisis and the U.S. people will not stand for another war in the Middle East.”

Benjamin added that activists must also demand that lawmakers stop any efforts to attack Venezuela.

Watch the interview below:

Read more great article at Common Dreams.




What Our Government Isn’t Telling us About Venezuela

By Kim Iversen | Kim Iversen

Editor’s Note: Although both Venezuela and Iran are both in the news right now, you will be forgiven for not connecting the dots between these two countries. Kim Iversen does a good job of showing how these 2 countries are connected, and have further connections to other important countries. In a report discussing matters of international politics, policy and intrigue, you will receive a wonderful synopsis which will help you to better understand (as well as see through) what you will see and hear elsewhere in the media. You will even gain insight into why Donald Trump may have stood by Saudi Arabia the way he has, despite its leadership’s arrogance and probable murder of a world-renowned journalist, Jamal Khashoggi. Please let us know what you think of this video in our comments section.

https://youtu.be/2a2ednyUDOM

Robert O’Leary, JD BARA, has had an abiding interest in alternative health products & modalities since the early 1970’s & he has seen how they have made people go from lacking health to vibrant health. He became an attorney, singer-songwriter, martial artist & father along the way and brings that experience to his practice as a BioAcoustic Soundhealth Practitioner, under the tutelage of the award-winning founder of BioAcoustic Biology, Sharry Edwards, whose Institute of BioAcoustic Biology has now been serving clients for 30 years with a non-invasive & safe integrative modality that supports the body’s ability to self-heal using the power of the human voice. Robert brings this modality to serve clients in Greater Springfield, Massachusetts and New England (USA) & “virtually” the world. He can also be reached at romayasoundhealthandbeauty@gmail.




Jimmy Carter: US ‘Most Warlike Nation in History of the World’

Most countries surveyed in a 2013 WIN/Gallup poll identified the United States as the greatest threat to world peace. (Photo: CD/CC BY 2.0)

By Brett Wilkins | Common Dreams

The only US president to complete his term without war, military attack or occupation has called the United States “the most warlike nation in the history of the world.”

During his regular Sunday school lesson at Maranatha Baptist Church in his hometown of Plains, Georgia, Jimmy Carter revealed that he had recently spoken with President Donald Trump about China. Carter, 94, said Trump was worried about China’s growing economy and expressed concern that “China is getting ahead of us.”

Carter, who normalized diplomatic relations between Washington and Beijing in 1979, said he told Trump that much of China’s success was due to its peaceful foreign policy.

Carter then referred to the US as “the most warlike nation in the history of the world,” a result, he said, of the US forcing other countries to “adopt our American principles.”

“Since 1979, do you know how many times China has been at war with anybody?” Carter asked. “None and we have stayed at war.” While it is true that China’s last major war—an invasion of Vietnam—occurred in 1979, its People’s Liberation Army pounded border regions of Vietnam with artillery and its navy battled its Vietnamese counterpart in the 1980s. Since then, however, China has been at peace with its neighbors and the world.

Carter then said the US has been at peace for only 16 of its 242 years as a nation. Counting wars, military attacks, and military occupations, there have actually only been five years of peace in US history—1976, the last year of the Gerald Ford administration and 1977-80, the entirety of Carter’s presidency. Carter then referred to the US as “the most warlike nation in the history of the world,” a result, he said, of the US forcing other countries to “adopt our American principles.”

China’s peace dividend has allowed and enhanced its economic growth, Carter said. “How many miles of high-speed railroad do we have in this country?” he asked. China has around 18,000 miles (29,000 km) of high-speed rail lines while the US has “wasted, I think, $3 trillion” on military spending. According to a November 2018 study by Brown University’s Watson Institute of International and Public Affairs, the US has spent $5.9 trillion waging war in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan and other nations since 2001.

“It’s more than you can imagine,” Carter said of US war spending. “China has not wasted a single penny on war, and that’s why they’re ahead of us. In almost every way.”

“And I think the difference is if you take $3 trillion and put it in American infrastructure you’d probably have $2 trillion leftovers,” Carter told his congregation. “We’d have a high-speed railroad. We’d have bridges that aren’t collapsing, we’d have roads that are maintained properly. Our education system would be as good as that of say South Korea or Hong Kong.”

The US has also invaded or bombed dozens of countries and supported nearly every single right-wing dictatorship in the world since the end of World War II.

While there is a prevalent belief in the United States that the country almost always wages war for noble purposes and in defense of freedom, global public opinion and facts paint a very different picture. Most countries surveyed in a 2013 WIN/Gallup poll identified the United States as the greatest threat to world peace, and a 2017 Pew Research poll found that a record number of people in 30 surveyed nations viewed US power and influence as a “major threat.”

The US has also invaded or bombed dozens of countries and supported nearly every single right-wing dictatorship in the world since the end of World War II. It has overthrown or attempted to overthrow dozens of foreign governments since 1949 and has actively sought to crush nearly every single people’s liberation movement over that same period. It has also meddled in scores of elections, in countries that are allies and adversaries alike.

Read more great articles at Common Dreams.




With Millions on Brink of Famine in Yemen, Trump Vetoes Resolution to End US Complicity

Congress urged to “pull out the stops to confront this president who thinks starving millions of Yemenis is a price worth paying for high arms industry profits.”

By Jake Johnson | Common Dreams

President Donald Trump decided late Tuesday to continue America’s complicity in the world’s worst humanitarian crisis by vetoing the historic Yemen War Powers resolution.

“With Trump’s veto of Bernie Sanders’ and my War Powers resolution, he is risking the lives of millions of Yemeni civilians to famine, deadly airstrikes, and the war crimes of the Saudi regime.”
—Rep. Ro Khanna

“Donald Trump’s veto today is reckless and shameful,” Stephen Miles, director of Win Without War, said in a statement. “Sadly, it is also to be expected from a president who has pretended to be a champion of peace while actually expanding every war he inherited and putting us on a collision course to war with Iran.”

Trump’s veto—the second of his presidency—came nearly two weeks after the House of Representatives passed the Yemen measure with an overwhelming bipartisan vote, marking the first time Congress has sent a War Powers resolution to the president’s desk.

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who helped lead the House effort to end U.S. military involvement in Yemen, denounced Trump’s veto on Twitter.

“With Trump’s veto of Bernie Sanders’ and my War Powers resolution, which passed with bipartisan support in Congress, he is risking the lives of millions of Yemeni civilians to famine, deadly airstrikes, and the war crimes of the Saudi regime,” Khanna wrote. “We must override his veto.”

In a separate tweet, Khanna challenged Trump’s claim in his veto message that the Yemen measure represented “an unnecessary, dangerous attempt to weaken [his] constitutional authorities.”

Trump’s veto was immediately praised by Anwar Gargash, foreign minister of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), a key Saudi ally in the years-long assault on Yemen.

According to a report published by the humanitarian group Save the Children last November, 85,000 Yemeni children under the age of five have died of malnutrition over the past three years, as the U.S.-backed Saudi coalition has relentlessly bombed the impoverished nation and restricted access to food and medicine.

The United Nations has estimated that 14 million Yemenis—half the country’s population—are at risk of famine as the Saudi bombing continues with the help of American-made weapons and aircraft.

“The people of Yemen desperately need humanitarian help, not more bombs,” tweeted Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who led the Senate effort to cut off U.S. military support for Saudi Arabia.

Amid the worsening humanitarian crisis in Yemen, Peace Action executive director Jon Rainwater urged Congress to “keep the pressure up and continue the fight to stop U.S. complicity.”

“They must pull out the stops to confront this president who thinks starving millions of Yemenis is a price worth paying for high arms industry profits,” Rainwater said in a statement. “Congress should work to block arms sales to the Saudi-led coalition and cut off funding for U.S. military involvement in Yemen. They should raise hell in the run-up to the 2020 election and lay each new casualty of this war at Trump’s feet where they belong.”

Read more great article at Common Dreams.




‘Dark Moment for Press Freedom’: Snowden Leads Global Chorus in Condemning Assange Arrest as Grave Assault on Journalism

“Assange did not leave of his own free will and could be heard shouting ‘U.K. must resist, you can resist!’ as he was dragged out of the Ecuadorian embassy,” Gizmodo reported. (Photo: Screengrab)

By Jake Johnson | Common Dreams

Edward Snowden joined the chorus of advocacy groups, reporters, and critics as the NSA whistleblower described the arrest of WikiLeaks founder and publisher Julian Assange Thursday morning as a “dark moment for press freedom” that could have grave implications for journalism across the globe.

“Images of Ecuador’s ambassador inviting the U.K.’s secret police into the embassy to drag a publisher of—like it or not—award-winning journalism out of the building are going to end up in the history books,” Snowden tweeted.

Assange’s arrest comes amid concerns that British authorities could be planning to extradite him to the United States.

The U.K. police confirmed that Assange was arrested in part due to “an extradition warrant on behalf of the United States authorities.”

“If you’re cheering Assange’s arrest based on a U.S. extradition request, your allies in your celebration are the most extremist elements of the Trump administration, whose primary and explicit goal is to criminalize reporting on classified docs and punish [WikiLeaks] for exposing war crimes,” tweeted The Intercept‘s Glenn Greenwald.

“All of us in the press should read the charges made against Assange very carefully,” wrote Rolling Stone‘s Matt Taibbi, “as this case has enormous potential ramifications for journalists everywhere.”

Greenwald’s colleague at The Intercept, investigative reporter Jeremy Scahill, called the arrest “an extremely dangerous crossing of the rubicon” when it comes to press freedoms. “All journalists,” he said, “should stand in fierce opposition.”

As Common Dreams reported last November, the Trump Justice Department accidentally revealed in an unrelated court filing that it has secretly charged Assange.

“Wikileaks material from Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere has become a unique, invaluable resource for investigative journalists and scholars around the world,” the U.K.-based Centre for Investigative Journalism (CIJ) said in a statement Thursday.

“Whatever your view of its philosophy of radical transparency, Wikileaks is a publisher,” CIJ added. “Any charges now brought in connection with that material, or any attempt to extradite Mr. Assange to the United States for prosecution under the deeply flawed cudgel of the Espionage Act 1917, is an attack on all of us. Mr. Assange deserves the solidarity of the community of investigative journalists. The world is now watching.”

Ben Wizner, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, warned in a statement that “prosecution by the United States of Mr. Assange for WikiLeaks’ publishing operations would be unprecedented and unconstitutional, and would open the door to criminal investigations of other news organizations.”

“Moreover, prosecuting a foreign publisher for violating U.S. secrecy laws would set an especially dangerous precedent for U.S. journalists, who routinely violate foreign secrecy laws to deliver information vital to the public’s interest,” Wizner added.

Journalists were quick to point out that major establishment newspapers like the New York Times and the Washington Post frequently publish classified information. Prosecuting Assange for doing the same, critics argued, would set an extraordinarily dangerous precedent.

In an editorial just two days ago, the U.K.-based Guardian newspaper made clear that while Assange may have some charges to answer for there is simply no defensible reason for the British government to extradite him to the U.S. to face a sealed indictment over his work as a journalist and publisher:

From first to last, the Assange case is a morally tangled web. He believes in publishing things that should not always be published—this has long been a difficult divide between the Guardian and him. But he has also shone a light on things that should never have been hidden. When he first entered the Ecuadorian embassy he was trying to avoid extradition to Sweden over allegations of rape and molestation. That was wrong. But those cases have now been closed. He still faces the English courts for skipping bail. If he leaves the embassy, and is arrested, he should answer for that, perhaps in ways that might result in deportation to his own country, Australia. Nothing about this is easy, least of all Mr. Assange himself. But when the call comes from Washington, it requires a firm and principled no. It would neither be safe nor right for the U.K. to extradite Mr. Assange to Mr Trump’s America.

Assange is reportedly set to appear in court as early as Thursday afternoon, according to WikiLeaks.

As he was being carried to a police van by British authorities Thursday morning, Assange shouted, “Resist this attempt by the Trump administration.”


This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License




Government “Whistleblower” Sheds Light on What’s Really Going On!

Insider Emery Smith shares some of what he knows about breakthrough technologies, other earth-like planets and more!

Emery Smith has done much in his less than 5 decades on this planet, including, according to him, studied life on (and maybe even visited) other planetary systems.

He’s discussed his interaction with extraterrestrial life, the intricate medical procedures on alien beings he was involved with, and his ongoing efforts to find new breakthroughs in free energy technology.

Today, Emery discusses what brought him to this point, his early influences, and what drives his path. But he also sheds light on his thoughts about portal technology, both manmade and “organic,” along with the reality of Ley Lines. Do they exist only on this planet or beyond? Are there other “duplicate” inhabited worlds like ours?

What exactly does he know?

Let’s hear what Emery Smith has to share!

Alexis Brooks is the #1 best-selling author of Conscious Musings, writer/editor for CLN and host of the award-winning show Higher Journeys with Alexis Brooks. Alexis brings over 30 years of broadcast media experience to CLN. For over half of that time, Alexis has dedicated her work to the medium of alternative journalism, having researched and reported on the many aspects and angles of metaphysics, spirituality and new thought concepts.

This article and its accompanying media was originally created and produced by Higher Journeys in association Conscious Life News and is published here under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Alexis Brooks, HigherJourneys.com and ConsciousLifeNews.com. It may be re-posted freely with proper attribution, author bio, and this Copyright/Creative Commons statement.




Chelsea Manning Again Takes Fall for Defending Public’s Right to Know

A judge ordered Chelsea Manning incarcerated until she agrees to testify or until the jury is done, which might be as long as 18 months. (Photo: Screenshot)

By Janine Jackson | Common Dreams

Chelsea Manning was a US Army soldier who released to WikiLeaks Iraq and Afghanwar logs, with information on torture and civilian killings, including an airstrike that killed two Reuters correspondents; and diplomatic cables revealing, among other things, a secret deal between the US and Yemen in which the US would bomb the country, and the Yemeni government would claim the attacks. For Manning, these were acts that shocked the conscience, and that US citizens, in whose names they were claimed, should know about. She hoped the release to the media and the public via WikiLeaks would spark “worldwide discussion, debates and reforms.”

Image from the “Collateral Murder” video Chelsea Manning disclosed to WikiLeaks.

The military sought a court martial and a life sentence, claiming her disclosure “aided the enemy”; she was eventually sentenced by a military judge to 35 years, but her sentence was commuted by Barack Obama after she had served seven years—still the longest time anyone has served for disclosing classified information to the media. It’s generally understood that Obama recognized that it wasn’t possible to charge WikiLeaks editor-in-chief Julian Assange, via Manning, without exposing journalists at the New York Times or the Washington Post to prosecution for sharing the same information—not to mention collecting prizes for it.

Manning has recently been subpoenaed by a grand jury, widely understood to be attempting a case against Assange, though as a grand jury it’s all very secretive, and asked to testify again about her 2010 public disclosures. She refused, citing the very secretiveness of the process, and noting that she had already testified fully about the reasons for her disclosures, that they were her choices alone, and not solicited by Assange or anyone else. A judge then ordered her incarcerated until she agrees to testify or until the jury is done, which might be 18 months.

In 2011, UN Special Rapporteur on Torture Juan Méndez called for a ban on solitary confinement because it could amount to torture (UN News, 11/18/11).

But Manning isn’t just in prison, she’s in solitary confinement—it’s supposedly not punitive because she won’t help the government make its case; no, it’s “administrative segregation,” generally understood to be for prisoners who might be in danger in the general prison population. US media talk about solitary confinement as though it were like a “time out” for the “worst of the worst”; it’s defined by a UN special rapporteur and others as torture. The isolation of being confined to a cell for 22 hours a day, without access to other people or reading materials,  is known to have harmful psychological impacts. Chelsea Resists!, Manning’s support committee, adds:

It bears repeating that while solitary confinement should not be used for anyone, it is especially immoral to place Chelsea in solitary when she has not been accused of, charged with, nor convicted of any new crime.

Famed Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg says:

It’s a travesty that she has been sent back to jail for refusing to testify to a grand jury. An investigation into Wikileaks for publishing is a grave threat to all journalists’ rights, and Chelsea is doing us all a service in fighting it.

Charlie Savage (New York Times, 3/8/19) mentioned that an effort to prosecute Julian Assange would raise “novel and profound First Amendment issues.”

So where is the press corps? A New York Times piece (3/8/19) by Charlie Savage noted that the effort to convict Julian Assange—which is clearly what this is about—would raise “novel and profound First Amendment issues.” And outlets from the Times to CNNto Time magazine wrote single stories noting her re-incarceration.

But where are the editorials? Where is the outrage, or even recognition, that someone whose goal was to reveal actions—illegal and unconscionable—being carried out in the US people’s name, and whose revelations led in fact to debate and interrogation of those actions, is once again taking the fall for reporters happy to report those revelations and claim awards for doing so? I can’t find any editorials in US corporate media in support of Manning, or of journalists’ right to inform the public, or of the public’s right to know.

As with Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers, decades from now, mainstream media will likely speak matter-of-factly about Manning’s contributions as whistleblower. But what matters is what they’re not doing now. Democracy dies in darkness, indeed.


© 2019 Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR)




‘This Is Historic’: US Senate Passes War Powers Resolution to End Complicity in World’s Worst Humanitarian Crisis

“This Senate vote moves us one step closer to ending U.S. support for the catastrophic war in Yemen, a war that makes America complicit in the worst humanitarian crisis in the world,” Paul Kawika Martin, senior director for policy and political affairs at Peace Action, said in a statement. (Image: Win Without War)

By Jake Johnson | Common Dreams

In a major step toward ending U.S. complicity in the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, the Senate on Wednesday passed a War Powers resolution to cut off American military support for the Saudi-led coalition’s assault on Yemen.

The final vote count was 54-46.

“This is historic. For the first time in 45 years, Congress is one step closer to withdrawing U.S. forces from an unauthorized war,” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the lead sponsor of the resolution, declared following the vote. “We must end the war in Yemen.”

Sens. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) also played key roles in advocating for and passing the resolution.

Kate Gould, legislative director for Middle East policy at the Friends Committee on National Legislation, applauded the grassroots activists who have been working tirelessly to end America’s disastrous role in Yemen.

“The Senate has now taken a decisive step in ending the American facilitation of the Yemen war and the world’s largest humanitarian crises,” Gould said. “Millions of grassroots activists, who helped make this vote a reality, want their lawmakers to end this unconscionable war.”

Passage of the resolution comes as the Saudis continue to launch deadly airstrikes in Yemen with U.S. backing, worsening a crisis that has already resulted in mass suffering and tens of thousands of deaths. Earlier this week, dozens of civilians—including women and young children—were killed by Saudi airstrikes in Yemen’s Kushar district.

According to the United Nations, 14 million Yemenis could soon be on the brink of starvation if the bombing continues. Save the Children, a London-based human rights organization, estimated in a report last November that 85,000 Yemenis under the age of five have starved to death since the Saudi-led coalition began bombing the country.

ttt WinWithoutWar

“The fact is that the United States, with little media attention, has been Saudi Arabia’s partner in this horrific war. We have been providing the bombs the Saudi-led coalition is using, refueling their planes before they drop those bombs and assisting with intelligence,” Sanders said during a speech on the Senate floor ahead of the vote. “The bottom line is the United States should not be supporting a catastrophic war led by a despotic regime with a dangerous and irresponsible foreign policy.”

Watch the full speech:

ttt SenSanders

“This Senate vote moves us one step closer to ending U.S. support for the catastrophic war in Yemen, a war that makes America complicit in the worst humanitarian crisis in the world,” Paul Kawika Martin, senior director for policy and political affairs at Peace Action, said in a statement.

In addition to putting an end to America’s role in the slaughter of Yemeni civilians, supporters said the resolution also reasserts Congress’ constitutional authority over war.

“Congressional authority over war was designed to avoid the type of situation that’s been unfolding in Yemen, where unauthorized U.S. military support began without public debate or scrutiny,” Martin said. “The Senate’s vote to end the U.S. role in Yemen is also a vote to re-democratize our nation’s foreign policy.”

The Yemen War Powers resolution will now head back to the House of Representatives, the final roadblock before the measure reaches President Donald Trump’s desk.

In a statement before Wednesday’s vote, the White House said it “strongly opposes” the resolution and suggested Trump will veto the measure if it passes the House. A two-thirds majority vote by both chambers of Congress would be needed to override a possible Trump veto.

ttt AkbarSAhmed

“Ending U.S. support will put even more pressure on Saudi Arabia and the UAE to change their tactics and finally negotiate an end to the war,” Martin concluded. “Now that the new Senate has passed the resolution, the House needs to pass the same clean version of the resolution to finally send it to the president’s desk.”


This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License




Congresswoman Ilhan Omar May Be Shaping Up to Be One of the Most Courageous New Faces of Her Party

By We Are Change | We Are Change

Editor’s Comment: It is not often that a politician will speak truth to their own party. It is even more rare to hear a politician call out the bad policies of a former president of his or her same party. It is even more rare that a politician will challenge war policies, in the face of the reality that there is so much money available, from the military-industrial complex, to politicians who will do whatever they ask. It could reasonably be said that most politicians fall into this latter category.

Ilhan Omar is one politician who has pierced the illusions of the polished veneer of former President Obama. Certainly, we can celebrate the presidency of the first person of color, and can even grant that he brought forward certain good policies. However, it is important to acknowledge that he was in numerous ways a heartless hawk on foreign policy issues. And, for a constitutional law professor, he certainly showed a lack of understanding of, and commitment to, the U.S. Constitution at times.

As with Trump, he was willing to use executive orders to circumvent the hard work of gaining consensus with which to pass laws. He also, shockingly, had no problem with murdering U.S. citizens who allegedly were involved in terrorism, and he seemed to have no problem with the killing of many innocents, in collateral damage, from drone strikes. Nor did he fight against indeterminate incarceration under the NDAA bill, then law. And, he did not stop and even seems to have ordered the murder of a head of state – the former head of Lybia.

In their diatribes against former President Obama, Republicans seize upon many of his policies, but do not often speak ill of Obama’s policies and actions mentioned above. One could reasonably suggest that this is because many Republicans eagerly stand at the spigot of military spending as much as many Democrats do.

The video below speaks about this congressperson’s recent comments. We shall see how she does as she continues in her first term. Her positions thus far take courage, and she does not seem to shrink from controversy. Even if you cannot agree with all of her policies, Congresswoman Omar’s courage seems an admirable trait – one not often seen in Washington, D.C. Please check out the video below and let us know what you think of it, in our comments section.

Robert O’Leary, JD BARA, has had an abiding interest in alternative health products & modalities since the early 1970’s & he has seen how they have made people go from lacking health to vibrant health. He became an attorney, singer-songwriter, martial artist & father along the way and brings that experience to his practice as a BioAcoustic Soundhealth Practitioner, under the tutelage of the award-winning founder of BioAcoustic Biology, Sharry Edwards, whose Institute of BioAcoustic Biology has now been serving clients for 30 years with a non-invasive & safe integrative modality that supports the body’s ability to self-heal using the power of the human voice. Robert brings this modality to serve clients in Greater Springfield, Massachusetts and New England (USA) & “virtually” the world. He can also be reached at romayasoundhealthandbeauty@gmail.

 




David Icke: Stop This Humourless Psychopath Driving The World To War

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsMCeypay4M

Source: David Icke

David Icke talks about how John Bolton, the National Security Advisor to Trump, is the front man pushing for more warring (more regime change) by the U.S., while the vast majority of Americans do not want it.




Deep State Arrests 2019: Predictions and Major Data Dump with DAVID WILCOCK [Part 1/5!]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=am1GTR3_SdM

Source: Edge of Wonder

In this interview with #DavidWilcock, Edge of Wonder hosts Ben Chasteen and Rob Counts go over the inevitable fate of the #DeepState and what some insiders such as Kim Dotcom are saying about the 1000’s of sealed indictments. Has the government already begun act on it?

They also discuss what is really going on at Guantánamo bay and was the government shutdown just a ruse to start the tribunals?

Get ready for some #Predictions to be made for 2019 on this first episode on Edge of Wonder of a part 5 series with David Wilcock.

WATCH MORE GREAT VIDEOS ON THE “EDGE OF WONDER” YOUTUBE CHANNEL




War Criminals at Large

Dr. Daniel Ganser | Nexus News

From left: Former Secretary of Defense Ronald Rumsfeld, former President George W. Bush, and former Vice President Dick Cheney with their hands over their hearts. (Photo: File/Public Domain)

It is a common misconception that democracies do not start wars of aggression or carry out terrorist attacks. The historical facts for the period from 1945 to today show a completely different reality: time and again, democratic states in Europe and North America have participated in wars of aggression and terrorist attacks in the past 70 years.

There are so many cases that I am not able to list all of them here. As examples, I have selected three events from different decades:

  • the illegal attack by the European democracies Britain and France on Egypt in 1956;
  • the terrorist attack by the democracy France on Rainbow Warrior, a ship operated by the environmental organization Greenpeace in 1985;
  • and the illegal attack by US President Donald Trump on Syria on April 7, 2017.

Because mass media, neither in the European nor the American democracies, openly address and criticize these crimes and because so far the responsible politicians have not been convicted by a court, a stubborn misconception persists in the populations of these aggressor states that democracies never start wars and also never use terror as a political instrument.

But the three examples mentioned show clearly:

Democracies, members of the NATO military alliance and with a veto power in the UN Security Council to protect themselves from condemnation, have repeatedly attacked other countries.

This is illegal. For the UN Charter of 1945, Article 2 (4), clearly states:

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force..[..]

The Charter only allows the use of force if an attacked state defends itself or if the United Nations Security Council has approved the military strike. In all other cases, the UN prohibits war. Terrorist attacks are always prohibited.

The attack on Egypt in 1956

Egypt is a strategically important country because of the 160 kilometer long Suez Canal, opened in 1869. It plays a central role in supplying Europe with crude oil. The canal connects the Mediterranean with the Red Sea and saves ships from the Persian Gulf to Europe the detour around Africa. Today, the canal is plied daily by tankers bringing oil and liquefied natural gas to the European market.

For Gamal Abdel Nasser, who ruled Egypt as president in the 1950s, the Suez Canal was a hated symbol of European colonialism, because the long and narrow water-way through the Egyptian desert had been built by the French and thereafter became the private Suez Canal Company, jointly owned by France and the colonial power Great Britain.

Nasser pursued a nationalist policy of neutrality in the Cold War and cultivated cooperation with India and Yugoslavia, whose non-alignment he admired. In order to prevent Egypt from falling into the sphere of influence of the communist Soviet Union, the Americans and British, together with the World Bank, in 1955 promised Egypt a loan for the construction of a massive dam on the Nile near Aswan. The dam would allow Nasser to regulate the water masses of the Nile during the annual floods, for agricultural purposes and production of renewable hydropower for the industrialization of Egypt.

But in July 1956, US President Dwight Eisenhower changed his mind. After consulting with London and the World Bank, he said that Egypt was not creditworthy because Nasser recognized the People’s Republic of China and publicly had stated that he wanted to destroy Israel. Nasser became enraged and decided that the oil transit fees from the Suez Canal now needed to finance the construction of the planned Aswan High Dam. Therefore, on July 26, 1956 he nationalized the Suez Canal Company, to the horror of France and Britain.

British Prime Minister Anthony Eden was shocked, and feared that the Soviets would extend their sphere of influence. In April 1956, shortly before the nationalization of the Suez Canal, Eden had warned the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev with clear words:

“As far as oil is concerned, I have to bluntly tell you – we would fight for it … we could not live without oil and … we do not intend to be strangled.”

After nationalization, US Secretary of State John Foster Dulles also insisted to the British and French foreign ministers that “a way had to be found to make Nasser disgorge” the canal (1).

Britain decided to use military resources to fight for the canal and access to Middle East oil. “The truth is that we are caught in a terrible dilemma,” noted British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan in his diary:

“If we take strong action against Egypt, and as a result the canal is closed, the pipelines to the Levant are cut, the Persian Gulf revolts and oil production is stopped, then the U.K. and Western Europe have ‘had it’.”

But “if we suffer a diplomatic defeat; if Nasser gets away with it” – and the Middle East countries, in a ferment, ‘nationalize oil’ … we have equally ‘had it’. What then are we to do? It seems clear to me that we should take the only chance we have – to take strong action, and hope that thereby our friends in the Middle East will stand, our enemies fall, and the oil be saved – but it is a tremendous decision”(2).

As part of a conspiracy – by definition, a secret agreement between two or more people to reach a common goal – high-ranking representatives of Britain, France and Israel met in a villa in Sèvres, near Paris between October 22-24, 1956 to plan the top-secret Operation Musketeer.

Israeli soldiers waving at a French Air Force aircraft (CC BY-SA 3.0)

The British delegation was led by Foreign Minister Selwyn Lloyd, the French by Prime Minister Guy Mollet and the Israelis by Prime Minister Ben Gurion. The conspirators decided that Israel should attack Egypt and advance militarily through the sparsely populated Sinai Peninsula to the Suez Canal. France and Britain would then give Nasser an unacceptable ultimatum, creating an excuse to militarily occupy the Suez Canal. The goal of the action was to gain control of the Suez Canal and, Israel hoped, overthrow Nasser.

Of course, the planned war was illegal, because it contradicted the prohibition of violence in the UN Charter, but the conspirators did not care about international law. On October 29, 1956, the Israeli army attacked Egypt right on schedule and occupied the Sinai Peninsula. Thereby Israel made itself guilty of the crime of aggression.

The US quickly realized that this was an illegal war of aggression, and on October 30th summoned the Security Council to a special session. US Ambassador Henry Lodge called for the “the immediate cessation of the military action of Israel in Egypt”. The Egyptian ambassador, Omar Loutfi, condemned the Israeli attack on his country with very sharp words. “Israeli troops have invaded Egyptian territory in various places,” this is an “extremely dangerous act of aggression” (3).

Israeli Ambassador Abba Eban did not deny that the Israeli army had attacked Egypt, but stressed that it was an act of self-defense. The French UN ambassador, as agreed, stood on the Israeli side. “Egyptian imperialism” is trying to control the area from the Atlantic to the Persian Gulf and aims at “the destruction of Israel”. Contrary to all legal obligations, Egypt also had seized a “water-way which is essential to the life of the nations.” (4)

Then, as agreed, France and Britain presented their unacceptable ultimatum, demanding that Egyptian and Israeli forces retreat to a distance of ten miles from the water-way and allow British and French troops to control strategic positions on the Suez Canal. Waiting only twelve hours for an answer, British Ambassador Sir Pierson Dixon warned that “British and French forces will intervene in whatever strength may be necessary to secure compliance” (4).

Of course, this ultimatum was unacceptable to Egypt. It served the European democracies France and Britain as an excuse to attack Egypt. This was of course illegal, because they did not have a mandate from the Security Council. The conspiracy that existed before the attack between the three countries remained a secret at that time and was exposed by historians only years later.

[Read more here]

Robert O’Leary, JD BARA, has had an abiding interest in alternative health products & modalities since the early 1970’s & he has seen how they have made people go from lacking health to vibrant health. He became an attorney, singer-songwriter, martial artist & father along the way and brings that experience to his practice as a BioAcoustic Soundhealth Practitioner, under the tutelage of the award-winning founder of BioAcoustic Biology, Sharry Edwards, whose Institute of BioAcoustic Biology has now been serving clients for 30 years with a non-invasive & safe integrative modality that supports the body’s ability to self-heal using the power of the human voice. Robert brings this modality to serve clients in Greater Springfield, Massachusetts and New England (USA) & “virtually” the world. He can also be reached at romayasoundhealthandbeauty@gmail.