Chris Hedges on War
Chris Hedges speaks with a beautifully sermonic style that is well fitted to the seriousness of his subject.
MH17
Martin John titles his video argument “MH17 – We know with 99% certainty who shot down MH17”
A few days ago I wrote:
Much of the forensic evidence has come in, it backs up witness statements and it looks like the initial suspect was being framed. If this was a homicide investigation and the Kiev regime were a person they would probably be arrested on suspicion of murder by now and be asking for a lawyer. The police would be looking at the US as an accessory and maybe even the boss that ordered the ‘hit’.
We, the ‘social media community’, have to be the cops and the court. We can make a good case that the Ukrainian regime were the perpetrators.
I still believe that we can make the case that the Ukrainian regime are the most probable perpetrators but it’s not yet conclusive.
Martin John’s video is a very useful summary however I believe that his reliance on timestamps apparently indicating that the intercepted conversations video was made prior to the shooting down of MH17 is unwarrented. A GitHub article contends that YouTube re-encodes the creation date of videos to 24 hours prior to uploading. As a non-technical person I was already wary of citing the timestamp argument which I did not know enough to verify, while I can’t assess the validity of the counter argument about YouTube re-encoding either, it should caution us against placing any reliance on this piece of evidence.
The Russian ATC records indicating the presence of another plane with MH17 and statements from witnesses on the ground that another plane was seen attacking MH17, together with the suggestion of OSCE monitor Michael Bociurkiw that damage to the MH17 cockpit was suggestive of ‘strong machine gun fire’, all point to an air-to-air rather than the surface-to-air attack of which the Separatists are accused. This is strong evidence pointing to the Ukrainian regime particularly as there has been, as far as I know, no effort to refute it.
The ‘Carlos posts’ from a Twitter account under the name #Spainbuca, purportedly from a Spanish citizen working in Ukraine as an air traffic controller, are quite persuasive but there is no evidence to support the existence of such a person. Like the recording of alleged conversations between the rebels the Carlos posts requires further investigation. The provenance of both these pieces of evidence remains mysterious but the fact that they were both posted on the same day as disaster suggests that they might throw light on what happened.
Here are some links to news sources and information resources that might be useful in considering this case:
List of MH17 airframe parts
Map of a Tragedy – WSJ
Smoking Gun that Russian Separatists shot Down MH17 – Forbes
Locklin on Science Blog
MH17Analysis Parts 1 and 2.pdf
Debunked: MH17 Video Timestamped before the crash, and other timeline issues
Defending Donbass
One one level it sounds like an introduction to one of the MMORPGs I have been too fond of playing, neverthless this video delivers a powerful message in 46 seconds.
Why exactly are our political ‘leaders’, Cameron, Clegg and Miliband, supporting flag waving NAZIS in Ukraine? Why do they seem intent on goading Russia into a conflict? Why is our mainstream media ignoring the humanitarian crisis that is the Kiev government’s assault on civilians in Donbass? It seems to me that the fighters in the Donbass Self Defense Force are indeed on the front line and we are behind enemy lines.
I am not advocating that anyone in the UK takes up arms and travels to fight in Donbass or anywhere else but I think we should be very concerned about the situation and challenge our political representatives to be clear about why they are supporting the Ukrainian regime. I think that our moral support should be for the Donbass people. Everything I have learned from the non-mainstream media convinces me that theirs is the ‘right side’. The people who support them seem to be diverse in background as morally motivated as in the case of the volunteer of Afghan origin in this video:
There is always a possibility that my conclusions may be incorrect and I am very willing to listen to arguments contrary to my position but I’m not aware of any that I would consider valid. It might be argued that the people of Donbass (East Ukraine) should not have responded as they did to the coup in Kiev, that they should have accepted the new government rather that attempt to split from Ukraine or force a federalist arrangement by taking over town halls etc. It might be argued that their leaders were opportunistic and moved quickly hoping that Russia would annex Donbass as it did Crimea. However the people of Donbass perceived an existential threat from Kiev and acted to forestall it. They did not attack the Ukrainian regime they were attacked by the regime and they remain under attack. That attack is vicious and disproportionate and bears resemblance to the Israeli attacks on Gaza.
No one should doubt the vicious and indiscriminate nature of the assaults of the Ukrainian government against its former citizens nor doubt the NAZI association of the regime whose regular army is supplemented by fascist militias waving flags with SWASTIKA like emblems. This has been reported in no less mainstream an organ than the New York Times:
The fighting for Donetsk has taken on a lethal pattern: The regular army bombards separatist positions from afar, followed by chaotic, violent assaults by some of the half-dozen or so paramilitary groups surrounding Donetsk who are willing to plunge into urban combat.
Officials in Kiev say the militias and the army coordinate their actions, but the militias, which count about 7,000 fighters, are angry and, at times, uncontrollable. One known as Azov, which took over the village of Marinka, flies a neo-Nazi symbol resembling a Swastika as its flag.
Sergei Stapashin, writing in the ‘Independent Voices’ section of The Independent comments on an anti-Russia article that David Cameron wrote following the MH17 destruction that he blamed on the separatists:
Cameron’s article stands out as the first time that the head of a leading European power has directly sought war with Russia. Stirred by such support, Ukrainian troops began their assault on Lugansk and Donetsk, mercilessly destroying those cities and all the citizens within them.
Just as in 1938, when Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain called on European leaders to support the German Nazis in their campaign against the USSR, the present Prime Minister expressed unequivocal support for the Ukrainian neo-Nazis and angrily demanded that his European colleagues “change their attitude to Russia fundamentallyâ€.
He is attempting to lure us into war. As we seek to avoid a return to the nightmare of global conflict, it is incumbent upon us to answer the allegations and threats made by Cameron.
I think we would do well to heed Stapashin’s warning.
The Next President of France?
Leader of a party labelled ‘far right wing’ Marine Le Pen comes across as extremely charismatic and much more intelligent than most politicians. In this enlightening interview with RT’s talented Sophie Shevardnadze, Le Pen expresses views more consistent with a left libertarian. She condemns the EU’s intervention and stance on Ukraine, blasts the EU’s austerity agenda, is concerned about the loss of sovereignty implicit in the TTIP and wants to pull France out of NATO.
While I understand that it is not always wise to judge anyone by what they say publicly I am attracted to rational straight-talking politicians who oppose imperialist interventions. While judging people by what they say is is inferior to observation of what they do it is better than judging them on what others say about them. Mme. Le Pen has a good chance of becoming the next President of France and that could be good for the rest of Europe and the world.
Masters of War
Classic song … brilliant lyrics .. well performed … nice video. There was a time when I thought this was too harsh. I still think Jesus would forgive them if they repented .. but they won’t. Bush, Blair, Cameron, Obama, McCain, Kerry, Hague; I am appalled by their venomous speech as much as by their acts. I would like to think that people are seeing these masters of war for what they are.
“Masters Of War”
Come you masters of war
You that build all the guns
You that build the death planes
You that build all the bombs
You that hide behind walls
You that hide behind desks
I just want you to know
I can see through your masks.
You that never done nothin’
But build to destroy
You play with my world
Like it’s your little toy
You put a gun in my hand
And you hide from my eyes
And you turn and run farther
When the fast bullets fly.
Like Judas of old
You lie and deceive
A world war can be won
You want me to believe
But I see through your eyes
And I see through your brain
Like I see through the water
That runs down my drain.
You fasten all the triggers
For the others to fire
Then you set back and watch
When the death count gets higher
You hide in your mansion’
As young people’s blood
Flows out of their bodies
And is buried in the mud.
You’ve thrown the worst fear
That can ever be hurled
Fear to bring children
Into the world
For threatening my baby
Unborn and unnamed
You ain’t worth the blood
That runs in your veins.
How much do I know
To talk out of turn
You might say that I’m young
You might say I’m unlearned
But there’s one thing I know
Though I’m younger than you
That even Jesus would never
Forgive what you do.
Let me ask you one question
Is your money that good
Will it buy you forgiveness
Do you think that it could
I think you will find
When your death takes its toll
All the money you made
Will never buy back your soul.
And I hope that you die
And your death’ll come soon
I will follow your casket
In the pale afternoon
And I’ll watch while you’re lowered
Down to your deathbed
And I’ll stand over your grave
‘Til I’m sure that you’re dead.
Putin’s Message
Earlier today, on Facebook, I wrote the following:
It would appear that Russia, under Vladimir Putin, is more qualified to be the world’s policeman than is the US or the UK who are more the world’s vigilantes. In his New York Times article addressed directly to the American people and by extension to us, Putin claims that “From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law. We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today’s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.”
Cameron has claimed that, by vetoing military action in the Security Council, Russia has been ‘shirking its international responsibilities’. Not so, it is Britain, America and France who most threaten international law and Russia and China who protect it by refusing to turn the Security Council into a lynch mob. It is clear, across the alternative media, that Putin commands more respect than Obama or Cameron even if some still, theatrically, shake their virtual heads at the conclusion that the ‘Russian autocrat’ speaks more sense than their own leaders.
It was not Putin’s manoeuvre, primarily, that forestalled an immediate attack on Syria, it was the resistance of people in the UK and US who no longer bought the lies of the media and politicians and wrote in unprecedented numbers to their representatives in Parliament and Congress but Putin gave Obama a way to evade an embarrassing climbdown or a politically dangerous confrontation with his own people as well as a militarily insane intervention in Syria. In his New York Times article Putin is conciliatory, friendly but as a ‘critical friend’. I especially like his ending remarks:
“If we can avoid force against Syria, this will improve the atmosphere in international affairs and strengthen mutual trust. It will be our shared success and open the door to cooperation on other critical issues.
My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.†It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.”
The cynical among us will say that Putin’s appeal to ‘apple pie and motherhood’ and to ‘the Lord’ is well crafted for his audience. Nevertheless it is enormously refreshing to hear a world leader speak like this. Much more than Obama ever did, Putin has become representative of hope.
It’s been pointed out that Putin’s record on rights for gay people is not a ringing endorsement for the sincerity of his assertion that ‘God created us equal’.
I will admit to being somewhat taken with Putin .. some might say taken in by him. The anti-gay legislation and homophobia in Russia should be opposed but I have to ask how many countries has Putin invaded? Has he killed more people that Obama and Cameron? Russia has interests in the Middle East just as the US has. I can’t judge the man’s sincerity in saying what he does but I can go along with what he says on the issue of Syria and international law at least. The western media will do whatever it can to demonise Putin, he will deserve some of that but some will be western propaganda. I don’t excuse Putin’s anti-gay legislation when I give him fair credit for his international diplomacy any more that I excuse Cameron for bombing Libya and a lot more when I give him fair credit for supporting gay rights.
What Would Captain America Do?
I used to be fond of comics and the photo protest by American soldiers reminded me of something …
Irrational and Immoral
There are many things on my mind this morning; what I can and will share is my concern over the looming crisis in Syria. Of course there is no ‘looming’ about it for the people of Syria who have been caught in the middle of a civil war for the past two years but for those of us in the comfort of the western world what is looming is the sickening prospect of watching the US bombard another Middle East country and knowing for certain that it is as immoral as anything the Nazis did.
A few days ago British MPs stood up to their Prime Minister and voted against British military involvement. They voted against both Cameron’s motion to approve military action and the amendment of the opposition leader, Ed Miliband, to delay approval pending further conditions being met. Both motions were unacceptable to me and, fortunately, to a majority of MPs. A Labour shadow minister, Jim Fitzpatrick, resigned saying that he could not support the opposition amendment as “it essentially endorses the same principle: ‘If we can address certain issues, if certain conditions are met, military action can happen’. I don’t believe that it should under any circumstances.” Respect to Jim for that. Unfortunately I can’t give the same respect to my own MP Stephen Timms who replied to my email saying “Thank you for getting in touch about this. I don’t rule out that military action may be needed to deter the Syrian Government from using more chemical weapons on its own people. However, I agree with Ed Miliband that we need to proceed with care and caution. I shall therefore be supporting Ed’s amendment tonight”. Stephen’s reply was disappointing, not least because of his assumption that the Syrian government actually did use chemical weapons against their people.
Nevertheless Cameron has said that he accepts the verdict of the British Parliament and that there will be no British involvement and some people assume that’s the end of the matter. There are those, Like Boris Johnson, who are saying however that there should be another vote and that Britain should intervene if the situation changes:
We should be concerned about this but we should be concerned about American intervention in any case. We should be concerned because intervention is being sold on two contentious premises and one that is patently false. The contentious premises are:
1. That of the two sides in the Syrian conflict the Assad government is the worse, and
2. That the Assad government responsible or is the prime suspect for the use of chemical weapons in Ghouta.
The patently false premise is
3. That military intervention will do more good than harm.
It is this third premise that we should be concerned about. Assad has his supporters inside and outside of Syria and there is propaganda for and against him but when the missiles are launched it will not only be Assad and the Syrian government who suffer it will be ordinary Syrian people. Should the Syrian government retaliate, as they have threatened, they will be further attacked and Iran and Lebanon’s Hezbollah will be obliged to fight on their side. What Russia does is an unknown. But Russia and China can see where this is headed. There is NO good outcome for anyone apart from the global elites in beginning direct military intervention and if people are not very concerned about this then they need to become so before it is too late.
Compare Johnson’s political gibbering with what this American woman has to say in this video:
and in this:
Who are we in the west to ‘punish’ another nation she asks. I like what she says and the clarity and passion with which she articulates the rationally and morally obvious. We should be listening to her and to each other rather than to the politicians and mainstream media who, with some honourable exceptions, have lost all credibility.
Demo
The demo was small, maybe 150 people gathered at fairly short notice. I raised my voice with them in some anti-war chants directed at the doubtless sound proofed edifice that is the American embassy in Grovsenor Square. The protesters fitted the stereotype, passionate young women from the SWP and old men with beards and sandals. There were some Syrian Assad supporters, some of whom became very upset when a speaker said something negative about Assad. The key speaker was Jeremy Corbyn MP. I wish we had more MPs like him.
What is More Deadly?
A friend on Facebook posted:
“What’s more deadly, a gun or a thought? A gun gives the opportunity but its the thought that pulls the trigger.”
I replied by quoting:Â Matthew 5:20-22
20 For I say unto you that unless your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.21 “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old, ‘Thou shalt not kill,’ and ‘Whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment.’22 But I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment; and whosoever shall say to his brother, ‘Raca,’ shall be in danger of the council; but whosoever shall say, ‘Thou fool,’ shall be in danger of hell fire.
I think that Jesus did not mean ‘hell fire’ in any literal sense; he meant hell in the sense of a mental/emotional state. True non-violence is not just abstaining from violent acts but also from violent thoughts. There is a Zen Buddhist story that illustrates this sense of being in emotional hell:
A samurai asks a master monk to teach him about heaven and hell. The monk immediately slaps the samurai! Enraged, the samurai draws his sword and chases the monk around the room, intent on killing him. Finally cornering the monk, the samurai—face still contorted in rage—raises his sword for the killing blow… “That!†says the calm monk, pointing to the samurai’s anger-flushed face, “is hell!†In a flash, anger flees from the samurai’s face, replaced by confusion. “And that,†declares the monk triumphantly, “is Heaven.â€
The thought, actually habits of thought, lead to action, to a will to kill. A gun or any weapon is a manifestation of that will, a symbol and a tool of that will; in a sense the weapon is the thought. A weapon is not just a gun or sword or bomb it can be a word; the ‘thou fool’ that Jesus refers to is also a weapon.
The weapon, shaped by thought, goes on to shape our thoughts and reinforces our will to kill.
I always found this scene to be the most disturbing in the Kill Bill films: