Tag: perpetual war

Tucker Carlson DEMOLISHES Mark Cuban After the Liberal Billionaire Offers a Silly Reason Why “We” Should Continue Sending Money to Ukraine

Liberal billionaire Mark Cuban suffered an epic humiliation at the hands of Tucker Carlson during a recent debate, which exposed his self-serving and hypocritical attitude regarding the ongoing war in Ukraine.

Carlson and Cuban faced off at the “All In” summit, which was held in Los Angeles from Saturday to Monday. The two discussed a variety of topics, including AI job displacement, the Epstein files, and antisemitism.

The debate, however, took a bad turn for Cuban when one of the hosts asked him if he thought ‘we’ (Americans) should continue sending money to Ukraine. After admitting he did not have a good answer, Cuban eventually brought up his Ukrainian ancestry on his grandparents’ side as a reason why.

Carlson quickly interjected and asked Cuban how much money he had sent to Ukraine. When Cuban said ‘none,’ Carlson left him speechless by asking what the billionaire meant by “we.”

Things got even worse for Cuban when he offered his reason for refusing to send Ukraine a single dime despite his ties to the country. Carlson scolded Cuban on his hypocrisy and pointed out that what he was advocating for was the opposite of charity.

Keep reading

West Bank annexation plan is just one more dirty game that Israel plays with the West

As far as cunning plans go, Israel’s claim that it will annex 80 percent of the West Bank is as bold and as whacky as it gets. But will it work? And perhaps more to the point, is it a threat that they intend to go through with, or is it simply a bluff?

The West Bank often is underreported and rarely gets the media oxygen it deserves. Some might be forgiven that this latest announcement of Israel’s extreme right ministers of intending to annex the West Bank is out of the blue. In fact, the Israelis have been considering the plan for quite some time. If it weren’t for the Hamas attack of October 7th 2023, a longer, more measured policy of allowing settlers to do it for them – with the occasional days of military intervention – might have done the job. Some might even argue that the land grabs and the dirty work of armed settlers there stealing houses and land played a key role in the Hamas attack. But the truth is that the idea is nothing new and that Israel has wanted all along to take more land and control of West Bank and now it has the perfect pretext to do it.

The timing of this announcement is worth a second look. If we are to consider that Israel has made many victorious moves in recent months – decapitating Hezbollah in Lebanon, inheriting Syria and carrying out what some western analysts consider to be a successful strike against Iran – then it is fair to say that the confidence level of Netanyahu and his cronies is at an all time high. The hardcore fanatics on the right will be pushing for him to go ‘all out’ with both Gaza and the West Bank, given that they have Trump in the White House and they might consider anything is possible, given his ignorance and servitude. Let’s take West Bank.

Yet it’s the recent move by a number of EU countries to recognize Palestine which is the driving force behind the stunt. Even though the votes at the UN will be unprecedented as France, the UK, Portugal, Canada and Australia push for the recognition of Palestine, the move will still be blocked by the U.S. – yet the symbolism will still mean something in Palestine’s long road towards having its own state. Israel must teach the Europeans a lesson and the West Bank plan, although quite crude, will be effective in doing that: you push for a Palestinian state, we’ll create our own state in West Bank.

The Israelis probably believe that all it will take is for one of these western countries to retract their zealous plan to support the Palestinian statehood idea and it will fall like a house of cards. They might well be banking on the UK being the weakest link here as even Keir Starmer’s most ardent supporters are doubtful whether he will even stick with his so-called threat of supporting the vote for Palestinian statehood. His record of flip-flopping is unprecedented after all.

Perhaps this is the thinking of sending Israel’s President Isaac Herzog to visit Starmer in London on the coming days.

Keep reading

Undersea Cable Cuts Kill Internet To Parts Of Asia, Mideast

Undersea internet cables in the Red Sea have been cut, disrupting internet access to parts of Asia and the Middle East. The cause of the cuts weren’t immediately clear, though China does have a shiny new deep-sea cable cutter (which we’re sure a bunch of countries have too). 

Associated Press (via NBC) seems to think (‘there has been concern’) that Houthi rebels from Yemen have been targeting the cables, which sounds absurd – though parts of the red sea are only as deep at 100m (330 ft). 

While the Houthis might not have submarines, undersea robots, or the ability to hit the deepest parts of the Red Sea, it’s possible to inflict damage on subsea cables without the backing of a major navy.

In March 2013, three divers were arrested by the Egyptian Navy off the coast of Alexandria after cutting the SeaMeWe-4 cable by detonating underwater explosives. Internet speeds reportedly fell around 60 percent after the incident. A motive wasn’t revealed and it’s unclear if they were charged and/or sentenced for the damage.

In 2007, it was reported that police had seized more than 500km of telecom cable taken by fishing vessels to sell for scrap – including an 11km segment identified as belonging to the SeaMeWe-3 cable. –Data Center Dynamics

So, who knows – but AP (deep state) spends considerable ink on the Houthis 

Keep reading

The West’s Hypocritical Opposition to Ukraine’s Forced Territorial Concessions

Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky has consistently ruled out making any territorial concession as part of a peace accord to end his country’s war with Russia.  NATO’s European members (with the partial exceptions of Hungary and Turkey) continue to support Kyiv’s uncompromising stance.  Indeed, many European leaders seem even more insistent than Zelensky himself regarding the issue.  Persisting in such recalcitrance, though, guarantees that even more Ukrainians will perish in a hopeless cause.

Insisting on giving no territorial concessions to Moscow ignores current and prospective battlefield realities.  Like it or not, Russia is slowly but inexorably winning the grinding war of attrition.  Given its larger population and greater economic and military resources, those advantages will become even more significant the longer the war drags on.

Flatly rejecting territorial sacrifices also ignores the history of how most armed conflicts in Europe and elsewhere in the world have ended.  Countries that lose a war typically also have to accept the loss of territory.  One need only look at how national boundaries throughout Europe have shifted repeatedly just during the era that the United States has been independent (a mere 249 years) to confirm that point.  Countries that were once major powers (such as Austria-Hungary or the Ottoman Empire) no longer exist. The process of disintegration frequently took place in multiple stages, and the entities that are around today sometimes barely resemble their original incarnations.  Still other countries, such as Poland, have gone through cycles of obscurity and prominence, and are on the upswing today.

A crucial point is that most of those territorial shifts did not take place peacefully, but reflected the outcomes of nasty bilateral or regional power struggles.  Indeed, for all of its self-serving rhetoric about promoting a “rules-based international order,” NATO members have not only endorsed but also initiated violent territorial changes when it served the interest of the major Western powers.  The United States and its allies presided over (if not orchestrated) the disintegration of Yugoslavia in the 1990s.  They decided which ambitious successor states would receive the West’s authorization, and which ones would not.

Pro-NATO components of Yugoslavia such as Slovenia, Croatia, Montenegro, and Macedonia readily received blessings from the Western powers.  The self-proclaimed Republika Srpska (RS), widely viewed as pro-Russia, did not.  Instead, NATO planes proceeded to bomb Serbian proponents of an independent RS or a merger with Serbia.  Western leaders took that step even though their preferred alternative of an independent Bosnia automatically combined three antagonistic ethnic groups into an artificial, ungovernable country.  Serbia was later allowed to become independent, but only if it relinquished any ambitions to merge with the Republika Srpska.  If NATO’s attack on the RS did not demonstrate the West’s willingness to dictate boundaries by force, the Alliance’s subsequent military intervention to secure insurgent Kosovo’s independence from Serbia made the existence of double standards indisputable.  In light of such a track record, the current wailing and expressions of outrage coming from NATO’s leaders about Moscow’s demand for Ukraine territorial concession carry more than a small stench of hypocrisy.

Keep reading

Russia strikes Ukraine cabinet offices in unprecedented deadly assault with over 800 drones

Russia hit Ukraine’s capital with drone and missiles Sunday in the largest aerial attack on the country since the war began, killing at least two people and leaving smoke rising from the roof of a key government building.

Russia attacked Ukraine with 805 drones and decoys, officials said.

Yuriy Ihnat, a spokesperson for Ukraine’s Air Force, confirmed to The Associated Press that Sunday’s attack was the largest Russian drone strike since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine began.

Russia also launched 13 missiles of various types.

Ukraine shot down and neutralized 747 drones and 4 missiles, according to a statement from the Air Force.

Keep reading

A National Asset in Troubled Times

When he was running for president in 2024, Donald Trump promised that he would shut down the Ukraine war shortly after taking office, if not before he moved into the White House. He also promised that he would not start any more wars and would markedly improve U.S. relations with Russia. Very importantly, he engineered a ceasefire in Gaza on January 19, 2025, the day before he was sworn in again as president, which provided hope that the Gaza genocide might come to an end.

But after that auspicious start, President Trump has failed to deliver on his promises. The Ukraine war and the Gaza genocide rage on. Trump, like President Biden before him, is fully complicit in a genocide. On top of that, the United States directly attacked Iran on June 22, 2025, a move Biden had the good sense to avoid. Most observers think it is only a matter of time before Trump and Israel attack Iran again. Relations between Moscow and Washington have improved a bit, but remain antagonistic at their core, while U.S.-India relations, which had improved greatly over the past twenty-five years, have recently turned poisonous. Finally, there is an ever-present possibility in East Asia that China and the United States could get into a shooting match.

All of this is to say we live in not just troubled times, but dangerous times. Remember that we live in a nuclear world. Sadly, there is no easy way to fix the many problems facing us. But we can minimize the chances of making bad situations worse, and maybe even make major inroads in solving some of the key problems we face. Additionally, we can maximize our chances of creating further disasters.

The best way to make progress of this sort is to openly debate foreign policy issues, so that critics of the conventional wisdom or government policy can have their say. Media institutions are hugely important in fostering this kind of debate, which is why freedom of the press is so important in the United States. It allows critics to make their views known to large numbers of people and it provides legitimacy. Critics of existing policy are not always right, but sometimes they speak truth to power and help us avoid or correct big mistakes.

Unfortunately, the mainstream media in the United States have become much less effective since the Cold War ended. It has become increasingly difficult for dissenters to get a platform in prominent media outlets, and mainstream media outlets often seem to speak with one voice on the big foreign policy issues of the day. This situation is not healthy, and it helps explains why America’s standing in the world has declined over the past three decades.

Thankfully, alternative media outlets have proliferated in recent years, making it possible for critics of US foreign policy to make their voices heard. Indeed, growing numbers of concerned citizens and policy analysts pay as much attention, if not more, to alternative media sites than the mainstream media.

Keep reading

The Betrayal of Palestinian Journalists

There are two types of war correspondents. The first type does not attend press conferences. They do not beg generals and politicians for interviews. They take risks to report from combat zones. They send back to their viewers or readers what they see, which is almost always diametrically opposed to official narratives. This first type, in every war, is a tiny minority.

Then there is the second type, the inchoate blob of self-identified war correspondents who play at war. Despite what they tell editors and the public, they have no intention of putting themselves in danger. They are pleased with the Israeli ban on foreign reporters into Gaza. They plead with officials for background briefings and press conferences. They collaborate with their government minders who impose restrictions and rules that keep them out of combat. They slavishly disseminate whatever they are fed by officials, much of which is a lie, and pretend it is news. They join little jaunts arranged by the military — dog and pony shows — where they get to dress up and play soldier and visit outposts where everything is controlled and choreographed.

The mortal enemy of these poseurs are the real war reporters, in this case, Palestinian journalists in Gaza. These reporters expose them as toadies and sycophants, discrediting nearly everything they disseminate. For this reason, the poseurs never pass up a chance to question the veracity and motives of those in the field. I watched these snakes do this repeatedly to my colleague Robert Fisk.

When war reporter Ben Anderson arrived at the hotel where journalists covering the war in Liberia were encamped — in his words getting “drunk” at bars “on expenses,” having affairs and exchanging “information rather than actually going out and getting information” — his image of war reporters took a huge hit.

“I thought, finally, I’m amongst my heroes,” Anderson recalls. “This is where I’ve wanted to be for years. And then me and the cameraman I was with — who knew the rebels very well — he took us out for about three weeks with the rebels. We came back to Monrovia. The guys in the hotel bar said, ‘Where have you been? We thought you’d gone home.’ We said, ‘We went out to cover the war. Isn’t that our job? Isn’t that what you’re supposed to do?’”

“The romantic view I had of foreign correspondents was suddenly destroyed in Liberia,” he went on. “I thought, actually, a lot of these guys are full of shit. They’re not even willing to leave the hotel, let alone leave the safety of the capital and actually do some reporting.”

You can see an interview I did with Anderson here.

This dividing line, which occurred in every war I covered, defines the reporting on the genocide in Gaza. It is not a divide of professionalism or culture. Palestinian reporters expose Israeli atrocities and implode Israeli lies. The rest of the press does not.

Palestinian journalists, targeted and assassinated by Israel, pay — as many great war correspondents do — with their lives, although in far greater numbers. Israel has murdered 245 journalists in Gaza by one count and more than 273 by another. The goal is to shroud the genocide in darkness. No war I covered comes close to these numbers of dead. Since Oct. 7, Israel has killed more journalists “than the U.S. Civil War, World Wars I and II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War (including the conflicts in Cambodia and Laos), the wars in Yugoslavia in the 1990s and 2000s, and the post-9/11 war in Afghanistan, combined.” Journalists in Palestine leave wills and recorded videos to be read or played at their death.

Keep reading

US Troops in Southern Somalia Come Under ‘Indirect Fire’

US troops and allied forces in Kismayo, southern Somalia, came under “indirect fire” on September 4, US Africa Command said in a press release.

The press release came after al-Shabaab said it attacked Kismayo’s airport, where US personnel are based, according to Somali media. Al-Shabaab claimed that it killed and wounded American troops, but AFRICOM denied that there were any casualties.

“There were no US or partner force injuries or casualties as a result of the attack, and no damage to the base or coalition property has been reported,” AFRICOM said. “Al-Shabaab routinely disseminates false and exaggerated claims regarding attacks to undermine public trust. These claims should be treated with skepticism.”

The US military is known to coordinate airstrikes against al-Shabaab from the base in Kismayo, which is located in Jubaland, Somalia’s southernmost region, which has a significant al-Shabaab presence. In June of this year, the US Combined Joint Task Force – Horn of Africa said US Army engineers were enhancing security at the US base in Kismayo.

While the US and al-Shabaab have been at war for nearly two decades, al-Shabaab cited US support for Israel’s genocidal war in Gaza as the reason for the attack. Back in 2020, al-Shabaab attacked a US base across the border in Kenya, killing one US soldier and two American contractors.

Keep reading

More Coverage of Gaza Starvation Did Not Necessarily Mean Deeper Coverage

International human rights organizations have pleaded with governments to oppose Israel’s blockade of aid into Gaza for the better part of the past year. But it wasn’t until late July, when dramatic images of emaciated children circulated widely, that corporate media and establishment politicians finally took notice. After 21 months of relentless bombing and even more decades of occupation, the news cycle gave extended attention to Palestinian starvation (FAIR.org, 7/29/25).

Quantity, however, does not always equal quality. To see if the content of reporting on the engineered Gaza famine matches the seriousness of the situation, FAIR surveyed coverage from nine different news outlets (New York Times, ABC, NBC, CNN, PBS, BBC, NPR, Time and Politico) during the week after the initial proliferation of reportage (7/24–31/25) to assess how or whether they discussed the full scope of the crisis.

Apart from the acute, potentially fatal consequences of starvation, malnutrition comes with permanent, long-term side effects that could affect the population for generations. Though increased coverage pushed the immediate issue into the limelight, we found that media did not consistently report on the stakes and long-lasting impacts of starvation on Palestinians’ health.

The New York Times’ infamous addition of an “editor’s note,” explaining that a Gazan child depicted in a report as facing starvation should be re-interpreted as suffering from “pre-existing” conditions, highlighted the need for honest journalistic assessments of starvation’s impacts, as well as its causes.

Keep reading

US War Department To Shift Focus From China To ‘Threats’ In Latin America

US War Department officials are proposing to shift the US military posture away from a focus on China, instead prioritizing alleged threats in Latin America and the Caribbean, Politicoreported on 6 Saturday.

A draft of the newest National Defense Strategy places “domestic and regional missions above countering adversaries such as Beijing and Moscow,” Politico revealed, citing three people briefed on early versions of the report.

The news comes one day after Trump signed an executive order for the Department of Defense to be renamed the “War Department” to better reflect its mission.

Politico notes that the move, if implemented, would anger politicians in both the Republican and Democratic parties who have long been hostile to China and called for aggressive policies to counter its rise.

“This is going to be a major shift for the US and its allies on multiple continents,” said one person briefed on the draft document. “The old, trusted US promises are being questioned.”

The document was prepared by Elbridge Colby, the War Department’s policy chief. Politico reports that the shift away from China and toward the Western Hemisphere appears to be already underway.  

The War Department deployed thousands of National Guard troops to support police in Los Angeles and Washington, DC, and has established a militarized zone across the southern border with Mexico that allows troops to detain civilians.

The policy shift may also result in the US withdrawing some troops from Europe and cutting military assistance programs for fellow NATO members.

“NATO allies increasingly expect some of the roughly 80,000 U.S. troops in Europe to leave over the next several years,” Politico added.

The proposed policy shift comes amid escalating tensions between the US and Venezuela.

This week, Trump authorized the US military to shoot down Venezuelan warplanes if commanders judge them a threat to US naval and air forces in the Caribbean. “If they do put us in a dangerous position, we’ll shoot them down,” Trump told reporters Friday.

Keep reading