Tag: perpetual war

The Wall Street Journal Has Many Ways to Deny Genocide

As more and more scholars, and one rights group after another, confirm that Israel is carrying out a genocide in Gaza, it’s becoming ever more obvious that those who deny the genocide are the intellectual and moral equivalents of people who deny other genocides, such as the ones inflicted on the Indigenous peoples of the Americas, or the Holocaust, or the Armenian Genocide.

Yet the Wall Street Journal persists in running genocide denial. Looking at how the paper does so enables us to not only refute their falsehoods, but also to gain insight into the tactics Gaza genocide denialists, and genocide deniers in general, employ. These include:

  • Hand-waving: brushing off the cataclysmic damage Israel and the US have done to Palestinians as merely the unavoidable byproducts of war;
  • Victim-blaming: saying that Palestinian resistance groups such as Hamas are to blame for the suffering in Gaza;
  • Inverting perpetrator and victim: presenting Palestinians, and not Israelis, as genocidal, with Israelis, rather than Palestinians, cast as the targets;
  • Obscurantism: offering dubious pieces of information, usually in a decontextualized manner, as if they showed that Israel has pursued its military objectives humanely;
  • Repudiation: flatly rejecting well-documented facts while offering little or no counter-evidence.

Ami Magazine columnist Avi Shafran’s Journal piece (7/22/25) utilized both hand-waving and victim-blaming. He asserted:

When critics distort Israel’s goal of self-preservation into a desire for genocide, the accusers have gone from righteous protesters to ignorant haters…. Civilians suffer and die in the prosecution of justifiable, even necessary, wars. That tragedy is intensified when you are fighting an enemy who hides behind human shields. Eradicating the engines of terror in Gaza requires attacking the places from which they operate: hospitals, schools and mosques.

Israel’s supposedly “justifiable, even necessary” war has entailed such policies (as Human Rights Watch—12/19/24—notes) as

intentionally depriv[ing] Palestinian civilians in Gaza of adequate access to water since October 2023, most likely resulting in thousands of deaths and thus committing the crime against humanity of extermination and acts of genocide.

Rather than offering a reasoned, evidence-based defense of such Israeli conduct, Shafran blithely wrote as if consciously withholding drinking water from a civilian population were as natural and inevitable as water boiling at a hundred degrees Celsius.

Keep reading

Senate passes $925 billion NDAA bill for military, national security

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026, a $925 billion bill setting funding levels for America’s national defense spending, passed in the Senate Thursday night and included more than a dozen amendment votes. 

The legislation authorizes roughly $879 billion for the Pentagon and about $35 billion for national security programs in the Department of Energy. It also sets aside nearly $11 billion for other defense activities.

“We’re ready to show on both sides of the aisle that the Senate can act in the interest of national security and get something done on a bipartisan basis,” Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker, R-Miss., told lawmakers Thursday.

“We have a great product before us,” Wicker added. “It makes huge changes, significant changes, and we need to send the signal that we can do this, get it then coordinated with the House version, which has already been passed, and move it to the President of the United States for his early signature.”

Multiple new offices, groups, and positions within the DOD would be established under the bill, including those focused on cybersecurity; nuclear security, deterrence, and energy; and AI innovation and oversight.

Hundreds of billions of dollars for munitions stocking and defense infrastructure are included, as well as billions for American defense activities in the Indo-Pacific, Europe, and the Middle East.

The bill also includes significant accountability reforms to how the DOD contracts with third parties and how it fulfills statutory reporting requirements. Additionally, it requires the Pentagon, which has failed seven consecutive audits, to report on current audit progress as the 2028 statutory deadline approaches.

Military members would receive a 3.8% pay raise, and education services for their children would receive a $50 million boost.

Senators will begin voting on dozens of amendments to the 1,454-page bill Thursday evening. Given the current government shutdown, lawmakers may have to delay a vote on passage. Once the bill passes, the Senate must conference with the House to ensure the lower chamber’s version of the NDAA matches their own.

Keep reading

HUNGARIAN WITCH HUNT: After Ukraine Accused Orbán of Sending Drones Into Its Airspace, Now the European Union Is Investigating an Alleged Hungarian Spy Ring in Brussels

‘Everything is Hungary’s fault’.

There’s a new illness of the mind going around the Globalist corners of the European Union.

You can call it Hungarophobia or Magyarophobia, and it basically means that the conservative central European country is receiving the ‘Russian treatment’, with constant psyops and disinformation against it.

Around 10 days ago, Kiev regime leader Volodymyr Zelensky publicly accused Budapest of deploying multiple drones into Ukrainian airspace – a serious accusation never backed with any data, and soon dropped into oblivion.

Now, the Globalist archfoes of the European Union have broken another ‘sensational story’ against Viktor Orbán and his government.

Euronews reported:

“According to reports that sparked the probe, the undercover spy ring allegedly operated under the cover of the Hungarian permanent representation, which at that time was led by Olivér Várhelyi, who is now a European Commissioner.

The European Commission launched a probe on Thursday after several media reports alleged that the Hungarian secret services were trying to recruit EU employees in Brussels as informants.”

Keep reading

NATO Allies Discuss Letting Pilots Open Fire on Russian Aircraft: Report

NATO allies are discussing easing rules for pilots to permit them to shoot down Russian aircraft, according to a report by the Financial Times. The news comes as alliance members consider a tougher approach against Moscow following a spate of alleged airspace violations, drone swarms, and sabotage plots in Europe.

A NATO official told Newsweek: “When it comes to the range of hybrid or grey-zone activities we’ve seen, including cyber-attacks, drone incursions, or attempts to sabotage critical infrastructure, NATO is working closely with Allies to ensure that we’re taking appropriate steps to ensure we can deter and defend. This isn’t new, and we continue to adapt as the situation evolves.”

Why It Matters

NATO-Russia tensions are worsening as the war in Ukraine rages on and there is an increasing risk of a direct conflict between Russia and NATO.

Both sides have characterized the current situation as a form of war with each other, though there has been no such formal declaration by either Russia or NATO.

What To Know

The FT, citing four unidentified NATO officials, said NATO allies are discussing a more forceful response to increasingly provocative Russian actions, including easing restrictions on pilots to allow them to open fire on Russian aircraft and deploying armed drones along the border with Russia. The asymmetric cost of scrambling fighter jets to intercept drones is a running concern for the alliance, which is seeking a financially sustainable solution.

NATO members on the front line with Russia, backed by France and Britain, initiated the discussions, which have since broadened to a larger group in the 32-strong alliance, the newspaper reported.

“One example of our work in this area is Baltic Sentry, which was launched in response to incidents affecting critical undersea infrastructure in the Baltic Sea,” the NATO official told Newsweek in a statement.

Keep reading

The Missiles of October

The last remaining nuclear arms control treaty between the United States and Russia — New START — is set to expire on Feb. 5, 2026.

This treaty, which caps the nuclear arsenals of both nations at 1,550 deployed strategic nuclear weapons each, was signed back in 2010, during the administrations of U.S. President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitri Medvedev. At that time, the two nations were engaged in what proved to be an abortive “reset” of relations.

But the underlying problems which prompted the need for a reset —  NATO expansion, continued U.S. pursuit of hegemony disguised as a “rules based international order” and a general U.S. disregard for arms control as a necessary mechanism of global stability — were never fully addressed, and new problems emerged (such as the reemergence of Vladimir Putin as the president of Russian, Russian intervention in Syria and the conflict in Ukraine) which made a reset impossible.

Instead, relations between the two nuclear-armed world powers worsened, and today the U.S. finds itself in a proxy war with Russia in Ukraine that threatens to go nuclear at any moment should either side make a mistake or miscalculation. Both nations find themselves on the cusp of a new nuclear arms race, and the only thing that holds them back is a treaty set to expire and no new treaty on the horizon.

On Sept. 22, Russian President Vladmir Putin, speaking to his Security Council, declared that “to avoid provoking a further strategic arms race and to ensure an acceptable level of predictability and restraint, we believe it is justified to try to maintain the status quo established by the New START Treaty during the current, rather turbulent period.” Putin said Russia is prepared to stick by the treaty’s limits for one more year after it expires.

As of the end of September, the Trump administration had yet to formally respond to Putin’s offer regarding New START. The closest thing to a response was a comment made by President Donald Trump to the press when asked about Putin’s offer. “Sounds like a good idea to me,” Trump told reporters as he departed the White House.

The lack of an official response from the Trump administration regarding a moratorium on retaining the New START caps on deployed nuclear weapons is disconcerting, since the purpose of the moratorium isn’t to simply prevent an arms race in the short term, but also buy time for negotiations that would result in a new treaty framework that takes into account the complexities surrounding the issue of nuclear weapons and arms control today.

Keep reading

Ukrainians told to stop sharing violent conscription videos

Ukraine’s conscription authorities have called on citizens to refrain from documenting cases of violent forced military enlistment, instead urging the population to “cherish” recruitment officers. 

The message, shared on Wednesday by the Kiev Regional Territorial Center for Recruitment and Social Support (TCK), condemned a Telegram channel called Stop TCK Ukraine, which has been circulating videos of men being violently detained and forced into enlistment vehicles – incidents popularly dubbed “busifications” that often go viral.

The center alleged the channel was part of Russian information warfare and told Ukrainians to “never (!) watch videos of ‘busification.’”

“For God’s sake, don’t film or share such videos,” the post read. “If the Russians turn you into sheep, they’ll slaughter you like pigs tomorrow. So cherish the TCKs, help the TCKs, assist and protect them. They are the only ones filling the ranks of frontline units.”

Keep reading

US ‘war on drugs’ is just another regime change attempt

The United States is once again targeting Venezuela, in Washington’s long quest for regime change in the country.

What the Trump administration falsely claims is a war against so-called Venezuelan drug smugglers, has seen the extrajudicial killings of 21 Venezuelans in the past few weeks. US troops, aircraft and warships have been moved near Venezuelan waters, which some fear indicates a coming US war on the country.

The US military made several separate attacks over the course of the past month on boats US President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth have claimed were carrying drugs “enroute to poison Americans”. Neither Trump nor Hegseth provided any evidence or the specific locations of the incidents.

One would think that the legally appropriate way to deal with drug traffickers (if that is in fact what the Venezuelans were to begin with) would be to arrest them and put them on trial. Instead, the men were killed on sight, apparently with missiles that also conveniently destroyed all the evidence. Trump’s justification was to claim they were “extraordinarily violent drug trafficking cartels and narcoterrorists” and that they “POSE A THREAT to U.S. National Security, Foreign Policy, and vital U.S. Interests.”

To sum it up, we have extrajudicial assassinations in international waters, without congressional approval.

Furthermore, on September 12, 18 armed US personnel from the US Navy destroyer USS Jason Dunham boarded and occupied a local tuna fishing vessel Carmen Rosa for 8 hours in Venezuelan waters, in yet another direct provocation of Caracas.

Keep reading

When Presidents Kill

During the past six weeks, President Donald Trump has ordered U.S. troops to attack and destroy four speed boats in the Caribbean Sea, 1,500 miles from the United States. The president revealed that the attacks were conducted without warning, were intended not to stop but to kill all persons on the boats, and succeeded in their missions.

Trump has claimed that his victims are “narco-terrorists” who were planning to deliver illegal drugs to willing American buyers. He apparently believes that because these folks are presumably foreigners, they have no rights that he must honor and he may freely kill them. As far as we know, none of these nameless, faceless persons was charged or convicted of any federal crime. We don’t know if any were Americans. But we do know that all were just extrajudicially executed.

Can the president legally do this? In a word: NO. Here is the backstory.

Limiting Federal Powers

The U.S. Constitution was ratified to establish federal powers and to limit them.
Congress is established to write the laws and to declare war. The president is established to enforce the laws that Congress has written and to be commander-in-chief of the armed forces.

Restraints are imposed on both. Congress may only enact legislation in the 16 discrete areas of governance articulated in the Constitution — and it may only legislate subject to all persons’ natural rights identified and articulated in the Bill of Rights.

The president may only enforce the laws that Congress has written — he cannot craft his own. And he may employ the military only in defense of a real imminent military-style attack or to fight wars that Congress has declared.

The Constitution prohibits the president from fighting undeclared wars, and federal law prohibits him from employing the military for law enforcement purposes.

The Fifth Amendment — in tandem with the 14th, which restrains the states — assures that no person’s life, liberty or property may be taken without due process of law. Because the drafters of the amendment used the word “person” instead of “citizen,” the courts have ruled consistently that this due process requirement is applicable to all human beings.

Basically, wherever the government goes, it is subject to constitutional restraints.

Tribunal Trial

Traditionally, due process means a trial. In the case of a civilian, it means a jury trial, with the full panoply of attendant protections required by the Constitution.
In the case of enemy combatants, it means a fair neutral tribunal.

The tribunal requirement came about in an odd and terrifying way. In 1942, four Nazi troops arrived via submarine at Amagansett Beach, New York, and exchanged their uniforms for civilian garb. At nearly the same time, four other Nazi troops arrived via submarine at Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida, and also donned civilian clothing. All eight set about their assigned task of destroying American munitions factories and infrastructure. After one of them went to the F.B.I., all eight were arrested.

At trial, all eight were convicted of attempted sabotage behind enemy lines — a war crime. The Supreme Court quickly returned to Washington from its summer vacation and unanimously upheld the convictions. By the time the court issued its formal opinion, six of the eight had been executed. The two Americans were sentenced to life in prison. Their sentences were commuted five years later by President Harry Truman.

Keep reading

How Much U.S. Has Given Israel and How Much U.S. Military Has Spent to Protect It, Since the Gaza War Began

Since the Gaza war began on October 7, 2023, the United States has poured massive financial and military support into Israel, marking one of the largest aid efforts in modern U.S. history. According to recent studies, Washington has provided an estimated $21.7 billion in military assistance to Israel over the past two years — about $17.9 billion during the first year of fighting and roughly $3.8 billion in the following months. These figures represent a combination of direct arms transfers, financial aid, and replenishment of Israel’s missile defense systems such as Iron Dome and David’s Sling.

Much of this funding came from emergency appropriations and presidential drawdowns, which allowed the U.S. to deliver weapons and ammunition directly from its own stockpiles without waiting for new contracts to be approved. Within weeks of the October 2023 attacks, U.S. aircraft were flying shipments of artillery shells, precision-guided bombs, and interceptors to Israeli bases. Congress later formalized these actions through a $14.1 billion supplemental package in early 2024 that reimbursed the Pentagon and expanded Israel’s access to advanced defense systems. In early 2025, the U.S. approved another $8 billion in arms sales, ensuring a steady flow of weaponry in the years ahead.

But beyond financial aid, the U.S. has spent billions more on its own military operations in the Middle East to shield Israel from regional threats. Analysts at Brown University’s Costs of War project estimate that between October 2023 and September 2025, American military operations related to the Gaza war cost between $9.6 and $12 billion. These expenses cover the deployment of aircraft carriers, fighter jets, missile-defense batteries, and surveillance assets in the eastern Mediterranean and Red Sea. The U.S. Navy maintained carrier strike groups, such as the USS Gerald R. Ford and USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, near Israel’s coast for months, acting as a visible deterrent to Iran-backed militias and providing rapid-response capabilities if the conflict spread.

American forces also launched limited air and missile strikes on groups like the Houthis in Yemen, who had been targeting Red Sea shipping routes in protest of the Gaza war. These actions, while not directly part of Israel’s operations, were considered essential to protect Israel and maintain regional stability, according to U.S. defense officials. Together with increased patrols, intelligence flights, and logistics costs, they formed a significant share of Washington’s wartime spending.

The overall U.S. investment — both in aid to Israel and in its own regional missions — now totals between $30 billion and $35 billion since the start of the conflict. This figure represents not only direct support for Israel’s military campaign but also the cost of sustaining America’s wider strategic presence in the Middle East. Officials argue that such support is necessary to deter Iran and maintain the balance of power, while critics point out that it deepens U.S. involvement in a war that has caused widespread civilian suffering in Gaza and strained Washington’s global image.

Even as the fighting enters its third year, shipments of U.S. arms and funds continue, and naval assets remain stationed near the conflict zone. The financial and operational commitment underscores the depth of Washington’s alliance with Israel — one that now extends far beyond arms sales, involving continuous military engagement, strategic cover, and billions in taxpayer dollars to sustain a war that shows few signs of ending soon.

Keep reading

Ukrainian parliament confirms local elections will not be held due to martial law

The Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine adopted a resolution that ensures the continuity of representative bodies of local self-government given the conditions of military aggression by Russia, Ukrinform reported, quoted by BTA.

The document states that the organization, preparation and holding of local elections in accordance with national legislation and European standards for democratic elections are impossible in the conditions of the aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine and given the declared martial law in the country.

At the same time, the parliamentary resolution emphasizes the stable functioning of local government bodies and the exercise of their powers in accordance with the Constitution and laws of Ukraine.

According to the document, mayors, municipal and city councilors and regional councils will remain in power until holding elections after the war with Russia.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said during a meeting with Donald Trump earlier this year that he was ready to hold elections after the end of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict.

According to the Ukrainian constitution, the country was supposed to hold local elections on October 26, five years after the 2020 elections. This would affect the term of Kyiv Mayor Vitali Klitschko, who has been in office since 2014. Due to martial law in the country, regular parliamentary elections in October 2023 and presidential elections in March 2024 were canceled. This gives Russia reason to question Volodymyr Zelensky’s legitimacy, DPA reports.

Keep reading