Tag: perpetual war

Western Officials Warn of War-Crimes Complicity

More than 800 government officials in the United States and Europe released a letter Friday criticizing their countries’ leaders for providing unconditional military and diplomatic support to Israel as it inflicts disaster on Gaza’s population.  

[The 800-plus figure is ascribed to an organizer of the letter who is quoted anonymously, for fear of reprisal, in a report in The New York Times.] 

The authors of the letter, who remain anonymous, wrote that their attempts to voice concerns internally about their governments’ support for Israel’s assault on Gaza “were overruled by political and ideological considerations.”

“We are obliged to do everything in our power on behalf of our countries and ourselves to not be complicit in one of the worst human catastrophes of this century,” the letter reads. “We are obliged to warn the publics of our countries, whom we serve, and to act in concert with transnational colleagues.”

“Israel has shown no boundaries in its military operations in Gaza, which has resulted in tens of thousands of preventable civilian deaths,” the letter continues.

“There is a plausible risk that our governments’ policies are contributing to grave violations of international humanitarian law, war crimes, and even ethnic cleansing or genocide.”

The letter was coordinated by government officials in The Netherlands, the U.S., and European Union bodies and endorsed by civil servants in 10 countries, including Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom.

Josh Paul, a former U.S. State Department official who resigned in October over the Biden administration’s decision to continue arming Israel as it pummeled Gaza, called the new letter “a remarkable statement from hundreds of individuals who have devoted their lives to building a better world.”

Keep reading

Trudeau invited former SS officer, Yaroslav Hunka, to a ‘special event’ in Toronto

Rebel News has learned that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau invited a former Nazi to a ‘special event’ in Toronto, Ontario amid a visit from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

On September 22, 2023, all House parties, Senate groups and foreign dignitaries rose to applaud Yaroslav Hunka, 98, for fighting the Russians during WWII.

The House Speaker recognized Hunka for his supposed service in the ‘First Division’ of the Ukrainian National Army before immigrating to Canada. “He’s a Ukrainian hero — a Canadian hero — and we thank him for all his service,” claimed Rota at the time.

But in the days that followed, Canadians learned that Hunka fought for a voluntary Nazi paramilitary unit, forcing Rota to issue an apology and later resign from his post. 

“On Friday, September 22, in my remarks following the address of the President of Ukraine, I recognized an individual in the gallery,” he said. “I have subsequently become aware of more information which causes me to regret my decision to do so.”

Keep reading

Poison gas new Israeli weapon threatening lives of captives in Gaza

The Israeli army knows that bombs exploding inside tunnels can disperse toxic gases such as carbon monoxide, capable of killing Palestinian resistance fighters within them, two defense sources told the Israeli magazine Mekomit.

In a report published on 2 February, the sources said that despite this knowledge, the army aimed bombs at the entrances of tunnels in Gaza during its “Operation Guardian of the Walls” in May 2021, also known by Palestinians as the battle of “Sayf al-Quds.”

One source said that during the operation, members of Hamas military wing, the Qassam Brigades, were killed not just “because they were hit by a bomb, but also because they were in the tunnels, and the bomb emitted gas.”

A second source added that the Israeli military conducted internal tests which concluded the poison gases released from bombs in such situations are fatal.

Gadi Eisenkot, the chief of staff at the time, said that the purpose of bombing tunnel entrances to the tunnels built by Hamas in Gaza was to “turn the tunnels into a death trap” and kill hundreds of Qassam fighters who would be trapped inside.

The first source told Mekomit that the army was not using chemical or biological explosive warheads. Detonating conventional explosives inside a closed space like a tunnel was enough to spread lethal toxic gas released as byproducts. The gas can travel “a great distance in a closed area.”

Mekomit reported it is unclear whether Israel is deliberately bombing tunnels to kill Qassam fighters using poisonous gas in this way in its current war on Gaza that began on 7 October.

Keep reading

US troops should have left Syria and Iraq long ago

The death of three Americans in Jordan due to an attack by the “Islamic Resistance in Iraq” was an avoidable tragedy. It should prompt the United States to speed up its exit from Syria and Iraq, something policy makers have been contemplating for some time. Washington must minimize its risks. To dig in and escalate would be a mistake that is likely to lead to more Americans killed. The mission that brought U.S. troops to Iraq and Syria – to destroy ISIS – has been accomplished. Residual policing of ISIS remnants can be undertaken from bases in Qatar, Kuwait and Turkey.

Hawks in Washington insist that by striking Iran directly and hard, the U.S. can bring security to its troops, the danger will subside because Iran understands force. But this analysis misunderstands the region and minimizes the dangers arrayed against U.S. troops. Iran has been committed to pushing U.S. troops out of Iraq and Syria, something its leaders articulated clearly following an earlier use of U.S. force, the assassination of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Gen. Suleimani in 2020. Iran will not back down if the U.S. assassinates more of its leaders or strikes infrastructure in Iran for the simple reason that it has the upper hand in the region.

But Iran is far from being the only government that wants U.S. troops out. Turkey, Iraq and Syria are equally determined to drive the U.S. from its bases. Every single government in the region is demanding that U.S. troops leave. Turkey has escalated its war against America, not by sending missiles and drones against U.S. bases, but by sending them against America’s allies in northeast Syria and the Kurdish region of Iraq. Turkey has assassinated dozens of YPG leaders and destroyed important infrastructure. It has mobilized Syrian opposition groups under its control to attack the Syrian Democratic Forces that Washington relies on. These attacks are designed to weaken the U.S. position in the region and eventually drive it from northeast Syria.

The Syrian government is also determined to drive Americans from its soil. It accuses Washington of illegally occupying 30% of its territory and stealing its oil to subsidize the quasi-independent territory the U.S. has established in northeast Syria. As a consequence, the majority of Syrians languish in poverty and must survive with only a few hours of electricity per day, while the economy remains paralyzed by U.S. sanctions. They want the U.S. out.

The Iraqi government is also demanding that U.S. troops leave. It was provoked into doing so by Washington’s January 4 assassination of Mushtaq al-Jawari, a leader of Harakat al-Nujaba, one of the Shi’a militias that belongs to the popular mobilization forces. Washington targeted him in retribution for an earlier attack on a U.S. base. Did this show of force cow the Harakat al-Nujaba or the popular mobilization forces? No. On the contrary, it led to an escalating drumbeat of missile and drone attacks on American bases.

But the militias were not the only forces to go on the offensive, the Iraqi government did as well. Because the popular mobilization forces are officially under Baghdad’s control, the U.S. found itself effectively at war with the central government. Prime Minister Sudani cannot ignore them. To save his government, Sudani had to ask U.S. forces to leave. Both he and Iraq’s president, as well as almost every Iraqi politician, insist that Iraq not be turned into a proxy battleground.

Striking Iran will not solve America’s problems in the region. Biden’s support for Israel’s war against the Palestinians has inflamed anti-American and anti-Western feelings across the entire Arab world. It has breathed new life into the resistance front. Only yesterday, most Arabs scoffed at it for being impotent and doing nothing to deter Israel’s mistreatment of the Palestinians. Because of Gaza, Arabs are once again rooting for resistance.

Keep reading

Why Are Our Regional Experts Expecting More War in Every Corner?

“Kim Jong-un has made a strategic decision to go to war.  The danger is already far beyond the routine warnings in Washington, Seoul and Tokyo about Pyongyang’s ‘provocations’.”

– Robert Carlin (former State Department analyst) and Siegfried S. Hecker (nuclear scientist and former director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory), Stimson Center website 38 North, Discussion of North Korea attack against South Korea, January 11, 2024.

“It’s reached a very, very high level of tension.  War could essentially happen anytime.”

– Lyle Goldstein, Director of Asia engagement at Defense Priorities, Discussion of Chinese attack against Taiwan.

“The implications of Putin’s victory in Ukraine…will only encourage more threats and more war, first in Europe and then in Asia.”

– Michael McFaul, professor at Stanford University and former ambassador to Russia, Substack, January 26, 2024.

“The world war potential is really, really significant.”

– Former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Michael Mullen, New York Times, January 30. 2024.

Nicholas Kristof, opinion columnist for the New York Times, asked last week if American anxiety about war can become self-fulfilling.  I don’t believe so, but I do believe that the various experts, cited above, are irresponsibly anticipating an outbreak of war without any evidence  to support such assertions.  It must be emphasized that there is no hard evidence available for any of these lines of dangerous speculation that is available to those outside the intelligence community.  Furthermore, they neglect the larger geopolitical picture that suggests various deterrents to the wars they are anticipating.

These “expert” opinions receive enormous attention in the mainstream media, however, particularly in the New York Times and the Washington Post.  This certainly contributes to the anxiety of the American people.  The irresponsible debate that is currently taking place regarding going to war against Iran adds to that anxiety, and puts a great deal of pressure on the Biden administration, already facing uncertain reelection prospects.

McFaul’s expectation of an expanded war with Russia is particularly unworthy.  McFaul, an academic who was an ambassador to Russia for the Obama administration, confessed that he believed that Russian President Vladimir Putin “surely will be satiated if, God forbid, he succeeds in annexing more of Ukrainian territory.”  But after a trip to Lithuania last week and meetings with government officials and regional experts, he shares their fears that “Putin is only getting started.”  McFaul believes that Putin has “transformed Russia into a wartime economy,” and that there is a possibility of a “direct, conventional war between NATO and Russia.”

McFaul’s arguments would make some sense if it were not for the fact that Russia has done so poorly against the inadequately trained and supplied Ukrainian forces on its border.  Putin’s military has failed in key conventional situations and, as a result, has been forced to withdraw from attacks on Kyiv, Kharkov, and Kherson.  The long-term prospects for Russia’s economy are very weak, and Russia has gone hat in hand with Third World states such as Iran and North Korea for military weaponry.

Moscow’s western border is studded with NATO members as well as a NATO organization that has significantly increased its military prowess.  Over the past year, NATO has increased its military spending by nearly $200 billion, which nearly equals Russia’s annual defense budget.  This argues strongly against Russia undertaking military action in the West against any of the 31 members of NATO.

Keep reading

Ukraine Set To Receive Bomb So New It Hasn’t Reached US Arsenal Yet

The Pentagon is poised to begin equipping Ukraine with a long-range precision bomb that’s so new it hasn’t even hit the American arsenal yet, Politico reports. The first shipment could arrive as early as Wednesday. 

The precision-guided Ground-Launched Small Diameter Bomb (GLSDB), a joint project of Boeing and Saab, comprises a 250-pound explosive that’s attached to a rocket motor and fired from ground launchers. From a range of about 90 miles, it’s supposedly accurate within a meter. The US military has an air-launched version, but not this new ground-launched one, six of which were fired in a final, pre-ship test conducted at Florida’s Eglin Air Force Base on Jan. 16, according to a Reuters source.  

The weapon has one feature that’s particularly attractive: since it’s already “paid for,” the Pentagon can ship it to Ukraine without waiting for additional Ukraine war-funding legislation that’s been held up in Congress for months. That’s especially important at a time when Ukraine’s stockpile of 100-mile Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) is running low. The US has put off requests to supply ATACMS to Ukraine — partly out of concern that doing so would be seen as a Western escalation — only to later supply them anyway, with the missiles making their debut in October.  

Keep reading

No magic US weapon left for offensive Ukraine victory

The stark failure of Ukraine’s 2023 counteroffensive, which Kyiv billed as the one-two punch that can knock Russia out of the war, has led proponents of maximalist war aims in Ukraine to revise their timetable for victory.

The Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU), according to this emerging consensus, can fend off ongoing Russian attacks and replenish their capacity for renewed offensives in 2025 with sustained Western support. Key to these plans is a two-fold assessment of both sides’ strike capabilities.

This view argues that Ukraine, if supplied with enough “game-changing” medium and long-range missiles, can successfully degrade Russian logistics and command and control (C2) nodes and make large swathes of occupied territories — including Crimea — untenable for Russian forces. Such perspectives are complemented and often accompanied by the parallel observation that Russian forces are running critically low on key munitions and thus lack the ability to apply sustained long-term pressure on Ukrainian infrastructure.

Both approaches, which invite Western policymakers to double down on Ukraine’s maximalist war aims in hopes that something approximating a total victory can yet be secured with enough funding and persistence, are deeply flawed and risk putting Kyiv and its Western partners in an even more precarious military position over the coming year.

The AFU received around 20 ground-launched ballistic M39 Block I Army Tactical Missile System, or ATACMS, missiles from the United States in late 2023. These older variant missiles, which boast a range of 170 kilometers, were reportedly used by the AFU to strike Russian-controlled airfields in southern and eastern Ukraine.

In a November 2023 letter, a group of lawmakers called on the Biden administration to transfer more ATACMS, including advanced longer-range variants, to Ukraine with the aim of sustaining the AFU’s “requirement for deep-strike capability.” Former U.S. General Ben Hodges argued that the provision of ATACMS and other Western missiles, including German Taurus cruise missiles, would isolate Russian-occupied Crimea and make it untenable for Russian forces. “ATACMS with 300km range will make Crimea untenable as soon they arrive in Theater. No place for Russian Navy, Air Force, Logistics to hide in Crimea,” Hodges wrote. “On ATACMS for Ukraine, don’t settle for a job half done.”

As with other plans formulated around Ukraine’s use of game-changing “wunderwaffen,” the thinking on massed ATACMS strikes all too often presumes a static Russian adversary incapable of adapting to these weapons over time.

Keep reading

Israel, the US, and the Endless War on Terror

In a New Yorker piece published five days after the attacks of Sept.11, 2001, American critic and public intellectual Susan Sontag wrote, “Let’s by all means grieve together. But let’s not be stupid together. A few shreds of historical awareness might help us understand what has just happened, and what may continue to happen.” Sontag’s desire to contextualize the 9/11 attacks was an instant challenge to the narratives that President George W. Bush would soon deploy, painting the United States as a country of peace and, most importantly, innocent of any wrongdoing. While the rhetorical strategies he developed to justify what came to be known as the Global War on Terror have continued to this day, they were not only eagerly embraced by Israel in 2001, they also lie at the heart of that country’s justification of the genocidal campaign that’s been waged against the Palestinian people since Oct. 7, 2023.

On Sept. 20, 2001, President Bush delivered a speech to Congress in which he shared a carefully constructed storyline that would justify endless war. The United States, he said, was attacked because the terrorists “hate our freedoms — our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.” In that official response to the 9/11 attacks, he also used the phrase “war on terror” for the first time, stating (all too ominously in retrospect): “Our war on terror begins with al-Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated.”

“Americans are asking,” he went on, “why do they hate us?” And then he provided a framework for understanding the motives of the “terrorists” precluding the possibility that American actions prior to 9/11 could in any way have explained the attacks. In other words, he positioned his country as a blameless victim, shoved without warning into a “post-9/11 world.” As Bush put it, “All of this was brought upon us in a single day — and night fell on a different world, a world where freedom itself is under attack.” As scholar Richard Jackson later noted, the president’s use of “our war on terror” constituted “a very carefully and deliberately constructed public discourse… specifically designed to make the war seem reasonable, responsible, and inherently ‘good.’”

Keep reading

Pink Floyd’s Roger Waters dropped by music publisher BMG over Israel comments

Pink Floyd co-founder Roger Waters has reportedly been dropped by music rights company Bertelsmann Music Group (BMG) over his inflammatory remarks about Israel, Ukraine and the United States.

The news was reported by Variety, which notes that Waters’ antisemitic statements “infuriated his former bandmates, as they have driven off several suitors interested in acquiring the wizening band’s recorded-music catalog, which was said to be on the market for half a billion dollars.”

The Berlin-based company signed a deal with Waters, 80, back in 2016 and planned to release a newly re-recorded version of Pink Floyd’s seminal 1973 album ‘Dark Side of the Moon’ in 2023, but the new CEO Thomas Coesfeld dropped the contract. The album was eventually released by the UK label Cooking Vinyl.

Since the start of the Israel Hamas war, Rogers has made multiple remarks that have been deemed antisemitic, and has been the subject of multiple controversies in recent years.

Waters, a longtime supporter of Palestine and a critic of Israel, has vehemently denied these accusations, but caused uproar last year after wearing a “Nazi-style” uniform onstage in Berlin.

Keep reading

Pentagon Admits It Has No Evidence Iran Was Behind Drone Attack That Killed 3 US Troops in Jordan

The Pentagon on Monday said Iran “bears responsibility” for the drone attack in northeastern Jordan that killed three US troops but admitted it has no evidence that Iran was directly involved.

Pentagon spokeswoman Sabrina Singh said the responsibility fell on Iran due to its support for Iraqi Shia militias the US believes carried out the attack.

“In terms of attribution for the attack, we know this is an [Iran]-backed militia. It has the footprints of Kataib Hezbollah, but [we’re] not making a final assessment,” Singh said at a press conference. “Iran continues to arm and equip these groups to launch these attacks, and we will certainly hold them responsible.”

When asked if the US knew Iran and Iranian leaders were “actually behind this attack, as in planned, coordinated, or directed it,” Singh admitted the US had nothing to show that.

“We know that Iran certainly plays a role with these groups, they arm and equip and fund these groups. I don’t have more to share on — terms of an intelligence assessment on if leaders in Iran were directing this attack,” she said.

Singh was again asked about the claim that Iran was behind the attack and said the US just knows that “Iran funds these groups” and had nothing more to add. Later in the press conference, she said Iran “bears responsibility” for the killing of three American soldiers.

Keep reading