The American war on terror has cost at least 500,000 dead.

According to estimates of the Costs of War Project of Brown University, half were civilians, the direct financial costs are estimated at 4.6 trillion US dollars

From the outset, the United States has refrained from counting the number of deaths and injuries in the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan. Syria was not included in the report, where alone more than half a million people were killed. Other countries such as Yemen, Somalia, Libya or Niger were not included either. For Afghanistan and Iraq, the United Nations regularly publishes the number of war victims, and other organisations such as AirWars also try to give an overview by evaluating various sources.

Under Obama, the Pentagon only began to list civilian victims in Iraq and Syria who could practically not be denied, while all those killed were routinely described as militants. This led to such small figures that this could be described as alternative, at any rate extremely clarified facts that are far removed from reality. In June 2018, the Pentagon counted 499 civilians killed and 167 injured in US operations in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Yemen. However, the Pentagon felt compelled to present at least some figures, and other warring parties have kept them silent.

The victims were and are mainly the civilian population.

 Neta Crawford, the author of the current report, a professor of politics at Boston University and co-director of the Costs of War Project, also makes it clear that this is only an approximate estimate and that the wars are likely to have left many more dead. Not only civilians but also killed soldiers, policemen and militants were counted. The latter were also included because they were often civilians. So it is only about the victims of direct violence, not about the many people who died indirectly or as a result of displacement, for example as a result of war-related illnesses, lack of clean drinking water, lack of food or lack of medical care. If one were to include the number of indirect deaths, i.e. cynically the collaterals, one would have to speak of a million and more deaths as a result of the wars. If you look at the figures for Afghanistan and Pakistan (October 2001 to October 2018) and Iraq (March 2003 and October 2018), you will again notice what you already know, but what makes the reality of these asymmetric wars clear: In the total number of victims, the – of course exactly listed – numbers of killed US soldiers (6951) and allied soldiers (1464) are insignificant. Even if one includes the American contractors (7820), the respective native population has to bear the overwhelming burden if the USA or Germany are defended at the Hindu Kush or elsewhere. 362 journalists were killed, the vast majority in Iraq, and 566 aid workers, mostly in Afghanistan.

Almost 110,000 local soldiers and policemen have been killed as allies, half of them in Afghanistan, where there is still no end to the war in sight. Around 250,000 civilians are said to have lost their lives, the vast majority in Iraq, where the report estimates 182,272 to 204,575, and in Afghanistan “only” more than 38,000 so far. The number of “opposition fighters” killed is estimated at less than half of the civilian victims, namely between 109,396 and 114,471. According to the report, 42,000 were killed in Afghanistan, most of them in Afghanistan, and 34,806 to 39,881 in Iraq, slightly less. In Iraq in particular, however, the numbers can be far higher. Nobody knows how many civilians and militants were killed during the offensive, especially on Mosul, but also on other cities, and still lie under the rubble of the bombed city. There could be tens of thousands more dead civilians, especially since the government had instructed the people to stay in the city even before the offensive. The US government under president and Nobel Peace Prize winner Obama had no objection.

Millions of refugees and trillions in costs

Deaths are only the top, the number of injured, mutilated and traumatised is much higher. The latter include the displaced and fugitives. According to the report, there were 4.8 million refugees and displaced persons in Afghanistan in 2017, 3.25 million in Iraq and 12.5 million in Syria, compared with 380,000 in Pakistan. These figures show how the fight against terror is becoming terror for the local population and a burden for neighbouring countries. There are 1.3 million Afghan refugees in Pakistan and 900,000 in Iran. Most of the refugees from Iraq and Syria, around 3.5 million, live in Turkey. Iran has also welcomed one million Syrians and Iraqis in addition to the Afghans.

The financial costs of the war were also estimated again, including the costs for internal security in the context of the defence against terrorism, the expenses for the veterans and the interest for the pumped war expenses. By November 2017, expenditures for U.S. citizens are estimated at $4.351 trillion, including $534 million in interest. By the end of 2017 the costs will have risen to 4.632 trillion US dollars, and in 2018 alone almost 90 million US dollars in interest will have to be paid. And the interest on the debt taken out, which is why the costs of the war against Iraq were called peanuts under Bush, will rise by another trillion dollars in the next few decades.

by (Florian Rötzer)


Translated from German to Engish by alfonso



The Genocide

Concealed by war lies and propaganda, the Yemeni people are massacred visibly for all to see.

The war in Yemen is not a conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran – even if the leading media suggest it time and again. Rannie Amiri explains that it is rather a one-sided offensive of the Saudis and their allies against the Huthi after they had ousted the Saudi-backed President Mansur Hadi in 2015. There can be no question of “rebels led by Iran” either. Because the Huthi are generally closer to the Sunni Saudis than the Shiite Iranians. The population of Yemen has to serve as a substitute for the “real enemy”.

There is no proxy war in Yemen!

Those in the Western media who are too busy trying to understand the complexities, subtleties and nuances of the Middle East often use the conclusion that all conflicts in this region are a kind of “proxy war” between Saudi Arabia and Iran.

This is usually due to ignorance. Conflicts are reduced to the lowest common denominator of “Sunnis versus Shiites”, or between the states that function as the most important patron saints for the two. But often it is deliberately concealed; it must be justified that a US ally causes regional chaos on the pretext of enclosing an enemy.

The most obvious and welcome scapegoat is Iran. The aspirations of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and, of course, Israel to curb Iran’s alleged expansionism are being watched idly. One of the most devastating and tragic episodes in the Middle East is currently taking place in Yemen. This is not, however, a de facto proxy war about which, according to the war financiers, we do not want to investigate any further because we are tired of the news.

Saudi Arabia against the Huthi

Despite constant statements to the contrary by the lazy media, there is no proxy war in Yemen. The war that has devastated the poorest country in the Arab world since March 2015 is a one-sided attack led by Saudi Arabia that has destroyed the state, its economy, its infrastructure and its social services to such an extent that malnutrition is widespread and a cholera epidemic is rampant. Allegedly, the military campaign carried out by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates served to expel Huthi-led rebels who, in January 2015, ousted the highly unpopular President Abed Rabbo Mansur Hadi, a Saudis-backed puppet, from power. He had been elected in a vote in which he was the only candidate. He remained in power even after the expiry of a one-year mandate that had extended his term. The Huthi, a politico-religious group officially known as Ansar Allah and named after its founder Hussein Badreddin al-Huthi, had originally formed in opposition to Hadi’s predecessor, Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh.

No Iranian rebels

The Huthi belong mainly to the Zaidites, who form a branch of the larger Shiite group within Islam. Branding the Huthi as “Iranian-backed Shiite rebels”, as is now common practice, allows a simple and useful categorization to identify “the bad guys” in the media of the West and the Gulf states. But that is a lie. The inconvenient fact is that the Zaidites are generally closer to Sunni Islam than Shiite Islam – and the Saudis-backed long-term military dictator Saleh was Zaidit. More importantly, apart from his declaration of solidarity with the Huthi, there is no conclusive evidence of military intervention by Iran or its allies in Yemen. On the contrary, and very clearly, the Saudi and Emirati inhumane bombings are the most blatant example of foreign interference in the internal affairs of another state.

When a school bus was hit in an air raid and 40 children were killed, the Saudi coalition initially justified this as a “legitimate military target” before an international outcry finally led to the conclusion that it had been different.

On the other hand, the Huthi’s irregular rocket attacks on Saudi military installations, which are cited as evidence of foreign military equipment, erroneously suggest that the Huthi are legitimate, capable, combat-tested forces. Apparently, the regime cannot understand that, despite daily attacks, they had the strength to strike back and demonstrate offensive rather than purely defensive capabilities.

Cruel and one-sided

In Yemen, there is no conflict between religious currents or representatives, but a war resulting from the aftermath of the fall of another Saudi-controlled ruler. At least 10,000 Yemenis have been killed since 2015. With a total population of 29 million, 22 million need some form of assistance, and eight million suffer from malnutrition. These numbers are expected to increase now that there is evidence that Saudi Arabia is attacking food supplies.

The war waged in Yemen by Saudi Arabia and its allies and their shameless use of US and British weapons borders on a veritable invasion. It is a unilateral, vicious military adventure that has driven millions of people into poverty and has so far proved totally unsuccessful in achieving its goals.

The only representatives in this conflict are the victims of its war crimes; innocent men, women and children who have starved to death or been killed. They are placeholders for a nebulous power that has yet to be determined.

Rannie Amiri is an independent commentator on political events in the Middle East.

translate from German to English by Alfonso




Brittens financial dilemma

How the Brittish “City of London” is helping the wealthy to avoud taxes, with help of the Brittish banks.


Very interested information and a very informativ, how the people in pwer are avoiding tax in their countries.

By alfonso


Idlip how will it end?

In the West, Mosul and Raqqa are not to be hypocritical when it comes to condemning the planned offensive on Idlib and thereby protecting the jihadists. Why is Western politicians – and the media that agree with them – portraying the planned offensive of the Syrian-Iranian-Russian forces on the so-called “rebel stronghold” as disaster and crime?

The United Nations is even warning of the worst humanitarian catastrophe of this century. Idlib is at least partially controlled by al Qaeda fighters and other jihadist militias who have partially withdrawn their families there after being offered a corridor. Of the alleged 3 million people living there, half sought refuge there because they did not want to go to other parts of Syria, be it the areas controlled by Damascus or by the Kurds.

So you are not completely involuntary here. How many jihadist bodies and members of other armed militias live here is a matter of speculation. It is estimated that there are at least 100,000 heavily armed members of armed groups and gangs, including up to 20,000 or 30,000, directly linked to HTS (Hayat Tahrir al-Sham), al-Qaeda, once al-Nusra. They control a large part of the area.

The proportion of their families in the total population is even worse.  Maybe half a million? But which are presented by the critics of an offensive as civilians.

Turkey has tried to assemble all the groups in Idlib in the allegedly moderate National Liberation Front  (NLF) and bring them out of the line of fire and under their own control. That did not work out, probably because HTS and other jihadist groups are not dependent on Turkey, but (also) supported financially and with weapons by other countries. The main problem may be that the West is not only gaining influence over the groups in the region and preventing the consolidation of the Assad government, but wants to preserve the terrorist slave. Now jihadists can no longer be moved to Syria, with the danger of tens of thousands moving to Turkey or other countries.

As enemies of the enemy Assad and Putin they are indeed as allegedly “moderates” desired, as friends you do not want to take the worshipers and founder of the Caliphs also with you. The alleged commitment to the civilians is aggravated by the fact that Turkey has taken over even those jihadist fighters in militias in order to fight against the true terrorists, that is, against the Kurds. Erdogan accordingly calls for an end to the Idlib offensive to protect the “moderate rebels” who played a crucial role in the “Turkish fight against terrorists in northern Syria”. However, HTS and other Salafist groups do not play along with the calculus of Ankara. Like ISIS in Mosul and Raqqa, they entrench themselves behind the civilians, who hold them hostage and punish every “betrayal”.

And if it is true that Moscow and others suspect that the White Helmets supported by the West are allied with HTS, then the horror images and stories are also staged by them to propagate a fight of the evil against innocent civilians. The offensive against Idlib is not much different from the offensive against Ramada, Mosul or Raqqa, not to speak of the Saudi attacks on Yemen. Fight to the end like in Raqqa and Mosul. A report in Al-Monitor makes it clear again that the western view is clouded. The jihadists for HTS would, as ISIS  has done in Mosul and Raqqa, hold civilians hostage and fight to the end: “The bloodier it gets, the better it will increase pressure on the Syrian regime and Russia, stop the fighting and allow the jihadists to keep their enclave. ” Reference is made to an article in the Washington Post, according to which HTS has erected gallows around the province of Idlib to execute traitors, including those who want to negotiate a withdrawal. There is a network of cellars and caves serving as prisons, JAN Violations, which documents allegations against HTS or Jabhat al-Nusra, speak of at least 5 prisons, “some are notorious for torture”. In recent years, around 10,000 people in Idlib have been arrested by the jihadists, and many are believed to have been killed. Idlib has thousands and thousands of those who have immigrated from East Turkistan (Uyghur), Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Europe and America, from non-Arab and Arab countries. They have left their children, their homes, their jobs and their careers behind to look for what Allah has for them and they want to become martyrs. … In the name of Allah we have made a vow and we will crucify anyone who sets down his weapon in this liberated land. It was liberated with the blood of the brave martyrs with whom we may unite Allah, as I ask.

The Egyptian-born HTS sheikh Abu Al-Yaqthan Al-Masri in a sermon on 27 August Meeting of Putin and Erdogan: Hardly a solution conceivable Russian President Vladimir Putin and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan are meeting today in Sochi to find a common solution. Erdogan has failed to unite all groups and bring them under Turkish control and wants to receive the jihadist enclave surrounded by Turkish troops. Russia and Syria at least demand a separation between “moderate” and hard jihadists, but Turkey can not do that. Not only has it strengthened the Turkish forces around Idlib, but it also knows the United States and its allies in a Syrian-Russian offensive, at least if an attack, by whatsoever, was to take place with chemical weapons. While Russia is interested in deepening the gap between Turkey and the US, the US has an interest in letting Turkey back away from Russia. It can be assumed that both Russia and the US want to avoid a direct military conflict. Russia and Syria will not be deterred from bringing Idlib under control, and it may even be necessary to split the enclave. US Secretary of State Pompeo had earlier this month admitted that the terrorists in Idlib must be fought. Erdogan also wants to find ways with Putin to fight the terrorists, but wants to prevent the bombing. How to do that remains his secret for the time being, especially since he is obviously not for the creation of humanitarian corridors to let the civilians out of Idlib. Edogan said Turkey would fight all terrorists, including the Kurds, but Turkey would have to bear the political and humanitarian consequences of an offensive. Now 3.5 million Syrians are in Turkey. And he hypocritically emphasized in view of the occupied Syrian territories that Turkey did not want to divide Syria like the other states. Turkey does not have such intentions that Syria should remain a state. And if Iran and Russia say that they have been invited by the Syrian government, then Turkey has been invited by the people, “Dasa is the difference, we do not recognize the regime, we recognize the people.” And because Turkey does not leave suffering people alone, people in Idlib would wear Turkish and not Russian, American, German and French flags. Some, however, also carry the flags of the jihadists. (Florian Rötzer)

translate from german to English by Alfonso


The curse of Hiroshima

To date, the release of the world’s first atomic bomb from the US is justified.

by Dirk Pohlmann

Does Germany, or anny other country, need their “own” nuclear bomb? Sometimes this is discussed seriously, recently by Christian Hacke in the “Welt am Sonntag”. Before talking that way, one should first realize what atomic bombing actually means: genocide and unimaginable suffering. While Auschwitz is widely recognized as a terrible injustice, the second major human crime of the twentieth century is still partially justified by the perpetrators.Hiroshima was “necessary” to end the war against Japan. This is not only disgusting, it is also historically wrong, because much indicates that the bomb was above all a threat to Moscow.

The topic has kept me busy, on the one hand because as a student I had the Jesuit and philosophy professor Helmut Erlinghagen as a university teacher, who witnessed the attack on Hiroshima as a young man in the local Jesuit monastery there. He has told me in many private conversations about the apocalyptic consequences of helping the medical and nursing people through the helpless efforts of the monastery, as well as communicating his arguments and conclusions of reflection on his life theme. Second, as a journalist, I later interviewed Lieutenant Colonel Daniel McGovern, who was sent to Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a US military cameraman about a month after the blast to document the impact of the bomb on buildings and people. McGovern was a hard-nosed man, but the experiences in the atomically destroyed cities had rocked him to the core. And I’ve made a documentary about the history of Israeli nuclear weapons. The state of Israel is uniquely associated with both issues, Auschwitz and Hiroshima, and it wanted to be able to threaten a “new Hiroshima to prevent a new Auschwitz,” as historian Dr. Avner Cohen in my film.


When Daniele Ganser announced my first talk about Hiroshima and Nagasaki on his Facebook page, there were readers who critically commented on how much these events are past, that today there are more important topics, casually speaking, why I would be dealing with old stuff to make money out of it.


In fact, Hiroshima is a topic as relevant as Auschwitz. But it is treated completely differently. Only a few people would come, for example. The idea of ​​calling Auschwitz an old junk, and who would do that in public, would soon be unemployed and socially isolated.


Discussions about Hiroshima, however, take place in a completely different thought environment.


The fact that Hiroshima and Nagasaki are not treated with the same level of attention and moral intensity is, on sober observation, evidence of public failure. The failure has causes. They must be combated as urgently as persistently. For rational, pragmatic and moral reasons. Hiroshima is a topic of the future.


I want to substantiate this thesis, which sounds like provocation, but is reality management.


The atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, with their approximately 100,000 dead immediately after dropping off and another 130,000 people who died miserably by the end of 1945, it was common sense, were terrible, but necessary to end World War II. An American invasion of Japan would have cost the lives of up to 1 million US soldiers and countless Japanese soldiers and civilians because the Japanese had fought with sticks and stones to the bitter end, as the kamikaze proved. It was only the shock of the use of nuclear weapons that led the Japanese leadership to capitulate. Since then, the cruel nuclear weapons have been regarded as peace guarantors, their existence prevented a nuclear war so far.


These arguments form the Hiroshima myth. They are invariably wrong.


The academic world has long been debating whether the Japanese would have surrendered without nuclear weapons deployments and whether the nuclear weapons missions were the cause of capitulation. Like no other topic, comparable to the slavery and murder of the Native Americans, this discussion is “patriotic” in the USA. It’s about more than history, it’s about the self-image of the United States.

The US historians Gar Alperovitz and Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, who has Japanese roots and speaks Japanese, Russian and English and can read all the essential documents in the original, have made substantial contributions. Gar Alperovitz has shown that the need for nuclear bombs has been called into question, especially by US military forces.

There are a lot of quotes,who prove this:

General Dwight D. Eisenhower, later US President: “..the Japanese were ready to surrender and there was no need to throw these dreadful things on them.”

Admiral William D. Leahy, chief of staff under the two US war presidents Roosevelt and Truman:

“I believe that the use of these barbaric weapons in Hiroshima and Nagasaki has not made any significant contribution to our warfare against Japan. The Japanese were already beaten and ready to surrender because of the effective naval blockade and successful bombing of conventional weapons. “-” My feeling is that by being the first to use such a thing, we have become the ethical standard of the barbarians. ”

Norman Cousins ​​on General McArthur:

“A dark age had taken over. I have not been taught to wage war in this way, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.

“He replied that he saw no military justification for launching the atomic bomb. The war could have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as they later did anyway, that the institution of the Tenno would be maintained.

Paul Nitze Vice-Chairman of the Commission on the Evaluation of the Strategic Bomb War:

“Based on a detailed investigation of all facts and supported by the testimony of the Japanese leadership, the evaluation commission came to the conclusion that Japan would surely have surrendered before December 31, 1945 and, most likely, before November 1, 1945, even if the atomic bombs would not have been discarded, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated”.

Gar Alperovitz also stated that the atomic destruction of the two cities was directed primarily as a demonstration of power to the Soviet Union was, the future power competitor, with whom the US in Potsdam at the negotiated about the post-war order. It was not about ending the war with Japan. And the invasion of Japan would have killed 40,000 Americans, not a million, according to US military calculations. However, why should the US president have sacrificed even one soldier if the atom bombs could end the war?

Tsuyoshi Hasegawa proved that atomic bombs were not the key factor in Japan’s capitulation. The Japanese leaders, especially the military, were somewhat indifferent to the civilian dead, interested only in the operational capability of the strike forces. The bombing of Tokyo in 1945 had killed more people than in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, about 100,000 inhabitants of a city full of wooden houses. The US Air Force burned the Japanese by the hundreds of thousands, that was the daily routine of the war. The atomic bombs were not out of the ordinary for the Japanese military. They were just a new kind of mass killing. The Japanese leadership clung to the hope of mediation by the Soviet Union, which had not declared war on Japan until August 8, 1945; the Soviet Union was neutral to Japan. When US bomber crews crashed into Vladivostok after attacks on Japan, they were interned like Germans or Britons in Switzerland. Only when Soviet Union declared war on Japan and the Soviet forces in Manchuria like a hot knife through butter, only slowed down by the supply of gasoline, only when the two-front war made all hopes for a negotiated capitulation nullified, the Japanese leadership gave up.

Alperovitz and Hasegawa are now in the US under constant attack from a patriotic-revisionist Historical Guild, which tries to discredit their work and described as unscientific, much as Daniele Ganser does with his research on Gladio.

The reason is the same in both cases. It is about the moral claim of the USA, the self-insurance, not only to be the only superpower, but also the only good superpower. No Machiavellian empire that dominates world politics with lies and deceit, with coups and political murders. World War II is called “The Good War” in the US, it was the war against evil. The conclusion of the war was the use of nuclear weapons, a story from a Hollywood script, the “extraordinary” (exceptional) nation had at the last minute the super-weapon available, it saves the heroes, the super-weapon ends the war, and serves for all Future as foundation and guarantor of supremacy. The real story of the atomic bomb but looks different from the Hiroshima myth, darker. The atomic bomb was designed with the help of emigrated scientists, the one fear worldwide Nazi rule. What if Hitler would build the bomb first? This threat even led Albert Einstein to speak out for an American nuclear bomb program – which he later regretted. When the Manhattan Project began, it was not clear whether it would become the most expensive scientific failure of all time, or in the end a new superweapon. It was the most gigantic secret weapons program that existed until then. 150,000 employees and the sum of about 2 billion US dollars sounding in the 1940s after Fantastillionen were used. And when the bomb is finally finished, the program is a success, the war against Germany won. At the end of the bomb there is – almost – not enough war left to try it out. Of course you wanted to try them after this mammoth effort. The ultimate power tool, the superweapon that will change everything, should also explode. About Menschen.Genauer said, two bombs are supposed to explode. Because there is a uranium bomb falling on Hiroshima and a plutonium bomb that will destroy Nagasaki. They are based on two different design principles. While relying on the primitive gun principle of the Hiroshima bomb, scientists are not so sure of the Nagasaki Bomb’s complex implosion principle. This bomb type is tested in the desert of New Mexico in July 1945. Successful. The message is leaked to President Truman in Potsdam, where he informs Stalin that the US has a super-weapon. Truman is astonished to find that Stalin reacts with equanimity. What Truman does not know: Stalin is informed by his intelligence services about the nuclear project of the US.Now it’s about which target the bomb is to be dropped. Japan has been largely razed, but a few cities have spared US strategists, including Hiroshima. It was not bombed because it was not a military target, unimportant. But geography is the ideal destination for the largest field experiment in history. The city is intact, one will be able to observe the before-and-after effect very well after the atomic explosion. Some scholars argue for dropping the bomb over a naval port, or conducting a spectacular demonstration, e.g. over a forest of huge trees, which would then be mapped like mile after mile as a pattern and burn spectacularly in the center – a graphic presentation that would kill only a few civilians. But the politicians want to see the thing explode, demonstrating over a functioning city and impact. So Hiroshima is burned, with a population consisting mostly of women and children. Prof Erlinghagen estimated that 90% of the burned women and children were. The bomb was equivalent to 13,000 tons of explosives. That is not much. By today’s standards, a tactical battlefield weapon. Today’s nuclear weapons are in the megaton range, which is a difference between hand grenade and air mine. After the explosion of the atomic bomb over the city, people move as living corpses sunken over debris under which their relatives plead for help. If they shake hands, you can peel off the burnt, contaminated skin like a glove. Black, radioactive rain is falling. The devourers develop wild flesh, begging to be killed. Infants sit crying next to their dying mothers. The military chief of the atomic bomb program General Lesley Groves claims in the US: “Nuclear death is a beautiful death.” The news of an unusual bomb has just reached the Japanese government, which cares little for its attention to the Soviet Union the second bomb falls, of which she knows nothing yet. The Japanese leadership does not have time to surrender, but that’s not the point. The second bomb is dropped because you want to try both bomb types. It should fall on Kokura, but there are poor visibility conditions. That’s how Nagasaki finds it. But did not the atomic bombs somehow end the war? Are not they justified, despite all the cruelty? The argument is therefore that the end justifies the means. Is that correct? If the concentration camps had ended the war, would we discuss whether it would justify it? This, too, is an example of how we got used to strange reasons we would consider obscene in other cases. Had Stalin been the first Nuclear weapons used against the civilian population, then that would probably be cited as evidence of the incomparable brutality and inhumanity of communism. But why are we so lenient with the US In the US it is argued that the atomic bombs at the end of the war on both sides many Msaved lives of the US because they made US invasion superfluous. But neither the military strategists of the Japanese nor the Americans were interested in the lives of the other side. This is a fairy-tale lie intended to legitimize the use of weapons of mass destruction against civilians, mostly women and children. BOMB chief Curtis LeMay said, “There are no innocent civilians. It is their government and you fight a people, you do not even try to fight against armed forces. So I do not care so much that I kill so-called innocent bystanders. “When the war is over, US cameramen and doctors are sent to Hiroshima. It is creating an organization that will record the effects of radioactivity on the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission, which is medically monitoring the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and will record the suffering and deaths of people meticulously. Doctors do not treat their patients, they just watch, they collect data. The population is a herd of laboratory rats, which is scientifically examined in a gigantic field experiment. What you have to understand: Atomic bombs are not weapons. They do not serve to purposefully prevent other soldiers from killing. They are weapons of mass destruction directed at the population of a country. Governments threaten to destroy men, women, children and animals. With the total annihilation of a country and its population. With the destruction of civilization. In the US nuclear war planning of the 1960s, Moscow was to be razed to the ground with more than 160 nuclear weapons. The data for Russian warheads against New York and Washington differ only gradually. The purpose of using nuclear weapons is to destroy the population. The definition of terrorism is: threat or execution of acts of violence to achieve a political goal. That means nuclear weapons of mass destruction State terrorism. During the Second World War, the belligerent powers began to bomb cities. The beginning of the crime was the bombing of Guernica, Warsaw and London by the Nazis, but the destruction of the population was perfected in Hamburg, Dresden and Tokyo. It was scientifically tested how explosive bombs were used to create flammable material, destroy the firefighter’s water supply, and then set fires that grow into firestorms and kill as many civilians as possible. The atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a multiplication of one already for everyday use torn crime. Today, these crimes are being planned inconceivably. It is curious that nuclear weapons have a different status to chemistry and biological weapons. Chemical weapons and biological weapons were ostracized soon after the First World War. They are considered brutal and barbaric. Meanwhile, chemical weapons are even prohibited. The alleged use of “barbaric” chemical weapons now serves as an occasion for military strikes by powers that are outraged when dozens of people die but whose planners expect nuclear weapons to be mega-dead. Nuclear weapons are even more cruel and barbaric than chemical weapons. If you do not believe it, you should listen to the descriptions from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Nuclear weapons also harm future generations as well as the living space. They are despicable, but not outlawed. Anyone preparing their mission is despicable. If we take it exactly, we would have to arrest and detain the foreign ministers of the nuclear powers at the airport because of state terrorism. But because atomic weapons of mass destruction are the power base of the world’s most important states, their image is carefully cultivated. In the case of chemical weapons, the audience is often shown the effect in the form of twitching, dying children with foam over their mouths. We know nuclear weapons as shapely metal objects, cleanly painted and neatly tidied up. From time to time we also get to see a scary beautiful golden explosion mushroom. But never the effect of the bomb. We plebeians should not be fooled by this disinformation. We should be aware that governments are ready to sacrifice their entire population for power. Nazi Germany and Japan are examples of this. All superpowers calculate the extermination of their population. It is in the power of governments to plan wars, but not our interest in being ruled to be released for destruction. When the machinery starts, it can not be stopped. Our goal must therefore be the abolition of nuclear weapons before they can be used. But that will not be the goal of governments. The ruled will have to impose this goal on governments. If we let things go, what has happened so far happens. Atomic weapons of mass destruction are beautifully talked about as immutable, as a necessary evil stationed, although they have already brought us several times to the brink of disaster. The last boss of the now abolished strategic US bomber command, Four Stars General George Lee Butler said after his retirement, ” We survived the Cold War without a nuclear holocaust through a combination of skill, luck, and divine intervention, with divine intervention arguably the most important. “He is now committed to the elimination of all nuclear weapons. And what about Hiroshima and Auschwitz? The argument of Prof. Erlinghagen reads: “There were two crimes against humanity during World War II. The industrial genocide of the Jews and the first use of nuclear weapons of mass destruction against the civilian population. Auspicious is recognized evil. Even the neo-Nazis do not say that Auschwitz was somehow good and right, they deny it. Everyone knows. The atomic weapons of mass destruction, however, are not recognized as evil. They are not outlawed. Even if the dimension of Auschwitz was greater, what threatens us more in the present and in the future, what has the bigger dimension now? We should by no means forget Auschwitz, but would it not be right and important that we deal with the atomic threat much more mentally and in discussions? ”

Translate by alfonso


China’s elite troops head to Russia for massive Vostok 2018 war games as trade tariff conflict grows with US

PLA troops will put their combat-readiness to the test in Moscow’s biggest military exercises since the Soviet era

The Chinese military will send about 3,200 troops to take part in Russia’s biggest war games in more than 35 years, putting their combat-readiness to the test after a massive overhaul of the People’s Liberation Army. The troops, equipped with an array of weaponry including 30 fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters, will participate in the Vostok 2018 exercises in the Tsugol training range in Russia’s Far East Trans-Baikal region later this month, China’s defense ministry said. The ministry said the involvement was meant strengthen cooperation between the two armed forces and improve their ability to deal jointly with security threats. Military personnel from Mongolia were also invited to take part, Russian news agency Sputnik said. Hong Kong-based military expert Song Zhongping said the Chinese troops were elite forces from the Northern Theatre Command and would be exposed to a range of conditions.

“The Vostok 2018 training will expand from … areas such as counterterrorism, anti-piracy and disaster relief missions, to more real combat training and counter-attack drills,” Song said.

China to send strategic bombers, fighter jets for war games in Russia

It is unclear how many Russian forces will be involved in the exercises, but Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said this week that the war games would be the biggest drills since 1981 when up to 150,000 Soviet Army troops were mobilised for exercises.

Beijing-based military observer Zhou Chenming said the PLA was keen for more exchanges with Russia’s experienced armed forces because Chinese troops had not been in combat since the country’s last war with Vietnam in the late 1970s.

“China also wants to show its support for Russian President Vladimir Putin, who is facing various diplomatic challenges, especially criticism from the US Secretary of State [Mike Pompeo] over Moscow’s annexation of Crimea,” Zhou said.

He said the site chosen for the war games was deliberate.

“Putin wants to use the Russian military’s war games with the PLA to show its military muscle, but he doesn’t want to irritate the United States too much and raise the possibility of a misjudgment by the Trump administration, so he chose the less sensitive Trans-Baikal region in the Far East, far from US allies in Europe,” Zhou said.

Chinese military set for capability boost with delivery of Russian Su-35 fighter jets

The Chinese defense ministry said the PLA’s participation in Vostok 2018 was not aimed at a third party.

However, Song said that the war games “will definitely put pressure on the US”, which is stepping up its trade war against China.

“But it doesn’t mean China and Russia have a military alliance. Beijing will still stick to its rule of being a non-aligned country,” Song said.

“The war games just indicate that both Beijing and Moscow feel the need to improve military relations to cope with foreign provocations in the current critical moment.”

However, Macau-based military analyst Antony Wong Dong said the Vostock 2018 exercises were a “legacy of a cold war mentality” and the PLA’s participation might stir up more hostility between Beijing and Washington.

by alfonso



The Absolute Futility of ‘Global Dominance’ in the 21st Century

It seems certain that the foolish chest-pounders now in charge of our nation have found a time machine to transport them back to 19th century where they have decided to mimic the slogan of faded English imperialism that “the sun never sets on the British Empire.” How else to explain their recent proclamations that the United States must have “global energy dominance” and “American dominance in space”? Calling for global dominance in the 21st century, with 7 billion humans on the planet and only 325 million Americans — about 4 percent — is not only inane, it’s dangerous and absolutely futile.

Leading the pack on the call for “global energy dominance” is none other than former Montanan Ryan Zinke, now secretary of the Interior in the Trump administration. Of course Zinke has yet to explain why we should drill, frack, mine and export every possible source of fossil fuel in our nation. Nor has he detailed any benefits that will accrue to the populace from such a policy.

What we do know is that Trump and Zinke are willing to destroy existing national monuments, wildlife refuges, seashores and endangered species to achieve their bizarre fantasy of global energy dominance.

One might well wonder why any nation would want to exhaust its own reserves of fossil fuels as quickly as possible knowing they are non-renewable. One might also wonder why selling off those resources to our global economic competitors makes any sense whatsoever. And finally, one might question why a man who rode his “America First” slogan to the White House wouldn’t take care of America first — instead of leaving us with the inevitable land, water and air pollution as well as the associated illnesses and deaths from massive fossil fuel energy production.

Of course the Republican elephants loudly proclaiming the need for this disastrous energy policy never bother to mention the real elephant in the room — global warming. Forward-thinking nations are increasingly turning toward renewable energy sources such as sun, wind and tides. But we are sliding backward in an enormous cloud of carbon dioxide, dooming not only our nation, but the entire globe to an uninhabitable world of extreme temperatures and drought that are already producing record wildfires, storms, floods and rising sea levels.

Upping the ante beyond destruction of Earth’s land, seas and atmosphere by fossil fuels is Trump’s newly announced “Space Force,” which is rooted in the concept that the entire planet and its surrounding space is one giant battlefield. But just for a moment, consider what it means to militarize space.

The idea that one nation can or should control space is on its face farcical. It’s too late for that, although it seems Trump and his “best people” are strangers to that truth. The reality, however, is that our orbital space is already filled with junk. Thousands of satellites from national and private sources are already sharing space with chunks and pieces of delivery rockets, defunct satellites and debris.

Perhaps someone should let our “very stable genius” of a president know that the Chinese have already successfully destroyed one of their own defunct satellites with a missile — and have upgraded their capabilities since then. Or explain how a crashing satellite containing plutonium could devastate our nation for generations.

On the other hand, it might be easier to take Trump up on his plan and make him the first commander-in-chief to be launched into space — permanently. It would be even better if Zinke went, too, and became the first secretary of the Exterior.

More articles by:

George Ochenski is a columnist for the Missoulian, where this essay originally appeared.


Why China will hit back at Donald Trump in trade row, but not too hard

Government sources say the country’s leaders want to contain the fallout from the tariffs tit-for-tat to ensure the process of reform and opening up continues

President Xi Jinping has told Chinese officials that the country must pick its battles carefully amid the increasing trade tensions to ensure that nothing derails the country’s process of reform and opening up, government sources have said.

Xi has repeatedly reminded aides that while Donald Trump’s provocations mean Beijing must retaliate, they must try to contain the damage to prevent the stand-off from compromising its chosen path, a government source told the South China Morning Post.

“The message from the top is that ‘nothing can stop China from opening up’,” the official, who was briefed on the president’s instructions, said.“It is particularly important for 2018 when China is celebrating the 40th anniversary of its ‘reform and opening up’ policy.” Although Beijing was frustrated by Washington’s rejection of its offer to buy more US goods as a way of easing tensions last month, its response has been measured so far. In the three weeks since Trump indicated he would push ahead with his plan to impose tariffs, Xi has met multinational executives to tell them that China’s doors will only open wider in future and the government said it would increase the number of sectors that foreign businesses can invest in.

US ‘so scared’ of China’s progress? Party mouthpiece doesn’t think so

Beijing has also tried to manage the news to avoid provoking American ire. State media has been told to keep quiet about Made in China 2025 – a state-backed plan to promote the hi-tech sector which Trump’s administration has frequently criticised – and the customs agency released figures that showed Chinese exports to America weakening ahead of schedule. Despite speculation that China would pre-empt the US 25 per cent tariffs – due to come into force on US$34 billion worth of products Friday – by announcing a similar set of countermeasures first, the Ministry of Finance insisted on Wednesday that China wouldn’t “fire the first shot”. These olive branches are part of a broad strategy decided by the top leadership that the trade row with the US, which could alter the trajectory of China’s economic development, must not be allowed to distract it from the policy of reform and opening up. In 1978 the former paramount leader Deng Xiaoping decided to embrace market reforms and integrate China into the global capitalist economy, unleashing a nearly uninterrupted four-decade boom that transformed China from an economic backwater to the world’s second biggest economy. It is a legacy that Xi is trying to continue and he has highlighted the significance of the anniversary on a number of occasions this year.

Although Beijing has introduced tit-for-tat tariffs on some US products, ranging from cars to soybeans, it has refrained from releasing specific and qualitative countermeasures. Instead, it has tried to emphasis its free trade stance. At a press conference on Thursday, Ministry of Commerce spokesman Gao Feng, when asked about whether Beijing would target US firms in China, replied that the government would protect the “legitimate interests of all foreign businesses in China” and help firms relieve the possible impact from any trade war.

Will Chinese President Xi Jinping promote boycotts of US brands like Coca-Cola and McDonald’s?

Trump has threatened punitive tariffs of up to US$450 billion worth of Chinese products, which could prove a major drag on the country’s exports and growth. This threat has fanned speculation as to whether Beijing would shelve its drive to curb risky lending – one of Xi’s flagship policies – and embrace fiscal stimulus and monetary easing instead. The decision by the People’s Bank of China to unleash US$100 billion funds into the banking system, effective from Thursday, has only served to amplify such speculation. But Vice-Premier Liu He, Xi’s right-hand man, this week made it clear that any easing would be tactical and the policy of curbing debt would continue. He told the first meeting of the Financial Stability and Development Committee, that China had “favourable conditions to win big risk control battles and cope with external risks” and its debt reduction efforts would continue “as planned”. It would not be in Xi’s interests to rush into a full-blown trade war with the US as it could cause unwanted disruption to its economy and the president’s “Chinese dream” of transforming society and increasing prosperity, according to Henry Chan Hing Lee, an adjunct researcher with the East Asian Institute at the National University of Singapore. “There is no doubt that China must chart its own path of development when it is moving towards the goal of the Chinese dream and challenging the US on global leadership,” said Chan. The “collision between America First and the Chinese dream will take years if not decades to resolve”, he warned.

Time for a reality check for China’s wishful US trade war thinkers, Chinese professor warns

Although it is relatively easy for China to open its domestic markets further or promise to import more, analysts say it will be harder to move away from its state-led growth model and claw back the government’s omnipresence in the economy. The US increasingly views Chinese state-owned enterprises with suspicion. Earlier this week a US government agency recommended that the state-owned operator China Mobile should be barred from the US market as national security threat. But Xi views these companies as the backbone of the economy and the foundation of China’s future economic might, Ding Shuang, chief Greater China economist of Standard Chartered Bank, said. The Communist Party’s fondness for state-owned enterprises is “unlikely to change under Xi although it’s possible Beijing will introduce more market competition,” Ding said.

Additional reporting by Zhou Xin

This article appeared in the South China Morning Post print edition as: China will hit back at Trump tariffs … but not too hardChina will hit back at Trump, but not enough to disrupt reform process

China’s President Xi Jinping to US Defense Secretary James Mattis:

China’s President Xi Jinping to US Defense Secretary James Mattis: “We are not colonialists and cause no chaos” Chinese President Xi Jinping received US Defense Secretary James Mattis in Beijing on Wednesday. We will not go the way of expansionism and colonialism and cause no chaos in the world, “Xi assured the US minister. The vast Pacific may house China, the United States and other countries. China and the United States should promote the development of bilateral relations according to the principle of mutual respect and win-win cooperation. Xi Jinping said at the meeting that the Chinese people want to build a large, modern socialist country. The People’s Republic will undeterred tread the path of peaceful development. The good development of China-US relations serves both peoples and the peoples of other countries as well as peace, stability and prosperity in the world and in the region. Both countries have common interests in many areas. There is more common ground on both sides than there are differences of opinion. Both sides should promote bilateral relations according to the principle of mutual respect and the cooperative win-win situation. Regarding the question of Chinese sovereignty and territorial integrity, China’s position was resolute and clear: any land left by the ancestors should not be abandoned. We will not go the way of expansionism and colonialism and cause no chaos in the world, “Xi assured the US minister. “The vast Pacific can host China, the United States and other countries. China and the United States should promote the development of bilateral relations according to the principle of mutual respect and win-win cooperation. ” Xi also said that the relationship between the two armies was an important part of the bilateral relations between the two countries. Both sides should strengthen contacts at all levels and build mechanisms. In addition, both sides should strengthen mutual trust, deepen cooperation and promote relations between the two armies, China’s president continued. Mattis said the US attached great importance to relations between both armies and both countries. Washington wants to strengthen strategic exchanges with Beijing, increase mutually beneficial cooperation and avoid conflict and confrontation.

transl. from. german to english by alfonso