Obama West Point speech: He still doesn't get it

Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey - 29.05.2014

The pig-headed arrogance of US Presidents is as astonishing as their jingoistic, gung-ho lies are sickening and puerile, a pathetic attempt to pull the eyes over another generation of simpletons to graduate from West Point, a gullible collection of pawns to serve the interests of the lobbies which dictate US policy and pull the President's strings.

And yesterday's West Point speech by President Barack Nobel Peace Prizewinner was a prime and cynical example of the perfect balance between lies, skullduggery, bullying, blackmail, belligerence and intrusion which have become benchmarks of US foreign policy and a reiteration of the same old "America leads the World" nonsense which has got Washington so hated.

The knee-jerk reaction of the international community - and I am speaking about the hearts and minds of Humankind, not the political leadership which lines up to scoff a tidbit thrown by Washington to its poodles - is the same as when any animal with any intelligence sees a human being: an instinctive rush of mistrust, and an expectation of the very worst.

The recent history of the United States of America's foreign policy is by now well-known and exposed to all, despite similar speeches at West Point, and despite attempts to cover up the truth through a manipulation of public fear in the media, through propaganda and worse, through hacking attempts against websites, threats against servers and personal death threats against journalists such as myself.

Taking a brief look through the speech of Barack Nobel Peace Prizewinner Obama at West Point yesterday, it seems that little has changed, no pun intended. The underlying message, as usual, is America leads the world.

For a start, it isn't "America", it is "The United States of America" because its policies have rendered millions of people across the continent totally ashamed to use the collective adjective, just as countless millions of US citizens have to claim they are Canadians when they travel to Europe, as if that makes any difference these days, as Ottawa vies with London for the status of poodle-in-chief.

Secondly, the Cold War rhetoric has not disappeared: "In Ukraine, Russia's recent actions recall the days when Soviet tanks rolled into Eastern Europe". Comment: Which imbecile penned that drivel for Mr. Nobel Peace Prizewinner to read? Soviet tanks rolled into Europe to push back the Fascists, including Ukraine's Fascist pig collaborator and demonic murderer of civilians and children, Bandera, after the USSR had lost 26 million souls fighting Hitler.

Second comment: Does Mr. Nobel Peace Prizewinner not entertain the notion, in his utter brilliance, that when Fascists again sweep to power in Ukraine, calling for the murder of Russians and Jews, and issue anti-Russian edicts, when Russians are murdered and tortured on the streets of Kiev, then Russian-speaking Ukrainians and Russians themselves are going to be sensitive? Did Mr. Nobel Peace Prizewinner Obama utter one single word of condemnation against the Ukrainian Fascist massacres which took place at Mariupol, at Slov'yan'sk, at Odessa?

He probably cheered?

The speech followed with the claim that American leadership had isolated Russia, a failed attempt at the justification of a failed foreign policy when by now it is patently obvious to all with two grammes of grey matter between their ears that NATO is the cutting edge of the lobbies which control Wa$hington and pull the strings of its policymakers. It is NATO, led by the FUKU$ Axis (France, UK,U$) that is isolated from the hearts and minds of humankind.

In their hearts and minds exists everything that was missing from the speech of Barack Nobel Peace Prizewinner Obama: that where Washington treads, terror ensues. Who created the Mujaheddin? Who funded bin Laden? Who helped Saddam Hussein? Who masterminded Operation Condor in Latin America? Who had close relationships with Fascist dictators? Who meddled in Central America for decades? Who broke international law and insulted the UN Charter in Iraq? Who lied? Who claimed that Gaddafi was bombing his own people, then broke UNSC Resolutions 1970 and 1973 (2011) by placing boots on the ground in Libya? Who is aiding terrorists in Syria? Who knew that the Syrian terrorists perpetrated the chemical weapons attacks to try and blame the forces of President Assad? Who has lost the war in Syria? Who tried to grab Russia's Crimea bases, then threw the toys out the pram when Moscow protected them?

That is what Ukraine is about. What the USA is about we can see perfectly clearly in Guantanamo Bay, where human rights abuses are a shining example of where the heart of the United States of America, or rather those who govern it, lies: this torture and concentration camp continues to operate, despite promises by Mr. Nobel Peace Prizewinner that he would close it, it continues to hold people in deplorable conditions without any due legal process, without even accusation in some cases. Yet when US citizens are imprisoned (without torture) abroad, he complains.

This, students of West Point, is what you will lay your lives on the line for to defend. Or will you? Actually, no. You will sit in an office somewhere far behind the lines as Columbians, Brazilians and Mexicans are sent to their deaths wearing US uniforms in exchange for the Green Card if they make it back home because hey! that way the casualties don't count and US boys don't die, but American boys do, fighting Washington's wars.

See, the Pentagon likes to hand out contracts for weaponry tested in battle situations, so for that reason we will hear speeches like this, trying to justify the unjustifiable, for decades to come.

So, if Barack Obama were honest, for once, he would admit that NATO countries are expected to spend some 2 per cent of their GDP on weaponry, while NATO spends some 1.2 trillion USD annually on systems to murder people, three times more than it would take, in one single payment, to eradicate poverty, globally, forever. So much for his claims about development.

In conclusion, this is a lightweight and inconsequential speech from a lightweight and inconsequential President who blew his chance to get Washington back into the international fold, who has underlined the division between Washington and its poodles and the hearts and minds of the people of the world who do not these days believe a word he or his country says and who feel a sullen and seething, white-knuckle and white-faced hatred at the very mention of the name "USA".

The United States of America has become a bottom-feeder and is led by a person who has reneged on his promises. Ask the victims of the drone attacks.

Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey | Pravda.Ru | 29.05.2014


Syrian "Rebels" Describe U.S.-Backed Training in Qatar

May 26, 2014 by Nancy A. Youssef   & McClatchy Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON — With reports indicating that forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar Assad are gaining ground in that country’s brutal civil war, moderate Syrian rebels have told a visiting journalist that the United States is arranging their training in Qatar.

In a documentary to be aired Tuesday night, the rebels describe their clandestine journey from the Syrian battlefield to meet with their American handlers in Turkey and then travel on to Qatar, where they say they received training in the use of sophisticated weapons and fighting techniques, including, one rebel said, “how to finish off soldiers still alive after an ambush.”

The interviews are the latest evidence that after more than three years of warfare, the United States has stepped up the provision of lethal aid to the rebels. In recent months, at least five rebel units have posted videos showing their members firing U.S.-made TOW anti-tank missiles at Syrian positions. The weapons are believed to have come from Saudi Arabia, but experts on international arms transfers have told McClatchy that they could not have been given to the rebels without the approval of the Obama administration.

The documentary, produced by FRONTLINE for airing on PBS stations, features journalist Muhammad Ali, who has been following the Syrian civil war for the program. It shows Ali meeting up with a seemingly moderate faction of the rebels, though the faction itself is not identified — apparently for fear of angering its American contacts.

Ali is shown riding with a rebel supply officer as he traveled to the Turkish border to reportedly pick up American-supplied Russian weapons and ammunition, but he is not allowed to accompany the fighters to the actual meeting. When the rebels return to pick him up, they display bullets and a mortar, which are shown in the film, and tell him they have received TOW missiles; the missiles are not shown, however.

The commander of the unit also told Ali that their American contacts had asked him to bring 80 to 90 members of his unit to Ankara for training. Once in Ankara, after a 14-hour drive from Syria, they were interrogated for days about their political leanings and their unit’s fighting history. The commander told Ali that their questioners identified themselves as belonging to “the military,” but that he believed they were from the CIA.

On the final day, they were told that they would be flown the next day to a training camp in Qatar, a monarchy in the Persian Gulf. Then they were transported to a training facility they believed was near the border with Saudi Arabia.

One of the fighters said they received three weeks of training in how to conduct ambushes, conduct raids and use their weapons. They also said they received new uniforms and boots.

“They trained us to ambush regime or enemy vehicles and cut off the road,” said the fighter, who is identified only as “Hussein.” “They also trained us on how to attack a vehicle, raid it, retrieve information or weapons and munitions, and how to finish off soldiers still alive after an ambush.”

But whether such aid from the United States helps bring the peace in the form of negotiation or extend the war by giving the rebels false hope remains unclear.

Indeed, the fighters told Ali that they cannot win without anti-aircraft missiles against Assad superior air war, which they have yet to receive.

“When I saw there was no training in anti-aircraft missiles, my morale was destroyed,” one fighter told Ali.

For the United States, its new effort means treading slowly into murky waters. In the last few months, the United States has signaled it is increasingly interested in finding an ally that can force Assad to the negotiation table and curtail the burgeoning al Qaida threat coming from extremist groups fighting Assad.

The United States has refused to confirm its growing efforts to help the fighters. Neither the Pentagon nor the CIA would comment on Frontline’s findings.
For the United States, publicly embracing such an effort presents many challenges, chief among them widespread opposition among U.S. voters for more direct U.S. involvement in the Syrian conflict. When the United States was considering a military strike on Syria last summer after a chemical weapons attack in the Damascus suburbs, polling showed overwhelming opposition to U.S. military intervention.

Moreover, many both inside and out of government fear U.S.-provided weapons could make their way into extremist hands, particularly in a place like Syria, where alliances and foes change with breakneck fluidity. Moderate rebel groups have worked closely with the al Qaida-aligned Nusra Front and the Islamic Front, one of whose factions, Ahrar al Sham, includes al-Qaeda members among its founders.

Perhaps because of those reasons, Congress has never publicly signed off on funding for a training and arming effort, and officially, the United States only provides non-lethal aid, like food rations, clothing and first aid supplies.

This article is the latest in an ongoing collaboration between McClatchy and FRONTLINE on the war in Syria. FRONTLINE’s film, Syria: Arming the Rebels airs Tues. May 27 on most PBS stations. View McClatchy’s ongoing coverage of Syria here.


Marcel Cartier - North Korea Trip Photos

Marcel Cartier: "I had the unique opportunity to spend several days in three different parts of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, more commonly just referred to as “North” Korea. This was an exceptionally life-changing experience that challenged many of the pre-conceptions that myself and fellow western visitors who accompanied me from Beijing had going in." 

To read the full article of Marcel's North Korea observations please click the link below: 

Below are Marcel's North Korea trip photos. Enjoy! 
[Thank you for allowing me to share your photos Marcel! :) ]