This video from the USA says about itself:
12 October 2016
This video by Alexandra E. from the USA says about itself:
25 February 2016
Apologies, I haven’t been posting but I will this weekend. Please don’t vote for this woman. It would be as if you’re voting for a crony, neo-con, with a war-hawk agenda. It is historically proven, Clinton will not only further destroy the Middle East but she will have the entire military industry at her bidding. Vote Bernie.
This video is from before the latest Clinton email leak.
By Bill Van Auken in the USA:
12 October 2016
An email exchange between Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and her campaign manager John Podesta, posted Monday by WikiLeaks, frankly acknowledges that the Islamic State (also known as ISIS) is funded and supported by Washington’s chief allies in the Arab world.
The September 2014 exchange was contained in one of the 2,086 documents posted by WikiLeaks Monday, following up on the release a week ago of over 2,000 more of Podesta’s emails and attachments.
At the time of the exchange on ISIS, Podesta was a White House counselor to President Barack Obama. One of the most powerful figures in the Democratic Party establishment, he is the former White House chief of staff to Bill Clinton, the former chairman of the Obama transition and a corporate lobbyist for corporations like WalMart, BP and Lockheed Martin. For her part, Clinton had left her post as secretary of state over a year earlier.
The document calls for increased reliance upon the Iraqi Kurdish Peshmerga as a key proxy force for combating ISIS in Iraq, pointing to the Kurdish militia’s “long standing relationships with CIA officers and Special Forces operators.”
It adds: “While this military/para-military operation is moving forward, we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL [ISIS] and other radical Sunni groups in the region.”
The email continues: “This effort will be enhanced by the stepped up commitment in the [Kurdish Regional Government]. The Qataris and Saudis will be put in a position of balancing policy between their ongoing competition to dominate the Sunni world and the consequences of serious US pressure.”
The Obama administration has publicly embraced Saudi Arabia as its closest Arab ally and the ostensible leader of an “Islamic alliance” against terrorism. The Saudi regime is the patron of the High Negotiations Committee (HNC), which purportedly represents the so-called “moderate” opposition that is also supported by Washington in the more than five-year-old war for regime change against the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad.
This pretense was blown in October 2014, barely a week after the Podesta-Clinton email, when Vice President Joe Biden told an audience at Harvard University that the Saudi regime, along with other Gulf sheikdoms and Turkey, had “poured hundreds of millions of dollars and tens, thousands of tons of weapons into anyone who would fight against Assad. Except that the people who were being supplied were al-Nusra and Al Qaeda and the extremist elements of jihadis coming from other parts of the world.”
“We could not convince our colleagues to stop supplying them,” Biden added.
The US State Department subsequently “clarified” the vice president’s remarks and Biden himself apologized for “any implication that Turkey or other Allies and partners in the region had intentionally supplied or facilitated the growth of ISIL [ISIS] or other violent extremists in Syria.”
The contents of the Clinton-Podesta email are supplemented by a separate email released by WikiLeaks that includes an excerpt from a secret speech delivered by Clinton in 2013 that was flagged as problematic by her staff. In it she claimed that US attempts to “vet, identify, train and arm cadres of rebels” in Syria had been “complicated by the fact that the Saudis and others are shipping large amounts of weapons–and pretty indiscriminately–not at all targeted toward the people that we think would be the more moderate, least likely, to cause problems in the future.”
And previously, WikiLeaks posted a secret State Department memo signed by Clinton in 2009 that affirmed: “Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qa’ida, the Taliban, LeT, and other terrorist groups.”
The Clinton camp has responded to the latest release of emails by ratcheting up its virulently anti-Russian campaign, claiming that WikiLeaks was acting as a pawn of the Kremlin and that the material released may have been altered to serve Moscow’s foreign policy purposes.
In her debate Sunday with her Republican rival Donald Trump, however, Clinton herself acknowledged the authenticity of the documents, attempting to defend a statement quoted in one of them from a speech to real estate investors in which she declared that in politics “you need both a public and private position.” She claimed that her inspiration for this approach was Abraham Lincoln.
The method of the “public and private” position is clearly in force in relation to Saudi Arabia, and for good reason.
Saudi Arabia remains a key pillar of political reaction and imperialist domination in the Middle East, with its ruling monarchy constituting the world’s chief customer of the American arms industry. Some $115 billion in US weapons and military support have poured into the kingdom since Obama took office in 2009.
More importantly, the Saudi government support for Al Qaeda, ISIS and similar Islamist militias has developed in close collaboration with the CIA, which coordinated the flow of arms, money and foreign fighters into Syria from a station in southern Turkey.
Moreover, such collaboration began long before the Syrian civil war, dating back to the US-orchestrated war against the Soviet-backed regime in Afghanistan in the 1980s, where Al Qaeda got its start under the leadership of Osama bin Laden, who collaborated closely with the CIA and Pakistani intelligence.
The determination of the US ruling establishment to maintain a veil of secrecy over this collaboration was underscored by Obama’s veto–subsequently overridden–of legislation allowing Americans to sue foreign governments alleged to be responsible for terrorist attacks in the US. The clear target of the bill was Saudi Arabia, based on ample evidence of Saudi government involvement in the September 11, 2001 attacks that claimed nearly 3,000 lives.
The overriding fear within the administration and US ruling circles is that any serious probing of the Saudi role in these attacks would uncover the complicity of elements within the US intelligence agencies themselves in the events of 9/11.
Another significant element of the Clinton-Podesta email is its welcoming of the ISIS 2014 offensive in Iraq. It states that “the advance of ISIL [ISIS] through Iraq gives the U.S. Government an opportunity to change the way it deals with the chaotic security situation in North Africa and the Middle East. The most important factor in this matter is to make use of intelligence resources and Special Operations troops in an aggressive manner.”
In other words, ISIS provided a pretext for launching a renewed US military intervention aimed at furthering the strategic goal of American hegemony in the Middle East under the guise of a struggle against terrorism.
The email exchange further exposes Hillary Clinton’s deep involvement in all of these crimes.
Britain and France prepare military escalation in Syria: here.
10/11/2016 04:01 am ET | Updated 28 minutes ago
WASHINGTON ― The U.S. is in a shooting war in Yemen, where the American military has spent years vaporizing suspected terrorists in airstrikes and a Saudi-led coalition is busily slaughtering civilians with American refueling and intelligence support.
You wouldn’t know it from watching the second presidential debate Sunday night. Even after one of the deadliest attacks of the Saudi campaign — a series of airstrikes on a funeral in Sanaa, Yemen’s ancient capital, that killed more than 140 people Saturday — neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton was asked about whether the U.S. should keep aiding an ally that appears to be actively targeting civilians.
Since debate moderators won’t ask the presidential candidates about Yemen, we did. But neither campaign answered, and their public statements alone make it impossible to tell whether they would continue President Barack Obama’s policy of supporting the Saudi-led coalition’s war against the Houthi rebel group that now controls much of the western part of the country, including the capital.
“Shouldn’t this be something we’re discussing as a country?” asked Adam Baron, a visiting fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, who lived in Yemen from 2011 to 2014. “Shouldn’t the American people be aware of the fact that the U.S. is a major part of a war in Yemen?”
Because the U.S. isn’t directly involved in the Saudi-led fight, there are no U.S. troops on the ground and both sides have committed human rights abuses, Yemen barely registers in the political consciousness of American voters. It’s hard to quantify exactly how little the electorate cares about Yemen because pollsters don’t even ask about it.
That helps explain why Clinton and Trump have been able to campaign for over a year without ever being made to outline a plan forward in the country.
It’s hard to say what Trump would do in Yemen. There’s no precedent to refer to, and the one time he talked about Yemen at length was back in January. See if you can make sense of what he said:
“Now they’re going into Yemen, and if you look at Yemen, take a look … they’re going to get Syria, they’re going to get Yemen, unless … trust me, a lot of good things are going to happen if I get in, but let’s just sort of leave it the way it is. They get Syria, they get Yemen. Now they didn’t want Yemen, but you ever see the border between Yemen and Saudi Arabia? They want Saudi Arabia. So what are they going to have? They’re gonna have Iraq, they’re gonna have Iran, they’re gonna have Iraq, they’re gonna have Yemen, they’re gonna have Syria, they’re gonna have everything!”
If Trump were to become president, he’d likely be off to a rocky start with the kingdom. A former Saudi intelligence chief broke a cardinal rule of diplomacy with foreign allies earlier this year and criticized Trump’s proposed Muslim ban at a dinner event. “I just hope you, as American citizens, will make the right choice in November,” Prince Turki al Faisal said at the time.
It’s possible Trump would try to rebuild relations with officials in Saudi Arabia, where he appears to be pursuing a hotel development project. At the same time, his past comments about ditching NATO allies who don’t pay enough for U.S. protection suggest he could also be quick to cut off the Saudis.
Clinton hasn’t offered a plan, either. But her record offers some clues about how she might act. She made a historic trip to Yemen as secretary of state in 2011, when she pledged a “balanced approach” to the country ― meaning social and economic support [to the dictatorial government then ruling Yemen] as well as counterterrorism cooperation. …
There’s no evidence Clinton would do anything to limit U.S. involvement in Yemen.
“My guess is she’d pick up where the administration left off,” said Brian Katulis, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a think tank closely aligned with Clinton.
The Obama administration plans to “review” its support to the Saudis, a spokesman said after Saturday’s attack. But there doesn’t yet appear to be any consensus about what that review will entail ― or any guarantee that it will take place before Obama leaves office in January. And Obama’s decision against using military force in Syria in 2013, his push for the Iran nuclear agreement, and some undiplomatic comments he made about Saudi Arabia in an interview with The Atlantic have already cost him some leverage with the Saudis, Katulis argued.
“The Saudis have felt that they’ve gotten a particularly cold shoulder [from Obama],” said Jon B. Alterman, a senior vice president at the Center for Strategic & International Studies. “In many ways, the Saudis have responded by giving the cold shoulder.”
Saudi Arabia and its coalition allies have been major donors to the Clinton Foundation. As secretary of state, Clinton was closely involved in securing a $29 billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia. Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta co-founded a public relations firm in 1988 with his brother Tony that now counts Saudi Arabia as a client. John no longer works with the firm, but Tony, who heads it, is a major contributor to the Clinton campaign. Tony works personally on the $140,000-per-month Saudi contract, The Washington Post reported earlier this year.
Clinton would be better than Obama at managing the personal part of the relationship with the Saudis, Alterman said. “It’s about having the Saudis feel that they’re going to trust you and take your advice over their better judgment,” he said. “And I think we’re at a point in the Obama-[King] Salman relationship where that’s simply not happening.”
A new administration can result in a brief “honeymoon period,” Katulis said. …
But there’s no guarantee that improved relations between the two countries would translate into Riyadh exercising more caution in Yemen. And if heavy civilian casualties resulting from the Saudi-led coalition’s airstrikes continue, it’s hard to imagine Clinton would be willing to cut off U.S. support.
“If anything, I would see her being more cautious about breaking with the Saudis,” Baron said.
In the meantime, the U.S. role in the conflict in Yemen will continue to escalate. After the debate ended Sunday evening, someone in a Houthi-controlled part of the country fired two missiles into the Red Sea. They missed. But their target was a U.S. Navy destroyer.
UK and US complicit in Saudi Arabian war crimes: here.
The conflict in Yemen is escalating following the criminal strikes by Saudi war planes on Saturday on a packed funeral hall that killed at least 140 civilians and wounded more than 500. The attack has provoked widespread outrage in the capital of Sanaa, not only against Saudi Arabia and its Gulf State allies that have intervened aggressively in the country’s civil war, but also against its backers—the United States, Britain and France: here.
This video says about itself:
Angry anti-Saudi protest in Sanaa after funeral carnage
9 October 2016
New Documents Show US Knew Helping Saudis in Yemen Could Be War Crime. Officials doubted Saudi military could target Houthi militants without hurting civilians or destroying infrastructure, Reuters reports, by Nadia Prupis: here.
US Reviewing Support for Saudis After Brutal Massacre, But Will Arms Sales Stop? The US has resisted previous attempts to hold its ally—or itself—accountable for the civilian slaughter in Yemen, by Deirdre Fulton: here.
This video says about itself:
Yemen: Thousands decry deadly Saudi-led airstrike on funeral in Sanaa
9 October 2016
Thousands gathered in the Yemeni capital of Sanaa on Sunday, to protest the Saudi-led airstrikes that killed and injured hundreds of civilians in the southern part of the city on Saturday.
By Bill Van Auken in the USA:
Thousands protest Saudi bombing that killed and wounded over 700 in Yemen
10 October 2016
Tens of thousands of Yemenis … took to the streets of Sanaa, the country’s war torn capital, Sunday to protest the savage bombing of a packed funeral hall the day before by Saudi warplanes. The airstrike left over 700 civilians dead or wounded, representing the worst in a long series of war crimes carried out with the backing of the US, Britain and France.
The demonstrators converged on the United Nations building in Sanaa in an angry denunciation of the world powers for either their direct complicity in the slaughter of the Yemeni people, or their marked indifference to their deepening plight over the course of more than a year and a half of Saudi-led bombardments. …
Fragments of the bombs dropped on the funeral home bore markings identifying them as US-supplied munitions, part of Washington’s multi-billion-dollar arms sales to the Saudi monarchy.
Reports from the scene exposed the horrific character of the attack. The Associated Press quoted a rescue worker as describing the shattered remnants of the funeral hall as a “lake of blood.” Body parts, strewn into the streets and even neighboring homes, were collected in sacks.
According to local health officials, the death toll in the airstrike has risen to at least 155, with another 525 wounded. Many of the wounded suffered grievous injuries, some with limbs torn off. The number of fatalities was certain to mount with the pulling of more bodies from the rubble and the deaths of those whom Yemen’s vastly over-stressed and under-supplied hospitals prove unable to save. The country’s Health Ministry also reported that efforts were still being made to identify “charred remains.”
Video released Sunday of the bombing raid made clear that it was the kind of “double tap” strike that the Saudis have employed repeatedly against civilian targets. After first bombing a target, the warplanes wait a short period to allow other civilians and emergency service personnel to arrive on the scene and then attack it again to wipe out both survivors and those seeking to rescue them. The same vicious tactic has been employed by the US military in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere.
Saudi government spokesmen initially denied that the attack on the funeral hall was the work of the Saudi-led coalition, which alone has warplanes flying over Yemen. It suggested that the explosions might have had other causes and even intimated that it could have been the result of a falling out between the Houthi rebels who took control of Sanaa in 2014 and military forces loyal to ex-president Ali Abdullah Saleh, with whom they are allied.
Saleh was forced out of office by the revolutionary upheavals that rocked Yemen in 2011, to be replaced by his vice president Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi, who was brought to power in a one-candidate election in 2012, which was boycotted by the Houthis. He in turn was forced to resign and then fled the country after the Houthis seized the capital. He has since resided in Saudi Arabia, functioning as a puppet of the House of Saud.
Later, Saudi officials issued a statement offering “deepest condolences and support to the families of the victims,” claiming that Saudi forces do not target civilians and stating that the incident would be investigated.
While Saturday’s bombing was the worst atrocity carried out by the Saudis in Yemen, it is by no means unique. Last March, an airstrike on a market in Yemen’s northwestern city of Mastaba killed at least 119 people. The deadliest previous attack was September 2015, when Saudi warplanes attacked a wedding party near the Red Sea port city of Mokha, killing 131 civilians. In July 2015, the bombing of a power plant, also in Mokha, killed at least 120 people.
According to the United Nations the number killed since the Saudis launched the war in 2015 has risen to 10,000. Airstrikes by the Saudis and their allies are estimated to have caused two-thirds of the civilian fatalities. Hospitals have been routinely targeted, with Doctors Without Borders (MSF) being forced to abandon the country after four of its facilities were hit. The aid agency stressed that it had given the Saudi military the GPS coordinates of its hospitals. Schools, mosques, refugee camps and residential neighborhoods have also been systematically targeted.
The war pits the Saudi monarchy and allied Gulf oil sheikdoms against the poorest country of the Arab world, which has seen its basic infrastructure reduced to rubble, while its population suffers from mass hunger and disease. An estimated three million people have been displaced by the war, while fully half of the population of 14 million is suffering from hunger. Cholera has begun to claim victims under conditions in which hospitals have been starved of basic supplies by a Saudi blockade enforced under the pretext of halting arms shipments into the country.
Washington’s reaction to Saturday’s war crime in Sanaa came from National Security Council spokesman Ned Price, who warned that US aid in the Saudi war in Yemen “is not a blank check.”
It certainly is not; the figures on the check are well known. Since 2009, the Obama administration has showered $115 billion worth of arms deals and military support upon the Saudi regime. Last year alone saw $20 billion worth of weaponry sent to the country. Washington has continuously resupplied the Saudi military with bombs and missiles to replace those dropped on Yemen.
“Even as we assist Saudi Arabia regarding the defense of their territorial integrity, we have and will continue to express our serious concerns about the conflict in Yemen and how it is being waged,” the US spokesman added.
This hypocritical statement is meant to cover up the direct US complicity in the criminal war against the Yemeni people. Without US intelligence and logistical support, not to mention arms sales, Saudi Arabia would be incapable of sustaining its bombing campaign. The Pentagon has fed its forces targeting information, deploying US personnel to a joint command center directing the air war. US military planes have provided aerial refueling for Saudi jets, while the US Navy has helped enforce a blockade that is aimed at starving the population into submission.
Britain has supplied similar support, while also seeking to secure a sizable share of the Saudi arms market.
The muted comments from a junior White House aide over the atrocity in Sanaa stood in stark contrast to the inflammatory rhetoric of US Secretary of State John Kerry late last week describing Russian airstrikes against US-backed and Al Qaeda-linked militias in Syria as “war crimes” meriting an international investigation. Needless to say, Washington would employ all of its power to block any such investigation into the deliberate massacre of civilians in Yemen.
Equally noticeable is the scant attention paid by the US corporate media to the atrocities carried out in Yemen and the vast suffering that has been inflicted upon its people. Feigned moral outrage and humanitarian sympathy is forthcoming from these outlets only when it serves the war propaganda needs of US imperialism.
BAE in arms talks with Saudi Arabia despite kingdom’s alleged war crimes in Yemen. British-based weapons maker hopes to seal multi-billion pound fighter jet deal – MPs say there is ‘great weight of evidence’ that UK-made weapons have been used to violate humanitarian law: here.
This video says about itself:
8 October 2016
This video from Britain says about itself:
16 December 2015
That’s the question posed by a group of a lawyers who’ve produced a report for Amnesty International.
The Foreign Office insists that the UK has one of the “most rigorous and transparent arms control regimes in the world.”
By Conrad Landin in Liverpool, England:
SOCIALISM of THE 21ST CENTURY IN OUR REACH
Thursday 29th September 2016
Corbyn praised for ‘best speech ever’ as he vows Labour will be for the many
His policy-heavy offering also included “in-sourcing” council services and beefed-up rights for self-employed workers. He said Labour’s burgeoning membership should not be seen as a “threat” but as a “vast democratic resource” to put Labour on the path to victory.
“Winning justice for all and changing society for the benefit of all is at the heart of what Labour is about,” he said.
“So yes, our party is about campaigning and it’s about protest too. But most of all it’s about winning power in local and national government, to deliver the real change our country so desperately needs.”
He attacked Theresa May for presiding over “David Cameron’s government repackaged with progressive slogans but with a new harsh right-wing edge,” saying: “They are the party of the privileged few, funded by the privileged few, for the benefit of the privileged few.
“The old model is broken. We’re in a new era that demands a politics and economics that meets the needs of our own time.”
Pundits and commentators said Mr Corbyn’s messaging and delivery had improved since his election as leader last year.
The speech built on 10 policy pledges approved at the conference, guaranteeing strong public services, public ownership, cutting income inequality, better workers’ rights and “peace and justice at the heart of foreign policy.”
He said arms sales would be “suspended” when there are “credible reports of human rights abuses or war crimes being committed.” He put Saudi Arabia first on the list for its humanitarian violations in Yemen. Mr Corbyn noted how Britain had been unique in seeing a rise in left-wing movement politics in an established political party rather than in a new force like in Spain or Greece.
But he said Labour still had work to do in taking its message to the wider population — and could only do so by rejecting “trench warfare” and putting out a united message.
“Our job is now to win over the unconvinced to our vision. Only that way can we secure the Labour government we need,” he said.
“And let’s be frank, no-one will be convinced of a vision, promoted by a divided party.
Even serial right-wing rebel John Woodcock agreed, but then tried to use the ban on arms to Saudi Arabia to drive a wedge between Mr Corbyn and his union backers.
But Unite general secretary Mr McCluskey welcomed Mr Corbyn’s speech.
“What we heard from Jeremy today is a leader determined to rebuild trust and nourish hope,” he said.
“We can leave this conference today confident that the policies needed to deliver a real alternative are taking shape.”
GMB leader Tim Roache, whose union backed Owen Smith in the leadership election, said: “Jeremy’s speech today is what Labour is about — a positive vision for the country that addresses the hopes, needs and concerns of real people, speaking to the millions not for millionaires.
“Now we have to get on and deliver it together, as a united party and a united movement.”
Mr Corbyn also put his pledge for a “national education service” — supporting learning throughout life — at the heart of his speech.
The National Union of Teachers also welcomed his commitment for an “arts pupil premium” to give every child “the chance to learn an instrument, take part in drama and dance and have regular access to a [library]. Public-sector union Unison leader Dave Prentis said: “Today Jeremy talked about Labour getting ready for — and winning — the next election.
“After a largely wasted year for the party, that’s what the country needed to hear.”