30 September, 2020

Blog

US Bombing In Iraq And Crisis In The Middle East

By Laksiri Fernando

Dr. Laksiri Fernando

Dr. Laksiri Fernando

The US supposed to have left Iraq three years ago. Now they are again bombing Iraq, supposedly the ISIS targets. It would be very hard for the discerning American citizens to digest the logic. Their emotions, with bitter memories, might be very high both for and against Obama’s actions. The logic in fact started in 2003 when the US invaded Iraq and then eventually lost over 4,500 soldiers.

The US undoubtedly is a democratic country with considerable admirable features that any country should emulate or admire, but not the foreign policy or what they do in other countries. There is an obvious dichotomy between internal governance and external policy or behaviour, most probably the latter emerging out of the multinational corporate interests (oil), the size and the position of the country, or a mistaken world ideology. It is also true in politics, whether internal or external, that when one step is erroneously taken then most likely that is followed by bigger and bigger mistakes.

The US has not yet taken correct lessons from their Vietnamese experience. How dare they think that they could control the whole world? The US was completely correct in putting their weight behind the European nations, although reluctantly at the beginning, in the Second World War, when German Fascism was playing havoc in Europe massacring Jews and suppressing many other nations. Even their nuclear bombing in Hiroshima and Nagasaki might be excused considering the Japanese threat not only for their interests but also for the independent existence of Asian countries. However, the number of civilians killed in those bombings at least exceeded 200,000.

The US has made a bigger mess in the Middle East than in Vietnam or any other region. Their proxy interventions in Eastern Europe (i.e. former Yugoslavia) after the collapse of the Soviet Union, luckily prevented a major disaster thanks to the strength of the social institutions in place in that region. But this is not the case in Iraq or in the Middle East in general. Social institutions are quite fragile and archaic marked by traditional tribal hierarchies and sectarian religious conflicts. Saddam Hussein regime perhaps was the best one could expect in Iraq before the US invasion in 2003. It was up to the Iraqi people to change it.

No doubt, that Iraqi invasion of Kuwait could not be tolerated. But that was a decade earlier. The containment of the regime should have been stopped at the borders. What else an outsider could do? The Afghan civil war didn’t have much to do with Iraq. It was largely a making of the US. I may be exaggerating a little, but it is closer to the truth. Even if the intervention in Afghanistan was imperative after the horrendous 9/11 al-Qaeda attacks, that should have been stopped then and there. The Expansion of the intervention into Iraq was completely unwarranted. The reason given for the invasion, ‘weapons of mass destruction,’ were never found. Now the whole world can see the mess created. Instead of al-Qaeda directly, now a bigger monster, ISIS, is created. ISIS means Islamic State of Iraq and Sham (Syria).

There is no much reliable research done on the ISIS yet. However, according to Anthony Cordesman and Sam Khazi (Iraq Crisis, 2014), it is of recent origin, not very much going beyond late 2011. Led by Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi (Cleric), it originated as an Iraqi group of al-Qaeda, but quite distinct with a clear objective of creating its own state. This could be its both strength and weakness. Its strength might rely on the fact it represents the Sunni resistance to the Shite minority domination in Iraq. As far as it is a territory and a state, its targets are clear at least to the US, but not distinct from the civilians. It is quite confusing to know that Edward Snowdon claimed that Baghdadi was initially trained by Israeli Mossad with the backing of US and British intelligence.[i] I am giving the reference since the claim can be controversial.

There is no question that what the ISIS do is horrible and intolerable. Their march from chaotic Syrian (northern) borders into Iraq reminds us how Khmer Rouge marched to Phnom Penh in 1975. When they captured Mosul in early June, they executed selected Turkmen, Shabak, Yazidis and Christian minorities as a warning. They forced the Christians to convert into Islam. Then the Christians and others fled to Sinjar Mountains and now the ISIS control those areas or have encircled them. They are also in Samara not very far from Baghdad, to the north. There are several provinces in Syria now controlled by the ISIS including Homs. They also control some oil fields on both sides.

According to Human Right Watch and other reports executions and other atrocities are rising daily. There is no question that some intervention is warranted, but it is questionable whether the US bombing is the right reaction.

It may be true that after ISIS converted itself into Islamic State (IS) and declared Caliphate, dissention within and outside has emerged which might mark a certain disintegration but not without enormous chaos and humanitarian disaster.

In these columns we have often debated the merits or validity of international influence/pressure in contrast to international intervention. Of course the demarcation between them could be quite thin in certain circumstances. However, here the difference is quite clear. International influence or pressure is quite necessary and useful in certain circumstances for democratic development. But the failure of international pressure should not warrant intervention or interference so easily.

The rise of the ISIS is directly linked to the form of government that the US allowed or created in Iraq, on the one hand, and the crisis in Syria on the other. How far the US assisted several insurgencies in Syria, perhaps including ISIS, in the name of ‘Arab Spring’ is not clear. However, what is obvious is that the form of government that was created in Iraq very clearly discriminated and marginalized the Sunni Muslims. That is very clear although the whole blame should not go to the US. This is a lesson that any country should learn. Especially when the discriminated minorities are ‘true believers,’ the situation could become out of control. The ideological blame or castigation of ‘Jihadism’ is not a solution.

The Middle East crisis and the US culpability in it goes deeper and longer. No one can say, he or she knows all the aspects of the crisis. It is so complicated. But there are clearer aspects. There has been a considerable turmoil and instability created since the inauguration of Israel as a Jewish state in 1948. Of course the Jewish community was one of the most persecuted communities in the world particularly before Israel’s inception not only in Germany but in many of the Western countries. Perhaps the creation was performed to appease the guilt, if not to fulfil a mistaken biblical prophecy.

More than its creation, the way it was created was problematic. It was also a mistake trying to appease one community, Jews, at the expense of another community, Palestinians. Israel is one of the most militarized states in the world today. There is no question that Hamas and even Fatah have been extremely intransigence and violent. So does Israel. Both sides are in a catch 22 situation. Israel has refused to participate in ‘peace talks’ scheduled to take place today in Cairo demanding that Hamas stop attacks. But they continue the same.

If there is any power that can stop the fighting in Israel-Palestine that is the US. The UN has (appear to have) done its best even exposing its incapacity. As far as this conflict continues, the whole Middle East region would remain in flames. The US has done some efforts under Obama or even before but not enough to deescalate the conflict or resolve the contentious issues. Perhaps they are ingrained in their own biases.

The US is the biggest democratic country in the world. People look for inspirations from its independence declaration, bill of rights or various democratic structures of governance. However, their foreign policy imbedded still in the Bush Doctrine or neoconservatism deeply depresses these aspirations. The US should not think that they could control every event in the world. With their newest bombings in Iraq they undoubtedly must be committing ‘war crimes’ of the worst type. The US duplicity in foreign policy gives credence to worst violators of human rights and humanitarian laws in the world. The Sri Lankan regime is already exploiting the situation for their advantage.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Latest comments

  • 4
    3

    Dr. Laksiri Fernando

    RE: US Bombing In Iraq And Crisis In The Middle East”What have they achived after the Lies of WMD and the George Bush and neocons lies and Failed Strategy.

    1 million Iraqis dead, 5 Million Homeless,## Trillion Expense, Iraqi Society Destroyed. No wonder Americans are held in Low Esteem. Obama inherited Bushes problems, and finally Iraq will be free of Christians, at least in the ISIS controlled area. Who is Funding Anti Syrian Assad rebel Terrorists? Saudi, USA, Europe and Israel.

    Will the ISIS, ISIS in Iraq stinks of CIA/NATO ‘dirty war’ op be a better model for Chaos?

    ISIS in Iraq stinks of CIA/NATO ‘dirty war’ op

    http://rt.com/op-edge/168064-isis-terrorism-usa-cia-war/

    Read on…

    William Engdahl is an award-winning geopolitical analyst and strategic risk consultant whose internationally best-selling books have been translated into thirteen foreign languages.

    For days now, since their dramatic June 10 taking of Mosul, Western mainstream media have been filled with horror stories of the military conquests in Iraq of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, with the curious acronym ISIS. ISIS, as in the ancient Egyptian cult of the goddess of fertility and magic. The media picture being presented adds up less and less. Details leaking out suggest that ISIS and the major military ‘surge’ in Iraq – and less so in neighboring Syria – is being shaped and controlled out of Langley, Virginia, and other CIA and Pentagon outposts as the next stage in spreading chaos in the world’s second-largest oil state, Iraq, as well as weakening the recent Syrian stabilization efforts. Strange facts The very details of the ISIS military success in the key Iraqi oil center, Mosul, are suspect.

    According to well-informed Iraqi journalists, ISIS overran the strategic Mosul region, site of some of the world’s most prolific oilfields, with barely a shot fired in resistance. According to one report, residents of Tikrit reported remarkable displays of “soldiers handing over their weapons and uniforms peacefully to militants who ordinarily would have been expected to kill government soldiers on the spot.” We are told that ISIS masked psychopaths captured “arms and ammunition from the fleeing security forces” – arms and ammunition supplied by the American government. The offensive coincides with a successful campaign by ISIS in eastern Syria. According to Iraqi journalists, Sunni tribal chiefs in the region had been convinced to side with ISIS against the Shiite Al-Maliki government in Baghdad.

    They were promised a better deal under ISIS Sunni Sharia than with Baghdad anti-Sunni rule. According to the New York Times, the mastermind behind the ISIS military success is former Baath Party head and Saddam Hussein successor, General Ibrahim al-Douri. Douri is reportedly the head of the Iraqi rebel group Army of the Men of the Naqshbandi Order as well as the Supreme Command for Jihad and Liberation based on his longstanding positions of leadership in the Naqshbandi sect in Iraq. In 2009, US ‘Iraqi surge’ General David Petraeus, at the time heading the US Central Command, claimed to reporters that Douri was in Syria. Iraqi parliamentarians claimed he was in Qatar. The curious fact is that despite being on the US most wanted list since 2003, Douri has miraculously managed to avoid capture and now to return with a vengeance to retake huge parts of Sunni Iraq. Luck or well-placed friends in Washington? The financial backing for ISIS jihadists reportedly also comes from three of the closest US allies in the Sunni world—Kuwait, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. US passports? Key members of ISIS it now emerges were trained by US CIA and Special Forces command at a secret camp in Jordan in 2012, according to informed Jordanian officials. The US, Turkish and Jordanian intelligence were running a training base for the Syrian rebels in the Jordanian town of Safawi in the country’s northern desert region, conveniently near the borders to both Syria and Iraq. Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the two Gulf monarchies most involved in funding the war against Syria’s Assad, financed the Jordan ISIS training.

    Advertised publicly as training of ‘non-extremist’ Muslim jihadists to wage war against the Syrian Bashar Assad regime, the secret US training camps in Jordan and elsewhere have trained perhaps several thousand Muslim fighters in techniques of irregular warfare, sabotage and general terror. The claims by Washington that they took special care not to train ‘Salafist’ or jihadist extremists, is a joke. How do you test if a recruit is not a jihadist? Is there a special jihad DNA that the CIA doctors have discovered? Read on Using the Link

    http://rt.com/op-edge/168064-isis-terrorism-usa-cia-war/

    • 3
      2

      Dr. Laksiri Fernando,

      RE” US Bombing In Iraq And Crisis In The Middle East

      This is:

      The Engineered Destruction and Political Fragmentation of Iraq. Towards the Creation of a US Sponsored Islamist Caliphate

      The Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham: An instrument of the Western Military Alliance

      http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-destruction-and-political-fragmentation-of-iraq-towards-the-creation-of-a-us-sponsored-islamist-caliphate/5386998

      By Prof Michel Chossudovsky
      Global Research, August 09, 2014

      First published by GR on June 14, 2014.

      Update, August 9, 2014

      President Barack Obama has initiated a series of US bombing raids in Iraq allegedly directed towards the rebel army of the Islamic State (IS).

      The Islamic State terrorists are portrayed as an enemy of America and the Western world. Amply documented, the Islamic State is a creation of Western intelligence, supported by the CIA and Israel’s Mossad and financed by Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

      We are dealing with a diabolical military agenda whereby the United States is targeting a rebel army which is directly funded by the US and its allies. The incursion into Iraq of the Islamic State rebels in late June was part of a carefully planned intelligence operation.

      The rebels of the Islamic state, formerly known as the ISIS, were covertly supported by US-NATO-Israel to wage a terrorist insurgency against the Syrian government of Bashar Al Assad. The atrocities committed in Iraq are similar to those committed in Syria. The sponsors of IS including Barack Obama have blood on their hands.

      The killings of innocent civilians by the Islamic state terrorists create a pretext and the justification for US military intervention on humanitarian grounds. Lest we forget, the rebels who committed these atrocities and who are a target of US military action are supported by the United States.

      The bombing raids ordered by Obama are not intended to eliminate the terrorists. Quite the opposite, the US is targeting the civilian population as well as the Iraqi resistance movement.

      The endgame is to destabilize Iraq as a nation state and trigger its partition into three separate entities.

      * * *

      The creation of the US sponsored Islamist Caliphate has been announced. The Islamic State of Iraq and Al Cham (ISIS) has been replaced by the Islamic State (IS). The Islamic State is not an independent political entity. It is a construct of US intelligence.

      The Western media in chorus have described the unfolding conflict in Iraq as a “civil war” opposing the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham against the Armed forces of the Al-Maliki government.

      (Also referred to as Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) or Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS))

      The conflict is casually described as “sectarian warfare” between Radical Sunni and Shia without addressing “who is behind the various factions”. What is at stake is a carefully staged US military-intelligence agenda.

      Known and documented, Al Qaeda affiliated entities have been used by US-NATO in numerous conflicts as “intelligence assets” since the heyday of the Soviet-Afghan war. In Syria, the Al Nusrah and ISIS rebels are the foot-soldiers of the Western military alliance, which oversees and controls the recruitment and training of paramilitary forces.

      The Al Qaeda affiliated Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) re-emerged in April 2013 with a different name and acronym, commonly referred to as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). The formation of a terrorist entity encompassing both Iraq and Syria was part of a US intelligence agenda. It responded to geopolitical objectives. It also coincided with the advances of Syrian government forces against the US sponsored insurgency in Syria and the failures of both the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and its various “opposition” terror brigades.

      The decision was taken by Washington to channel its support (covertly) in favor of a terrorist entity which operates in both Syria and Iraq and which has logistical bases in both countries. The Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham’s Sunni caliphate project coincides with a longstanding US agenda to carve up both Iraq and Syria into three separate territories: A Sunni Islamist Caliphate, an Arab Shia Republic, and a Republic of Kurdistan.

      Whereas the (US proxy) government in Baghdad purchases advanced weapons systems from the US including F16 fighter jets from Lockheed Martin, the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham –which is fighting Iraqi government forces– is supported covertly by Western intelligence. The objective is to engineer a civil war in Iraq, in which both sides are controlled indirectly by US-NATO.

      The scenario is to arm and equip them, on both sides, finance them with advanced weapons systems and then “let them fight”.

      US-NATO is involved in the recruitment, training and financing of ISIS death squads operating in both Iraq and Syria. ISIS operates through indirect channels in liaison with Western intelligence. In turn, corroborated by reports on Syria’s insurgency, Western special forces and mercenaries integrate the ranks of ISIS.

      US-NATO support to ISIS is channeled covertly through America’s staunchest allies: Qatar and Saudi Arabia. According to London’s Daily Express “They had money and arms supplied by Qatar and Saudi Arabia.”

      “through allies such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the West [has] supported militant rebel groups which have since mutated into ISIS and other al‑Qaeda connected militias. ( Daily Telegraph, June 12, 2014)

      While the media acknowledges that the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has accused Saudi Arabia and Qatar of supporting ISIS, it invariably fails to mention that both Doha and Riyadh are acting on behalf and in close liaison with Washington.

      Under the banner of a civil war, an undercover war of aggression is being fought which essentially contributes to further destroying an entire country, its institutions, its economy. The undercover operation is part of an intelligence agenda, an engineered process which consists in transforming Iraq into an open territory.

      Meanwhile, public opinion is led to believe that what is at stake is confrontation between Shia and Sunni.

      America’s military occupation of Iraq has been replaced by non-conventional forms of warfare. Realities are blurred. In a bitter irony, the aggressor nation is portrayed as coming to the rescue of a “sovereign Iraq”.

      An internal “civil war” between Shia and Sunni is fomented by US-NATO support to both the Al-Maliki government as well as to the Sunni ISIS rebels.

      The break up of Iraq along sectarian lines is a longstanding policy of the US and its allies. (See map of Middle East below)

      “Supporting both Sides”

      The “War on Terrorism” consists in creating Al Qaeda terrorist entities as part of an intelligence operation, as well as also coming to the rescue of governments which are the target of the terrorist insurgency. This process is carried out under the banner of counter-terrorism. It creates the pretext to intervene.

      ISIS is a caliphate project of creating a Sunni Islamist state. It is not a project of the Sunni population of Iraq which is broadly committed to secular forms of government. The caliphate project is part of a US intelligence agenda.

      In response to the advance of the ISIS rebels, Washington is envisaging the use of aerial bombings as well as drone attacks in support of the Baghdad government as part of a counter-terrorism operation. It is all for a good cause: to fight the terrorists, without of course acknowledging that these terrorists are the “foot soldiers” of the Western military alliance.

      Needless to say, these developments contribute not only to destabilizing Iraq, but also to weakening the Iraqi resistance movement, which is one of the major objectives of US-NATO.

      The Islamic caliphate is supported covertly by the CIA in liaison with Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkish intelligence. Israel is also involved in channeling support to both Al Qaeda rebels in Syria (out of the Golan Heights) as well to the Kurdish separatist movement in Syria and Iraq.

      More broadly, the “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT) encompasses a consistent and diabolical logic: both sides –namely the terrorists and the government– are supported by the same military and intelligence actors, namely US-NATO.

      While this pattern describes the current situation in Iraq, the structure of “supporting both sides” with a view to engineering sectarian conflict has been implemented time and again in numerous countries. Insurgencies integrated by Al Qaeda operatives (and supported by Western intelligence) prevail in a large number of countries including Yemen, Libya, Nigeria, Somalia, Mali, the Central African Republic, Pakistan. The endgame is to destabilize sovereign nation states and to transform countries into open territories (on behalf of so-called foreign investors).

      The pretext to intervene on humanitarian grounds (e.g. in Mali, Nigeria or the Central African Republic) is predicated on the existence of terrorist forces. Yet these terrorist forces would not exist without covert US-NATO support.

      The Capture of Mosul: US-NATO Covert Support to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)

      Something unusual occurred in Mosul which cannot be explained in strictly military terms.

      On June 10, the insurgent forces of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) allegedly (according to press reports) captured Mosul, Iraq’s second largest city, with a population of over one million people. While these developments were “unexpected” according to the Obama administration, they were known to the Pentagon and US intelligence, which were not only providing weapons, logistics and financial support to the ISIS rebels, they were also coordinating, behind the scenes, the ISIS attack on the city of Mosul.

      While ISIS is a well equipped and disciplined rebel army when compared to other Al Qaeda affiliated formations, “the capture” of Mosul, did not hinge upon ISIS’s military capabilities. Quite the opposite: Iraqi forces which outnumbered the rebels by far, equipped with advanced weapons systems could have easily repelled the ISIS rebels.

      There were 30,000 government forces in Mosul as opposed to 1000 ISIS rebels, according to reports. The Iraqi army chose not to intervene. The media reports explained without evidence that the decision of the Iraqi armed forces not to intervene was spontaneous characterized by mass defections.

      Iraqi officials told the Guardian that two divisions of Iraqi soldiers – roughly 30,000 men – simply turned and ran in the face of the assault by an insurgent force of just 800 fighters. Isis extremists roamed freely on Wednesday through the streets of Mosul, openly surprised at the ease with which they took Iraq’s second largest city after three days of sporadic fighting. (Guardian, June 12, 2014, emphasis added)

      The reports point to the fact that Iraqi military commanders were sympathetic with the Sunni led ISIS insurgency intimating that they are largely Sunni:

      Speaking from the Kurdish city of Erbil, the defectors accused their officers of cowardice and betrayal, saying generals in Mosul “handed over” the city over to Sunni insurgents, with whom they shared sectarian and historical ties. (Daily Telegraph, 13 June 2014)

      The report is misleading. The senior commanders were largely hardline Shiite. The defections occurred de facto when the command structure collapsed and senior (Shiite) military commanders left the city.

      What is important to understand, is that both sides, namely the regular Iraqi forces and the ISIS rebel army are supported by US-NATO. There were US military advisers and special forces including operatives from private security companies on location in Mosul working with Iraq’s regular armed forces. In turn, there are Western special forces or mercenaries within ISIS (acting on contract to the CIA or the Pentagon) who are in liaison with US-NATO (e.g. through satellite phones).

      Under these circumstances, with US intelligence amply involved, there would have been routine communication, coordination, logistics and exchange of intelligence between a US-NATO military and intelligence command center, US-NATO military advisers forces or private military contractors on the ground assigned to the Iraqi Army in Mosul and Western special forces attached to the ISIS brigades. These Western special forces operating covertly within the ISIS could have been dispatched by a private security company on contract to US-NATO.

      In this regard, the capture of Mosul appears to have been a carefully engineered operation, planned well in advance. With the exception of a few skirmishes, no fighting took place.

      Entire divisions of the Iraqi National Army –trained by the US military with advanced weapons systems at their disposal– could have easily repelled the ISIS rebels. Reports suggest that they were ordered by their commanders not to intervene. According to witnesses, “Not a single shot was fired”.

      The forces that had been in Mosul have fled — some of which abandoned their uniforms as well as their posts as the ISIS forces swarmed into the city.

      Fighters with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), an al-Qaeda offshoot, overran the entire western bank of the city overnight after Iraqi soldiers and police apparently fled their posts, in some instances discarding their uniforms as they sought to escape the advance of the militants. http://hotair.com/archives/2014/06/10/mosul-falls-to-al-qaeda-as-us-trained-security-forces-flee/

      A contingent of one thousand ISIS rebels takes over a city of more than one million? Without prior knowledge that the US controlled Iraqi Army (30,000 strong) would not intervene, the Mosul operation would have fallen flat, the rebels would have been decimated.

      Who was behind the decision to let the ISIS terrorists take control of Mosul? Who gave them the “green light”

      Had the senior Iraqi commanders been instructed by their Western military advisers to hand over the city to the ISIS terrorists? Were they co-opted?

      Read on

      http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-destruction-and-political-fragmentation-of-iraq-towards-the-creation-of-a-us-sponsored-islamist-caliphate/5386998

    • 3
      3

      Malaysian press charges Ukraine government shot down MH 17

      White Flag Operation Exposed.

      y Alex Lantier (about the author)

      August 9, 2014 at 23:17:06

      A Thursday article in the New Straits Times, Malaysia’s flagship English-language newspaper, charged the US- and European-backed Ukrainian regime in Kiev with shooting down Malaysian Airlines flight MH 17 in east Ukraine last month. Given the tightly controlled character of the Malaysian media, it appears that the accusation that Kiev shot down MH17 has the imprimatur of the Malaysian state.

      The US and European media have buried this remarkable report, which refutes the wave of allegations planted by the CIA in international media claiming that Russian president Vladimir Putin was responsible for the destruction of MH17, without presenting any evidence to back up this charge.

      The New Straits Times article, titled “US analysts conclude MH17 downed by aircraft,” lays out evidence that Ukrainian fighter aircraft attacked the jetliner with first a missile, then with bursts of 30-millimeter machine gun fire from both sides of MH17. The Russian army has already presented detailed radar and satellite data showing a Ukrainian Sukhoi-25 fighter jet tailing MH17 shortly before the jetliner crashed. The Kiev regime denied that its fighters were airborne in the area, however.

      The New Straits Times article began, “Intelligence analysts in the United States have already concluded that Malaysia flight MH17 was shot down by an air-to-air missile, and that the Ukrainian government had had something to do with it. This corroborates an emerging theory postulated by local investigators that the Boeing 777-200 was crippled by an air-to-air missile and finished off with cannon fire from a jet that had been shadowing it as it plummeted to earth.”

      It cited “experts who had said that the photographs of the blast fragmentation patterns on the fuselage of the airliner showed two distinct shapes — the shredding pattern associated with a warhead packed with ‘flechettes,’ and the more uniform, round-type penetration holes consistent with that of cannon rounds.”

      The New Straits Times cited several sources to substantiate its position. One was testimony by a Canadian-Ukrainian monitor for the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), Michael Bociurkiw — one of the first investigators to arrive at the crash site. Speaking to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation on July 29, Bociurkiw said: “There have been two or three pieces of fuselage that have been really pockmarked with what almost looks like machine gun fire; very, very strong machine gun fire.”

      Another source the paper cited was an article, “Flight 17 Shoot-Down Scenario Shifts,” by former Associated Press reporter Robert Parry, who now writes for the ConsortiumNews.com web site. Given the lack of any evidence supporting US charges that pro-Russian forces shot MH17 down with a Buk anti-aircraft missile, Parry said, “some US intelligence analysts have concluded that the rebels and Russia were likely not at fault, and that it appears Ukrainian government forces were to blame, according to a source briefed on these findings.”

      Perry indicated that sections of the US intelligence apparatus have concluded that US secretary of state John Kerry’s claims that pro-Russian forces shot down the plane are lies.

      “Only three days after the crash, Secretary of State Kerry did the rounds of the Sunday talk shows making what he deemed an ‘extraordinary circumstantial’ case supposedly proving that the rebels carried out the shoot-down with missiles provided by Russia. He acknowledged that the US government was ‘not drawing the final conclusion here, but there is a lot that points at the need for Russia to be responsible,'” Perry wrote. “By then, I was already being told that the US intelligence community lacked any satellite imagery supporting Kerry’s allegations, and that the only Buk missile system in that part of Ukraine appeared to be under the control of the Ukrainian military.”

      Finally, the New Straits Times and Parry both cited retired Lufthansa pilot Peter Haisenko, who has pointed to photographic evidence of MH17 wreckage suggesting that cockpit panels were raked with heavy machine gun fire from both the port and starboard sides. “Nobody before Haisenko had noticed that the projectiles had ripped through the panel from both its left side and its right side. This is what rules out any ground-fired missile,” Parry wrote.

      The New Straits Times report constitutes a powerful accusation not only against the Ukrainian government, but against Washington, Berlin, and their European allies. They installed the Kiev regime through a fascist-led putsch in February. They then deployed a series of intelligence operatives and Blackwater mercenaries who are closely coordinating the various fascist militias and National Guard units fighting for Kiev on the ground in east Ukraine, where MH17 was shot down.

      These forces now stand accused not only of stoking an explosive political and military confrontation with Russia on its border with Ukraine over the MH17 crash, which threatens to erupt into nuclear war, but of provoking the confrontation through the cold-blooded murder of 298 people aboard MH17.

      These charges from Malaysia are all the more significant, in that Malaysia is not a strategic adversary of the United States. Unlike Russia, which already presented evidence suggesting Ukrainian involvement in the crash, Malaysia has no political motive for trying to discredit the US, the European powers, or their puppet regime in Kiev.

      While it has not aligned itself as openly as the Philippines or Vietnam with the US “pivot to Asia” aimed at isolating China, Malaysia has in fact pushed for deployments of its forces in the South China Sea to contest Chinese influence in the area, in line with the agenda of the US “pivot.”

      Indeed, the New Straits Times and its sources are basing themselves on sections of US intelligence that, disgruntled by the complete lack of evidence to back up US charges against Putin and fearing catastrophic military escalation, have criticized Washington’s handling of the crisis (see: “Former US intelligence personnel challenge Obama to present evidence of Russian complicity in MH17 crash”).

      These events also constitute yet another indictment of the Western media, who have completely blacked out the investigation of the crash of MH17 and the latest material in the New Straits Times. Instead, the elements in the CIA and their Ukrainian proxies driving the war in east Ukraine have been able to escalate the confrontation with Russia and demonize Putin, without any of their unsubstantiated accusations of Russian involvement in the MH17 crash being challenged.

      Kiev regime officials are continuing to stonewall the investigation, refusing Malaysian requests for information about MH17, such as the record of communication between the doomed plane and air traffic controllers in Kiev.

      In an interview with the New Straits Times, Ukrainian ambassador to Malaysia Ihor Humennyi denied reports that the tapes had been seized by Ukraine’s State Security Service (SBU). “There is no proof or evidence that the tapes were confiscated by the SBU. I only read this in the newspapers,” he said.

      When the New Straits Times asked where the tapes were, Humennyi said he did not know. “We don’t have any information that it had not been given to the investigation team, or that it was not received by the [team of international] investigators,” he said.

      Alex Lantier has written extensively for http://www.wsws.org, a forum for socialist views & the website for the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI). His writings have also appeared on http://www.globalresearch.ca, http://www.countercurrents.org, (more…)

      By Alex Lantier (about the author)

      August 9, 2014 at 23:17:06
      Cross-posted from WSWS

    • 4
      4

      Ron Paul: US ‘likely hiding truth’ on downed Malaysian Flight MH17
      Published time: August 10, 2014 13:06
      Edited time: August 10, 2014 14:56

      White Flag Operation bu Ukraine-NATO-US alliance

      Former Congressman Ron Paul said the US knows ‘more than it is telling’ about the Malaysian aircraft that crashed in eastern Ukraine last month, killing 298 people on board and seriously damaging US-Russian relations in the process.

      In an effort to inject some balance of opinion, not to mention pure sanity, into the ongoing debate over what happened to Malaysian Flight MH17, Ron Paul is convinced the US government is withholding information on the catastrophe.

      “The US government has grown strangely quiet on the accusation that it was Russia or her allies that brought down the Malaysian airliner with a Buk anti-aircraft missile,” Paul said on his news website on Thursday.

      Ron Paul to Obama: Let’s just leave Ukraine alone!

      Paul’s comments are in sharp contrast to the echo chamber of one-sided opinion inside Western mainstream media, which has almost unanimously blamed anti-Kiev militia for bringing down the commercial airline. Incredibly, in many cases Washington had nothing to show as evidence to incriminate Russian rebels aside for references to social media.

      “We’ve seen that there were heavy weapons moved from Russia to Ukraine, that they have moved into the hands of separatist leaders,” said White House spokesman Josh Earnest. “And according to social media reports, those weapons include the SA-11 [Buk missile] system.”

      In another instance, State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf told reporters “the Russians intend to deliver heavier and more powerful rocket launchers to the separatist forces in Ukraine, and have evidence that Russia is firing artillery from within Russia to attack Ukrainian military positions.” When veteran AP reporter Matthew Lee asked for proof, he was to be disappointed.

      “I can’t get into the sources and methods behind it,” Harf responded. “I can’t tell you what the information is based on.” Lee said the allegations made by the State Department on Ukraine have fallen far short of “definitive proof.”

      Just days after US intelligence officials admitted they had no conclusive evidence to prove Russia was behind the downing of the airliner, Kiev published satellite images as ‘proof’ it didn’t deploy anti-aircraft batteries around the MH17 crash site. However, these images have altered time-stamps and are from the days after the MH17 tragedy, the Russian Defense Ministry revealed, fully discrediting the Ukrainian claims.

      In yet another yet-to-be explained event, Russian military detected a Ukrainian SU-25 fighter jet approaching the MH17 Boeing on the day of the catastrophe. No acceptable explanation has ever been given by Kiev as to why this fighter aircraft was so close to the doomed passenger jet moments before it was brought down.

      “[We] would like to get an explanation as to why the military jet was flying along a civil aviation corridor at almost the same time and at the same level as a passenger plane,” Russian Lieutenant-General Andrey Kartopolov demanded days after the crash.

      Paul has slammed the United States, despite its arsenal of surveillance technologies at its disposal, for its failure to provide a single grain of evidence to solve the mystery of the Malaysian airliner.

      “It’s hard to believe that the US, with all of its spy satellites available for monitoring everything in Ukraine, that precise proof of who did what and when is not available,” the two-time presidential candidate said.

      “Too bad we can’t count on our government to just tell us the truth and show us the evidence,” Paul added. “I’m convinced that it knows a lot more than it’s telling us.”

    • 7
      1

      What is happening in Iraq and Syria are intolerance of the powerful Sunni groups against others.

      Same thing happens in Sri Lanka and Myanmar: Power wielding Buddhist’s intolerance against others.

      External intervention is necessary in all these cases to stop the genocide of powerless peoples: Shias, Kurds, Rohinyas, Tamils, Muslims and Christians in Sri Lanka.

      These are similar to what happened to the Jews in Nazi Germany: Timely intervention by the West is necessary as they did in Germany.

    • 2
      3

      Thanks Mr. Amarasiri for your additions and further information. Unfortunate predicament is that the West and particularly the US do all these believing or claiming to promote democracy and fighting against extremism/terrorism. My effort was to move beyond a black and white interpretation and to show that what the West do is harmful for democracy and or peace internationally. No one should use hard power to promote democracy. Soft power is admissible. Complete denial of the West and anti-American rhetoric also can go against democracy. Western mistakes or blunders are used to perpetuate authoritarian regimes. That has been my main concern.

  • 3
    3

    Whether one likes it or not, the USA and the Western Powers will not take 9/11 lying down – whatever the regular and formal Govt narrative is. They – the USA, in particular – will go after
    every single major suspect behind this audacious conspiracy and dishonour in US soil. Remember, the headline of Le Monde (Paris) the following day “We are all Americans now” Osama Bin Laden was hunted down. So was Saddam Husein, Gadaffi and many frontline Al Qaeda leaders. The Iranians have been on the list from the beginning. Can’t blame a world power not wishing her nose to be rubbed in the mud by petty ones – irrespective whether one is mad-driven by religion, delusions of world conquest or whatever.

    Backlash

    • 5
      2

      What have you being smoking man, Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi or Iranians have nothing to do with Al Qaeda.

      • 3
        5

        Mec_Leeks,

        Stop condemning what you don’t understand and neither capable of.

        stick to the island gembo.

        Come now trip it up!

      • 1
        4

        I will not deride Mechanic, who often makes good brief comments.

        Beginning the end of the Soviet misadventure in Afghanistan, the Arab militants continued their conspiracy to destabilise the USA and the non-Islamic world. For some of them, the next Crusade has already been declared. The HQ chosen to plan the blue-print for the global effort was the vast and desolate Afghanistan. Iran, Iraq, Libya and many anti-Christian Arab leaders/countries willingly contributed to its growing coffers. OBL was one of the leaders. Iran’s main conspiracy was to flood the world with fake US$ bills and relatively safe Afghanistan was used for that. 9/11 was one of the chief conspiracies – known only to a very few.

        Do read my comments in that context.

        Backlash

        • 0
          0

          Backslash and Mechanic:
          The information from this link may be more appropriate window into what has happened in the recent past:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRVqJky9J6c

        • 3
          3

          Backlash

          “Iran, Iraq, Libya and many anti-Christian Arab leaders/countries willingly contributed to its growing coffers.”

          Those then rulers of these countries couldn’t stand these Jihadis. Saddam and Gaddafi made sure the Islamist were wiped out from the face of this earth. Shia’s historical enemies have been the Sunny sect.

          The axis of evil was the concoction of the Bush cronies. It was the Gulf countries that financed the Al

    • 3
      5

      Backlash

      “Whether one likes it or not, the USA and the Western Powers will not take 9/11 lying down”

      Has it got anything to do with its sagging economy, bankrupt airlines, starving military industrial complexes, paranoia, need for a internal/external perceived enemy for its internal cohesion, outdated industries needed reason for their survival, another reason for world domination, controlling natural resources, the urge for individuals to dominate others and countries, ………….?

      Please don’t take me seriously.

      • 1
        3

        Native V,

        These are common ailments in any free economy, most of which
        possess within the resilience to bounce back. In spite of
        The Great Depression, the USA Housing crisis,the more recent Stock Market crashes and so on the American – and Western Economies (add Japan and China) post-1990s – generally have what it takes to work their way out.

        Backlash

        • 1
          5

          Backlash

          ” In spite of The Great Depression, the USA Housing crisis,the more recent Stock Market crashes and so on the American – and Western Economies (add Japan and China) post-1990s – generally have what it takes to work their way out.”

          It is known as the “Imperial overstretch”.

          The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict From 1500 to 2000, by Paul Kennedy, 1987.

  • 7
    3

    It is fashionable to place on the USA the evils of the entire world
    but not give them credit where it is due. You write “How dare they think that they could control the whole world?” Come! Come! Professor.
    If domination of the whole world is what the US wanted they had it on a platter post-WW2- in Germany and Japan. None would have spoken if they controlled both countries – after the defeat, as an article of surrender. Instead, they (USA) invested and built both countries to become their own competitors in the global industrial recovery. Germany and Japan today remain one of the wealthiest nations in their own history. Let us give credit to where it is due.

    We read elsewhere Dinesh Gunawardena praising the people of Cuba, in his capacity as President of the SL-Cuban Friendship Association, for the gallant stand against the USA in the last 60 years. We know the knowledge and intellectual depth of Lankan Cabinet Ministers. Cuba has been rendered a basket case by Communism and the people are so poor Canadian Lankans, of recent origin, from Jaffna of all places – vacationing in Cuba – are forced to leave washing soap, a few dollars, T shirts and clothing to Cubans there. It is a grotesque irony to hear them say “aiyo! paavam (pow) These people are abjectively poor” But Mr. Gunawardena knows the economic condition of the Castro Brothers, like Lankan Ministers, is nothing to complain about. What hypocrites?

    R. Varathan

    • 4
      5

      R. Varathan

      “It is fashionable to place on the USA the evils of the entire world but not give them credit where it is due. “

      Of course you must give credit to USA if it deserved.

      Tell us what did US do to earn credit in

      South America for almost 200 years with its gun Boat diplomacy, Monroe Doctrine, annexing Texas, propping up many ruthless dictators, controling almost all resources, destabilising budding democracies as recently as 2002, funding all sorts of shadowy organisation in the pursuit of its “own interest”, Nicaragua (contras), Iran, few countries in Africa, intended to maintain apartheid in all its forms, nuking Japan twice (but not Germany), creating, training, funding arming Jihadhis in Afghanistan, sustaining a rogue country in middle east and protecting inhumane middle east medieval kingdoms, Opium war, Vietnam war and chemical weapons (agent orange) was being sprayed on large scale, ………………….. adventures in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria where hundreds of thousands of people have been killed injured or displaced, being constant irritant to Hindia, protector of MR, blocking even a minor reform in the UNO, ………..

      360 spectrum strategy (US wants to know what time you use your toilets in the morning, afternoon and night and in between, read all your mails and listen to your wife’s nagging and trivial arguments, mistress threatening to expose the size of your willy,…)

      …………..

      US policy of Rebalancing (what???).

      It goes on and on,

      • 3
        3

        It ain’t a perfect world, Native Veddah buddy. It wasn’t, isn’t and, very likely, is unlikely to be in the future. But isn’t it
        better to be under the influence of the Yanks than under Genghis
        Khan, the Moghuls of Joe Stalin – just to think of a few in history?

        R. Varathan

        • 2
          6

          Nice one but just home you cannot change the world and we arnt blind
          Like your commander in Chief said it’s his responsibility as commander …of his forces but the Iraqis must come out with their own solution.
          ________________
          March 1972, buoyed by the country’s success against Pakistan, Hindia/Indira were the focal point for Middle East planning and designing nuke city with Russian Nuke Consultants.

          India remains the world’s largest arms buyer by a huge margin, -the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). Friday evening, defence minister Arun Jaitley told the visiting American dignitary about India’s growing indigenous capabilities in the defence sector and the move to raise the FDI cap in the defence sector to 49 per cent.- The Yankees are no fools they have their own proof of terrorist Hindia in the middle and sub-continent just leave it to them to do the cavity check of Chai Bhai on 29-30th Sept- hill be the naked king while Jaitley will be there in october to pay the bill of trying to impress like others before him in Libya Sudan etc.

          How many will the Chaddi Walla assist to kill in Lanka??
          What you plan to do?? Forget the po yaaa of yesterday take it all is the sane game.

      • 6
        7

        NV,

        “nuking Japan twice (but not Germany”

        Is your question valid considering the sequence of events during the World War II.

        – On May 7, 1945, Germany officially surrendered to the Allies, bringing an end to the European conflict in World War II

        – on July 16, 1945, the first nuclear weapon was detonated as a test by the United States at the Trinity site.

        – On 6th August 1945, the first atomic bomb was dropped

        – On September 2, 1945, the formal signing of the Japanese Instrument of Surrender took place on board the battleship USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay.

        Based on the above, how could Americans have done a Nuclear Attack on German before they even tested it? Am I missing something here?

        Wasn’t the Use of Nuke to test the TOY that the scientist had and to Demonstrate to USSR the weapon as deteriorating relations between West and USSR in 1945?

        My point is the selection of Japan not German is not racial unless I miss something here!!

        • 4
          5

          Kabi

          Here is an article which summarises last leg of the war in which you will find the something that missed earlier:

          Was Hiroshima Necessary?

          Why the Atomic Bombings Could Have Been Avoided

          By Mark Weber

          On August 6, 1945, the world dramatically entered the atomic age: without either warning or precedent, an American plane dropped a single nuclear bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. The explosion utterly destroyed more than four square miles of the city center. About 90,000 people were killed immediately; another 40,000 were injured, many of whom died in protracted agony from radiation sickness. Three days later, a second atomic strike on the city of Nagasaki killed some 37,000 people and injured another 43,000. Together the two bombs eventually killed an estimated 200,000 Japanese civilians.

          Between the two bombings, Soviet Russia joined the United States in war against Japan. Under strong US prodding, Stalin broke his regime’s 1941 non-aggression treaty with Tokyo. On the same day that Nagasaki was destroyed, Soviet troops began pouring into Manchuria, overwhelming Japanese forces there. Although Soviet participation did little or nothing to change the military outcome of the war, Moscow benefitted enormously from joining the conflict.

          In a broadcast from Tokyo the next day, August 10, the Japanese government announced its readiness to accept the joint American-British “unconditional surrender” declaration of Potsdam, “with the understanding that the said declaration does not compromise any demand which prejudices the prerogatives of His Majesty as a Sovereign Ruler.”

          A day later came the American reply, which included these words: “From the moment of surrender the authority of the Emperor and the Japanese Government to rule the State shall be subject to the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers.” Finally, on August 14, the Japanese formally accepted the provisions of the Potsdam declaration, and a “cease fire” was announced. On September 2, Japanese envoys signed the instrument of surrender aboard the US battleship Missouri in Tokyo Bay.

          A Beaten Country

          Apart from the moral questions involved, were the atomic bombings militarily necessary? By any rational yardstick, they were not. Japan already had been defeated militarily by June 1945. Almost nothing was left of the once mighty Imperial Navy, and Japan’s air force had been all but totally destroyed. Against only token opposition, American war planes ranged at will over the country, and US bombers rained down devastation on her cities, steadily reducing them to rubble.

          What was left of Japan’s factories and workshops struggled fitfully to turn out weapons and other goods from inadequate raw materials. (Oil supplies had not been available since April.) By July about a quarter of all the houses in Japan had been destroyed, and her transportation system was near collapse. Food had become so scarce that most Japanese were subsisting on a sub-starvation diet.

          On the night of March 9-10, 1945, a wave of 300 American bombers struck Tokyo, killing 100,000 people. Dropping nearly 1,700 tons of bombs, the war planes ravaged much of the capital city, completely burning out 16 square miles and destroying a quarter of a million structures. A million residents were left homeless.

          On May 23, eleven weeks later, came the greatest air raid of the Pacific War, when 520 giant B-29 “Superfortress” bombers unleashed 4,500 tons of incendiary bombs on the heart of the already battered Japanese capital. Generating gale-force winds, the exploding incendiaries obliterated Tokyo’s commercial center and railway yards, and consumed the Ginza entertainment district. Two days later, on May 25, a second strike of 502 “Superfortress” planes roared low over Tokyo, raining down some 4,000 tons of explosives. Together these two B-29 raids destroyed 56 square miles of the Japanese capital.

          Even before the Hiroshima attack, American air force General Curtis LeMay boasted that American bombers were “driving them [Japanese] back to the stone age.” Henry H. (“Hap”) Arnold, commanding General of the Army air forces, declared in his 1949 memoirs: “It always appeared to us, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse.” This was confirmed by former Japanese prime minister Fumimaro Konoye, who said: “Fundamentally, the thing that brought about the determination to make peace was the prolonged bombing by the B-29s.”

          Japan Seeks Peace

          Months before the end of the war, Japan’s leaders recognized that defeat was inevitable. In April 1945 a new government headed by Kantaro Suzuki took office with the mission of ending the war. When Germany capitulated in early May, the Japanese understood that the British and Americans would now direct the full fury of their awesome military power exclusively against them.

          American officials, having long since broken Japan’s secret codes, knew from intercepted messages that the country’s leaders were seeking to end the war on terms as favorable as possible. Details of these efforts were known from decoded secret communications between the Foreign Ministry in Tokyo and Japanese diplomats abroad.

          In his 1965 study, Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam (pp. 107, 108), historian Gar Alperovitz writes:

          Although Japanese peace feelers had been sent out as early as September 1944 (and [China’s] Chiang Kai-shek had been approached regarding surrender possibilities in December 1944), the real effort to end the war began in the spring of 1945. This effort stressed the role of the Soviet Union …

          In mid-April [1945] the [US] Joint Intelligence Committee reported that Japanese leaders were looking for a way to modify the surrender terms to end the war. The State Department was convinced the Emperor was actively seeking a way to stop the fighting.

          A Secret Memorandum

          It was only after the war that the American public learned about Japan’s efforts to bring the conflict to an end. Chicago Tribune reporter Walter Trohan, for example, was obliged by wartime censorship to withhold for seven months one of the most important stories of the war.

          In an article that finally appeared August 19, 1945, on the front pages of the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Times-Herald, Trohan revealed that on January 20, 1945, two days prior to his departure for the Yalta meeting with Stalin and Churchill, President Roosevelt received a 40-page memorandum from General Douglas MacArthur outlining five separate surrender overtures from high-level Japanese officials. (The complete text of Trohan’s article is in the Winter 1985-86 Journal, pp. 508-512.)

          This memo showed that the Japanese were offering surrender terms virtually identical to the ones ultimately accepted by the Americans at the formal surrender ceremony on September 2 — that is, complete surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor. Specifically, the terms of these peace overtures included:

          Complete surrender of all Japanese forces and arms, at home, on island possessions, and in occupied countries.
          Occupation of Japan and its possessions by Allied troops under American direction.
          Japanese relinquishment of all territory seized during the war, as well as Manchuria, Korea and Taiwan.
          Regulation of Japanese industry to halt production of any weapons and other tools of war.
          Release of all prisoners of war and internees.
          Surrender of designated war criminals.
          Is this memorandum authentic? It was supposedly leaked to Trohan by Admiral William D. Leahy, presidential Chief of Staff. (See: M. Rothbard in A. Goddard, ed., Harry Elmer Barnes: Learned Crusader [1968], pp. 327f.) Historian Harry Elmer Barnes has related (in “Hiroshima: Assault on a Beaten Foe,” National Review, May 10, 1958):

          The authenticity of the Trohan article was never challenged by the White House or the State Department, and for very good reason. After General MacArthur returned from Korea in 1951, his neighbor in the Waldorf Towers, former President Herbert Hoover, took the Trohan article to General MacArthur and the latter confirmed its accuracy in every detail and without qualification.

          Peace Overtures

          In April and May 1945, Japan made three attempts through neutral Sweden and Portugal to bring the war to a peaceful end. On April 7, acting Foreign Minister Mamoru Shigemitsu met with Swedish ambassador Widon Bagge in Tokyo, asking him “to ascertain what peace terms the United States and Britain had in mind.” But he emphasized that unconditional surrender was unacceptable, and that “the Emperor must not be touched.” Bagge relayed the message to the United States, but Secretary of State Stettinius told the US Ambassador in Sweden to “show no interest or take any initiative in pursuit of the matter.” Similar Japanese peace signals through Portugal, on May 7, and again through Sweden, on the 10th, proved similarly fruitless.

          By mid-June, six members of Japan’s Supreme War Council had secretly charged Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo with the task of approaching Soviet Russia’s leaders “with a view to terminating the war if possible by September.” On June 22 the Emperor called a meeting of the Supreme War Council, which included the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister, and the leading military figures. “We have heard enough of this determination of yours to fight to the last soldiers,” said Emperor Hirohito. “We wish that you, leaders of Japan, will strive now to study the ways and the means to conclude the war. In doing so, try not to be bound by the decisions you have made in the past.”

          By early July the US had intercepted messages from Togo to the Japanese ambassador in Moscow, Naotake Sato, showing that the Emperor himself was taking a personal hand in the peace effort, and had directed that the Soviet Union be asked to help end the war. US officials also knew that the key obstacle to ending the war was American insistence on “unconditional surrender,” a demand that precluded any negotiations. The Japanese were willing to accept nearly everything, except turning over their semi-divine Emperor. Heir of a 2,600-year-old dynasty, Hirohito was regarded by his people as a “living god” who personified the nation. (Until the August 15 radio broadcast of his surrender announcement, the Japanese people had never heard his voice.) Japanese particularly feared that the Americans would humiliate the Emperor, and even execute him as a war criminal.

          On July 12, Hirohito summoned Fumimaro Konoye, who had served as prime minister in 1940-41. Explaining that “it will be necessary to terminate the war without delay,” the Emperor said that he wished Konoye to secure peace with the Americans and British through the Soviets. As Prince Konoye later recalled, the Emperor instructed him “to secure peace at any price, notwithstanding its severity.”

          The next day, July 13, Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo wired ambassador Naotake Sato in Moscow: “See [Soviet foreign minister] Molotov before his departure for Potsdam … Convey His Majesty’s strong desire to secure a termination of the war … Unconditional surrender is the only obstacle to peace …”

          On July 17, another intercepted Japanese message revealed that although Japan’s leaders felt that the unconditional surrender formula involved an unacceptable dishonor, they were convinced that “the demands of the times” made Soviet mediation to terminate the war absolutely essential. Further diplomatic messages indicated that the only condition asked by the Japanese was preservation of “our form of government.” The only “difficult point,” a July 25 message disclosed, “is the … formality of unconditional surrender.”

          Summarizing the messages between Togo and Sato, US naval intelligence said that Japan’s leaders, “though still balking at the term unconditional surrender,” recognized that the war was lost, and had reached the point where they have “no objection to the restoration of peace on the basis of the [1941] Atlantic Charter.” These messages, said Assistant Secretary of the Navy Lewis Strauss, “indeed stipulated only that the integrity of the Japanese Royal Family be preserved.”

          Navy Secretary James Forrestal termed the intercepted messages “real evidence of a Japanese desire to get out of the war.” “With the interception of these messages,” notes historian Alperovitz (p. 177), “there could no longer be any real doubt as to the Japanese intentions; the maneuvers were overt and explicit and, most of all, official acts. Koichi Kido, Japan’s Lord Privy Seal and a close advisor to the Emperor, later affirmed: “Our decision to seek a way out of this war, was made in early June before any atomic bomb had been dropped and Russia had not entered the war. It was already our decision.”

          In spite of this, on July 26 the leaders of the United States and Britain issued the Potsdam declaration, which included this grim ultimatum: “We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces and to provide proper and adequate assurance of good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction.”

          Commenting on this draconian either-or proclamation, British historian J.F.C. Fuller wrote: “Not a word was said about the Emperor, because it would be unacceptable to the propaganda-fed American masses.” (A Military History of the Western World [1987], p. 675.)

          America’s leaders understood Japan’s desperate position: the Japanese were willing to end the war on any terms, as long as the Emperor was not molested. If the US leadership had not insisted on unconditional surrender — that is, if they had made clear a willingness to permit the Emperor to remain in place — the Japanese very likely would have surrendered immediately, thus saving many thousands of lives.

          The sad irony is that, as it actually turned out, the American leaders decided anyway to retain the Emperor as a symbol of authority and continuity. They realized, correctly, that Hirohito was useful as a figurehead prop for their own occupation authority in postwar Japan.

          Justifications

          President Truman steadfastly defended his use of the atomic bomb, claiming that it “saved millions of lives” by bringing the war to a quick end. Justifying his decision, he went so far as to declare: “The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians.”

          This was a preposterous statement. In fact, almost all of the victims were civilians, and the United States Strategic Bombing Survey (issued in 1946) stated in its official report: “Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen as targets because of their concentration of activities and population.”

          If the atomic bomb was dropped to impress the Japanese leaders with the immense destructive power of a new weapon, this could have been accomplished by deploying it on an isolated military base. It was not necessary to destroy a large city. And whatever the justification for the Hiroshima blast, it is much more difficult to defend the second bombing of Nagasaki.

          All the same, most Americans accepted, and continue to accept, the official justifications for the bombings. Accustomed to crude propagandistic portrayals of the “Japs” as virtually subhuman beasts, most Americans in 1945 heartily welcomed any new weapon that would wipe out more of the detested Asians, and help avenge the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. For the young Americans who were fighting the Japanese in bitter combat, the attitude was “Thank God for the atom bomb.” Almost to a man, they were grateful for a weapon whose deployment seemed to end the war and thus allow them to return home.

          After the July 1943 firestorm destruction of Hamburg, the mid-February 1945 holocaust of Dresden, and the fire-bombings of Tokyo and other Japanese cities, America’s leaders — as US Army General Leslie Groves later commented — “were generally inured to the mass killing of civilians.” For President Harry Truman, the killing of tens of thousands of Japanese civilians was simply not a consideration in his decision to use the atom bomb.

          Critical Voices

          Amid the general clamor of enthusiasm, there were some who had grave misgivings. “We are the inheritors to the mantle of Genghis Khan,” wrote New York Times editorial writer Hanson Baldwin, “and of all those in history who have justified the use of utter ruthlessness in war.” Norman Thomas called Nagasaki “the greatest single atrocity of a very cruel war.” Joseph P. Kennedy, father of the President, was similarly appalled.

          A leading voice of American Protestantism, Christian Century, strongly condemned the bombings. An editorial entitled “America’s Atomic Atrocity” in the issue of August 29, 1945, told readers:

          The atomic bomb was used at a time when Japan’s navy was sunk, her air force virtually destroyed, her homeland surrounded, her supplies cut off, and our forces poised for the final stroke … Our leaders seem not to have weighed the moral considerations involved. No sooner was the bomb ready than it was rushed to the front and dropped on two helpless cities … The atomic bomb can fairly be said to have struck Christianity itself … The churches of America must dissociate themselves and their faith from this inhuman and reckless act of the American Government.

          A leading American Catholic voice, Commonweal, took a similar view. Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the magazine editorialized, “are names for American guilt and shame.”

          Pope Pius XII likewise condemned the bombings, expressing a view in keeping with the traditional Roman Catholic position that “every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man.” The Vatican newspaper Osservatore Romano commented in its August 7, 1945, issue: “This war provides a catastrophic conclusion. Incredibly this destructive weapon remains as a temptation for posterity, which, we know by bitter experience, learns so little from history.”

          Authoritative Voices of Dissent

          American leaders who were in a position to know the facts did not believe, either at the time or later, that the atomic bombings were needed to end the war.

          When he was informed in mid-July 1945 by Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson of the decision to use the atomic bomb, General Dwight Eisenhower was deeply troubled. He disclosed his strong reservations about using the new weapon in his 1963 memoir, The White House Years: Mandate for Change, 1953-1956 (pp. 312-313):

          During his [Stimson’s] recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of “face.”

          “The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing … I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon,” Eisenhower said in 1963.

          Shortly after “V-J Day,” the end of the Pacific war, Brig. General Bonnie Fellers summed up in a memo for General MacArthur: “Neither the atomic bombing nor the entry of the Soviet Union into the war forced Japan’s unconditional surrender. She was defeated before either these events took place.”

          Similarly, Admiral Leahy, Chief of Staff to presidents Roosevelt and Truman, later commented:

          It is my opinion that the use of the barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan … The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons … My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.

          If the United States had been willing to wait, said Admiral Ernest King, US Chief of Naval Operations, “the effective naval blockade would, in the course of time, have starved the Japanese into submission through lack of oil, rice, medicines, and other essential materials.”

          Leo Szilard, a Hungarian-born scientist who played a major role in the development of the atomic bomb, argued against its use. “Japan was essentially defeated,” he said, and “it would be wrong to attack its cities with atomic bombs as if atomic bombs were simply another military weapon.” In a 1960 magazine article, Szilard wrote: “If the Germans had dropped atomic bombs on cities instead of us, we would have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them.”

          US Strategic Bombing Survey Verdict

          After studying this matter in great detail, the United States Strategic Bombing Survey rejected the notion that Japan gave up because of the atomic bombings. In its authoritative 1946 report, the Survey concluded:

          The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs did not defeat Japan, nor by the testimony of the enemy leaders who ended the war did they persuade Japan to accept unconditional surrender. The Emperor, the Lord Privy Seal, the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister, and the Navy Minister had decided as early as May of 1945 that the war should be ended even if it meant acceptance of defeat on allied terms …

          The mission of the Suzuki government, appointed 7 April 1945, was to make peace. An appearance of negotiating for terms less onerous than unconditional surrender was maintained in order to contain the military and bureaucratic elements still determined on a final Bushido defense, and perhaps even more importantly to obtain freedom to create peace with a minimum of personal danger and internal obstruction. It seems clear, however, that in extremis the peacemakers would have peace, and peace on any terms. This was the gist of advice given to Hirohito by the Jushin in February, the declared conclusion of Kido in April, the underlying reason for Koiso’s fall in April, the specific injunction of the Emperor to Suzuki on becoming premier which was known to all members of his cabinet …

          Negotiations for Russia to intercede began the forepart of May 1945 in both Tokyo and Moscow. Konoye, the intended emissary to the Soviets, stated to the Survey that while ostensibly he was to negotiate, he received direct and secret instructions from the Emperor to secure peace at any price, notwithstanding its severity …

          It seems clear … that air supremacy and its later exploitation over Japan proper was the major factor which determined the timing of Japan’s surrender and obviated any need for invasion.

          Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945 [the date of the planned American invasion], Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

          Historians’ Views

          In a 1986 study, historian and journalist Edwin P. Hoyt nailed the “great myth, perpetuated by well-meaning people throughout the world,” that “the atomic bomb caused the surrender of Japan.” In Japan’s War: The Great Pacific Conflict (p. 420), he explained:

          The fact is that as far as the Japanese militarists were concerned, the atomic bomb was just another weapon. The two atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were icing on the cake, and did not do as much damage as the firebombings of Japanese cities. The B-29 firebombing campaign had brought the destruction of 3,100,000 homes, leaving 15 million people homeless, and killing about a million of them. It was the ruthless firebombing, and Hirohito’s realization that if necessary the Allies would completely destroy Japan and kill every Japanese to achieve “unconditional surrender” that persuaded him to the decision to end the war. The atomic bomb is indeed a fearsome weapon, but it was not the cause of Japan’s surrender, even though the myth persists even to this day.

          In a trenchant new book, The Decision to Drop the Atomic Bomb (Praeger, 1996), historian Dennis D. Wainstock concludes that the bombings were not only unnecessary, but were based on a vengeful policy that actually harmed American interests. He writes (pp. 124, 132):

          … By April 1945, Japan’s leaders realized that the war was lost. Their main stumbling block to surrender was the United States’ insistence on unconditional surrender. They specifically needed to know whether the United States would allow Hirohito to remain on the throne. They feared that the United States would depose him, try him as a war criminal, or even execute him …

          Unconditional surrender was a policy of revenge, and it hurt America’s national self-interest. It prolonged the war in both Europe and East Asia, and it helped to expand Soviet power in those areas.

          General Douglas MacArthur, Commander of US Army forces in the Pacific, stated on numerous occasions before his death that the atomic bomb was completely unnecessary from a military point of view: “My staff was unanimous in believing that Japan was on the point of collapse and surrender.”

          General Curtis LeMay, who had pioneered precision bombing of Germany and Japan (and who later headed the Strategic Air Command and served as Air Force chief of staff), put it most succinctly: “The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war.”

          The Journal of Historical Review, May-June 1997 (Vol. 16, No. 3), pages 4-11.

          http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html

          • 2
            5

            NV
            Cheers,
            A war is not a border-skirmish or a confrontation between drunken sailors. There is nothing heroic about war. War involves the killing and maiming of thousands or millions of people, including many innocent bystanders. War is not about heroes and glorious death. War is nothing but blood and gore. War shreds people into bloody little pieces, it tears them limb from limb, or it burns them alive. War is the ultimate horror that man inflicts upon man.

            Wars are armed conflicts between countries or states. Wars are not conflicts between the individual people of warring countries. Wars are conflicts between the governments of countries. All wars are instigated by power hungry megalomaniacs, the politicians; managed by professional killers, the military; and fought by the brainwashed members of their respective populations, the canon-fodder.

            Any big bully, who feels confident that he can win the war, can start a war at any time. Euphemistic expressions have replaced the word war. Politicians now euphemistically refer to wars as police actions, or border alignments, or expeditions, or air campaigns.

            The latest euphemism is a reference to a regime change in Iraq. In this instance, one country determines to liberate another country from its politicians. If euphemisms are clearly inappropriate, politicians merely declare that the war is morally just and necessary to straighten out morally inferior miscreants.

            • 5
              5

              Next…. “THE VICTOR ALWAYS WRITES THE HISTORY”

              JAVI knows what I mean :)

              • 2
                7

                “My point is the selection of Japan not German is not racial unless I miss something here!!”
                `JAVI knows what I mean.`

                They tested it on Giallo folk.

                The HM the Queen and Prince both have German blood.
                The whole of European Monarchies – Spain to Norway are related.
                Its the brain of `Reconquista`[after the Islamic conquest in 711–718 to the fall of Granada, the last Islamic state on the peninsula, in 1492. It comes before the discovery of the New World, and the period of the Portuguese and Spanish colonial empires which followed.]

                Violet eyes high cheek bones is the envy of Europeans (includes the Jewish who are Europeans)they will have to surrender because there is no Czar they killed them all in the revolution like Nassar the mother of all step fathers planned for pan arab.

                Monarchy retains the culture of a nation `power or no power in governance.
                Observe how the New World Order is shaping.
                Shrub wanted to be king but he was stunned when he visited HM during the war on terror.

                • 1
                  6

                  Guilty and ashamed para-miltary and low class why thump down the truth its good for the unfortunate who have not travelled to know. Next, when the wolf comes to your door you would be thunder stuck because the folk in the nation lied like mahanama. There to make it easy for the poor who cannot afford to travel keep to the island only.

                  Only in US: Every single Japenese living in the US was put in jail immediatly after pearl harbour. Some of them even working for the air force were taken to work and back- that is reality.

                  Go findout for yourself street wise poor boy.

                  Knowledge either you have it or you go out and `see then observe`-of course it needs funds and time, and young days.
                  I did not say books which Samuel Johnson said because we see enough of `professors on CT` disfiguring history.

              • 3
                6

                Kabi

                Hope now you understand nuking Japan has nothing to do with final stages of war but its all to do with testing the bomb on a non white/non christian population.

                In the early days of contact with Europeans the Japanese began converting to Christianity and eating meat. It didn’t impress the Europeans still nuked them.

                • 7
                  6

                  Even I agreed in my comment that Nuking was to test the toy(Nuclear bomb) that scientist had and to demonstrate to Russians the weapon as well.

                  Even the top Generals of USA agreed (before and after the attack) that Nuclear bomb attack was not necessary – one of them was a allied commander in German.

                  What I was trying to say is Germany could not have been Nuclear bombed because before the American nuclear bomb test, Germany had surrendered to allies.

                  Another possible reason could be Americans feared that Japanese will do a surrender deal with Russians!!

                  • 3
                    6

                    Hitler was the first to manufacture it and was delayed (repeat of history= -40 degrees russian cold) and the russian onslaught from the eastern flange.

                    Thanks to the 19 million russians who gave their lives we speak english today. Therefore Stalin drove into Germany even after the war with them ended totally unhindered. If anyone had seen the features of eastern germans just before the collapse of the wall and that of west germans would appreciate.

                    The sleeping giant never woke up even though london was blitzed. The tech was taken to US by German Jew then the Giant woke up and joined Europe in the war. US had all the resources to have max centrifuges to majke it to the finish line before russia or germany.

                  • 1
                    6

                    Kacho!!

                    “Another possible reason could be Americans feared that Japanese will do a surrender deal with Russians!!” “THE VICTOR ALWAYS WRITES THE HISTORY”

                    What they thought and did not is conspiracy theory!

                    The victor writes for his future subjects. Like Mao wrote his best seller (2nd highest after the bible)Mao didn’t deliberately starve around 38 million of his own people, even when he ruled it was 2 eggs per week for a family of 8.

                    West were allied with China and helped them to fight the Japanese while Stalin helped Mao to kill his own at the same time.(you know what is Taiwan??) Sirmavo who the muslims played with brought the same virus- go eat ala battele and in the city for the first time people looked in the bins- are you into that stage already??

                    The Russians and Japanese don’t see eye to eye even today. If war breaks out with US the Russians would nuke japan first (Raytheon tech research out). Only the US can win because they have the ultimate weapon- space plane (stayed 446 days in space) that will kill all satellites (static) in space then no GPS for any launch of ICBM’s- like Hamas Russia will fire rockets wild.

                    The vanquished also writes the story which you are blinded in your quest for free knowledge/paid troll street wise; thief of bagdad or paramilitary operative, jihadi-IS=institute of skunk.

                    This is very much on the cards- Japan and South Korea will soon be nuclear armed to relieve US from some policing. there are no friends in war or peace- just exploitation of the weaker. like your boss/govt.

                    The truth lies in sight and observation and tasting not simply with reading because story tellers are many- a movie is always for the viewer and the best is the record box office not its reality of the history.

                    Have you read a Doyle while at primary school? – Giallo means` yellow criminal` in Italian.

                    Go see then observe- BTW in Chinese we say you are definitely làmèi gāocháo (‘spicy girl high tide)

    • 1
      6

      ‘aiyo paavam’ is certainly not the feedback from British professionals who have visited Cuba. The country apparently produces some of the best doctors – quite up to British standards and have a very vibrant professional class (or so called middle class. Yes there may be poverty but so does India, Brazil and so does the USA.

      • 1
        6

        Hombre que pasa??

        British NHS is not a gauge for the first members of the EU.

        UK takes 10 years to accept new tech from even swiss.

        Perhaps the UK bureaucratic procedure was impressed in the collective administration.

        Like PRC where the 30 million party members own the country that is your cuba of the working class the new bourgeois.

        All nations are finally ruled by a minority irrespective of crasy and ism.

        • 5
          3

          “UK takes 10 years to accept new tech from even swiss.”

          But out of 10 biggie pharma 3 are from UK!

          • 5
            1

            You get the cheaper clones there.
            Lanka has to live as per grandmothers bloomers.
            Research is expensive and takes decades to recoup therefore the patent rights. Anti biotics have not been researched for the last 25 years- presently the anti-biotics avaliable are not working on very many.
            Can you afford this £90k drug even in your dream- no its only for the passa family and PM.
            NHS wont prescribe even to its citizens.
            Why is Roche’s new breast cancer drug so expensive?
            http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/pharmaceuticalsandchemicals/11021272/Why-is-Roches-new-breast-cancer-drug-so-expensive.html

            • 2
              2

              Biggest enemy to the Pharma business is Indians in my guess. The pharma companies spend billions in Research and Development. Indians copy that and market it locally and Internationally – specially Africa and countries like Sri Lanka.

              As we know anti biotics are losing the battle and NHS in UK discourage unnecessary use of Anti Biotics…. While Big pharmaceutical companies are reluctant on spending big money on research and development as they would be unable to recover the costs with cheap copies being produced in India.

              I trust there could another side of story to this issue.

              • 1
                2

                copy Cat! The whole world is a copy!

                You seem to know very little about china, eastern block apart from Hindia because you are වවුල් පැටියා (bat breath) from khyber pass. lick it.(@)

                • 0
                  1

                  Observer!
                  Quality of Life!!
                  The often lefty talk is Castro researched the anti-malaria vaccine and gave it free- not fully true. Castro ran research with folk in a can of sardine. Would any research fellow like to work in that environment when we have `banksters` conning in Billions and getting the golden hand shake.

                  Earth is a vicious cycle! Samsara!

                • 2
                  2

                  Khyber pass nothing to do with me or my ancestors.

                  No need to say anything about china as everyone knows their copycat business and we deal with those products regularly

                  when it comes to judgement of people, you prove you are a conehead!!!

                  • 0
                    2

                    Doormat,
                    To copy others is necessary, but to copy oneself is being senile.

                    Artyfarty වවුල් පැටියා(ulluka patta/bat breath),

                    You have no mathematical mind-set to imagine that earth is more than Hindia and your wikiGod.

                    3 billion soylent green would come about faster with your conspiracy on board.

                    LESS IS MORE- Japanese quote!

                    • 1
                      3

                      Javi-cornhead says;

                      “You have no mathematical mind-set to imagine that earth is more than Hindia and your wikiGod.”

                      “A war is not a border-skirmish or a confrontation…..” not from wikigod but of course not yours ha ha ha ha ha

                      The universe is more than the planet earth! So what?? Your grey matter does not have enough to judge my ability. so better keep your cake hole shut :)

                    • 0
                      1

                      You Started with Drooling Syndrome!

                      Eiffel Syndrome,

                      “The Usual Suspect”
                      K.A.B.I.

                      Kaiser, Administrivia,Blamestorming, Intubate Willy

                      skunk in a spin dryer. Quite a Phew!

    • 1
      5

      The USA’s actions in Germany and Japan were not motivated by kindness, it was a hedge against the USSR and China. Almost 70 years after the end of WW2 they still have a foothold in both countries. The inhabitantts of Okinawa have been agitating for years for the removal of American troops from there.

      • 4
        7

        “The inhabitantts of Okinawa have been agitating for years for the removal of American troops from there.”
        Without the Marshall Plan and US money there would not be a Japan or Germany of today same with UK.
        What created Sony Corp of today?? the patent right they bought and keep buying from US.The same goes for the defence systems research run in Japan

        The japs were the first to come out with aircraft carrier so the 7th is docked there- there is no love and its difficult just single mums there- cultural difference exist.
        They will leave Germany 2020 but Japan has not apologised because that is them and they cannot do without the US defence- the millions of unarmed asians they killed via thailand that gave them the free access.66 years on neither the ASEAN or China will forget what an idealist can be and that is worrying the Yankees from leaving.

        • 6
          8

          Your Russians rejected Marshall Plan and they together with East Europe became beggars :)

          • 5
            8

            You russian like genghis khan the gass gemba??

            (@_@)

          • 8
            7

            Kabi is illiterate and uncouth.

            • 7
              9

              Desha kirthi,

              “Kabi is illiterate and uncouth.”

              Thank you for the invention and we’ll recommend YOU for a Nobel Prize. Can you also please guide ME to have a look at your INTELECTUAL COMMENTS!

              • 2
                6

                ` Can you also please guide ME`

                You are a banana with a bad cold and its all over your face.

                Croak and dagger agent with bat breath.

                Aren’t you going to the dogs wowlo? ~゜・_・゜~ 

                O:-)
                O:-)

    • 6
      2

      Varathan,
      You have nicely put what had happened in Japan and Germany after the WWII. I lived in Japan and I was initially surprised by general Japanese people respect to USA. But on the other hand, Japan was very powerful in early 1900 and had wars with Korea and China, that was before WWI. Still Koreans and Chinese want Japan to say sorry to some actions they did in the past, but Japan still refuses.
      What would be Afghanistan today if USA and UK didn’t do what they have done from 1980s. Then Afghanistan would be controlled by Putin today and firing commercial planes flying over the country.. In Vietnam, all say USA and allies failed…true, but what if they (USA, UK) didn’t do what what they have done in 1960s.. Vietnam would be another country controlled by Russian.. Aren’t the Vietnam poorest are better with basic needs now? Are they following capitalist/democratic fundamentals or Russian half cooked communism? What would happen to Germany if USA/UK were NOT powerful enough to make at least half of Germany independent & democratic after the war.. We won’t be seeing any Merc, Audi, BMW on roads…

  • 5
    4

    US is bombing the ISIS militants who are killing Azidis most of whom are escaping to a mountain region to escape the slaughter – some have even been buried alive.
    US is trying to unify the Shiite government of PM Maliki and the sunnis of Iraq, to achieve stability of Iraq.
    Jews were not persecuted, but existed scattered in ghettos in many countries by themselves,but longing to live together and the Balfour declaration was an opportunity to do so.
    But they displaced the Palestinians from land they had lived in for centuries, and herded them into the West Bank and Gaza.
    The Gaza blockade is designed to decimate them – even fishing is denied – and gazans fight back with rockets and by infiltration through tunnels which are now demolished.

    Only sri lanka has the distinction of bombing its own citizens – the air force boasted of 25,000 bombing missions.

    • 1
      3

      There are different thoughts in academic circles in the USA about what is happening in the Arab countries – where the focus presently is in the Gaza and Iraq (ISIS) It is understandable if US defence interests, in the wake of 9/11, decided steps must be taken now to prevent the recurrence of such an embarrassing and deadly occurrence
      in the future. The removal of OBL, Saddam Hussain, Gadaffi and many leaders of militant Islamic and Arab militancy may be one of them suggesting some form of centralised action. There is similar action in the drawing boards with regard to Yemen, Afghanistan, East Africa, Pakistan, Nigeria and so on.

      Coupled with this is the belief in the West global Islam has declared war on the non-Islamic West and the rest of the non-Muslim world. The stunning population explosion in Muslim societies, particularly, in the developing countries in the past three decades is one sign that this “war” is on in earnest. There is a school of thought both Western efforts must go hand in hand and that radical Islam must be engaged in appropriate ways in the different theatres. France, Germany, Holland and the EU are currently quite alive to the threat. Plans are afoot to educat non-Muslim countries in the rest of the world to the “dangers” around them. Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Thailand, China and other countries have taken necessary precautions to meet the creeping danger.

      One of the biggest worries is that desperate men in the Islamic world should not lay their hands on nuclear weapons. Pakistan has the capability and so the Iranians. But the West appears to be fully prepared to face all possible dangers from “mad” religious fanatics.

      Dr. B.I. Passe

      • 5
        6

        Dr. B.I. Passe

        “But the West appears to be fully prepared to face all possible dangers from “mad” religious fanatics.”

        I take it that the nuclear bombs dropped on Japan (not on Germany)were by “mad” religious fanatics.” and they were Americans from the so called civilised West.

        I am gratified by your comment.

        • 1
          9

          Native Veddah,

          Racism may have been at play in choosing to use the Atom Bomb
          in Japan. But, on the other hand, WW2 archives maintain while
          the Germans knew the full extent of destruction from Nuclear warheads (many German Jewish scientists including Einstein, Oppenheimmer et al of the more prominent ones were in the programme) the Japanese were obstinate, which is why two targets were chosen in Japan. And the war quickly ended.

          Dr. B.I. Passe

          • 4
            7

            Your misconceived concept. Stalin was the strongest of the 3 and was supporting the Mao ist to kill its own people (millions killed) while the Japanese were killing the Chinese.China thereby claimed islands of Japan and Finland as much as Russia of Japan- it was complex you wont know because your family never was not with the british army to know the def/off.
            Einstein was in UK not in US. Father of Apollo is Nazi German not Jewish.
            Father of American space was Chinese who was later jailed by KKK had jailed. You don’t change culture without humour idealist.

            Its common sense to test a weapon of destruction on mice than your own kind.

          • 6
            8

            DR,

            “Racism may have been at play in choosing to use the Atom Bomb “

            Is your doubt valid considering the sequence of events during the World War II.

            – On May 7, 1945, Germany officially surrendered to the Allies, bringing an end to the European conflict in World War II

            – on July 16, 1945, the first nuclear weapon was detonated as a test by the United States at the Trinity site.

            – On 6th August 1945, the first atomic bomb was dropped

            – On September 2, 1945, the formal signing of the Japanese Instrument of Surrender took place on board the battleship USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay.

            Based on the above, how could Americans have done a Nuclear Attack on German before they even tested it? Am I missing something here?

            Wasn’t the Use of Nuke to test the TOY that the scientist had and to Demonstrate to USSR the weapon as deteriorating relations between West and USSR in 1945?

            My point is the selection of Japan not German is not racial unless I miss something here!!

          • 1
            4

            So the Palestinians are ‘obstinate’ one of these days they can be nuked either by the USA or their proxy Israel. Perhaps even Syria?

            • 2
              5

              from pan-arab of nasser creation to pan-islam that saudi had to create to counter that effect of army take over of kingdoms in the middle east.

              the Palestinians may have to get further into pockets like the natives of america.They are not the only natives but the jews too are.
              1917 on for a land of their own in concordia discors-Harmony in discord

          • 5
            2

            Dr. B.I. Passe

            ” the Japanese were obstinate, which is why two targets were chosen in Japan. And the war quickly ended.”

            Manufacturing consent didn’t start recently. It was mentioned in Walter Lippmann’s book Public Opinion (1922). The reasons that the establishment gave at that time or now has no bearing on the facts.

            By any chance you are impressed by Dr. Strangelove (or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb)?

            Please read my comment August 12, 2014 at 12:24 am, under which I have posted an article:

            Was Hiroshima Necessary?
            Why the Atomic Bombings Could Have Been Avoided
            By Mark Weber

    • 3
      4

      The US has blown away its own citizens who took up arms against the country – granted not many, but that has to do with the average American not being as barbaric or stupid as the average We Thamizh :D

      • 2
        1

        Siva Sankaran Sarma Menon

        “but that has to do with the average American not being as barbaric or stupid as the average We Thamizh “

        Excellent.

  • 1
    6

    These US attacks that kill Muslims may be revenge attacks of the Aluthgama incident.

    After bombing Bhamian Buddhist statues in 2001, Afghan Muslims got it back within months. USA killed over a million Muslims in Afghanistan.

    After attacking a Buddhist monk in Aluthgama Muslims are getting killed in thousands by USA again!

    Karma!

  • 8
    6

    I’m confused what the writer tries to emphasize!

    “Even their nuclear bombing in Hiroshima and Nagasaki might be excused considering the Japanese threat not only for their interests but also for the independent existence of Asian countries. However, the number of civilians killed in those bombings at least exceeded 200,000.”

    – What is the writer trying to say here?

    “Saddam Hussein regime perhaps was the best one could expect in Iraq before the US invasion in 2003. It was up to the Iraqi people to change it.”

    – When the people are under a Junta Government/rule, how people can change it without an external intervention? Will the writer acknowledge that the Iraqi Government was run for decades by sunny Muslims (Saddam part of it) being a Minority in Iraq?

    “No doubt, that Iraqi invasion of Kuwait could not be tolerated. But that was a decade earlier. The containment of the regime should have been stopped at the borders.”

    – This is not a children play, when you are at the losing end to say STOP. The Senior Bush made a mistake. He should have changed the Saddam’s regime at one go as the Punishment for occupying another Nation in 90s.

    “There is no question that some intervention is warranted, but it is questionable whether the US bombing is the right reaction.”

    How one can react to the Barbarians-ISIS. The writer could have shed some light on this!

    “The rise of the ISIS is directly linked to the form of government that the US allowed or created in Iraq”

    – isn’t the Iraqi Government was elected by the People of the Country? What US can do about it?. US delayed the action against ISIS forcing on the Iraqi Government to follow a Inclusive approach but the situation has reached beyond control and warrants a US intervention militarily.

  • 4
    5

    Well, its a mixed bag isn’t it?

    I would say post WW2 most military USA interventions have had a negative impact.

    ISIS was apparently formed by former CIA recruits who were trained and armed to topple the Syrian regime. The Sunni neighbors namely Saudi, Kuwait and Quatar helping no less.

    It has been a continuous stream of bad news from the Gulf ever since Bruce “Dick” Cheney ill advised foray into Iraq the second time. The first foray was perhaps justified.

    The lesson I suspect is that unless an unsavory dictator threatens an entire region allow his own citizens to handle the issue. The change must be organic.

  • 4
    7

    And yet some coolies are so shameless as to beg the US to come and do an Iraq in Sri Lanka :D

    • 3
      4

      Siva Sankaran Sarma Menon

      “And yet some coolies are so shameless as to beg the US to come and do an Iraq in Sri Lanka”

      Brilliant.

  • 3
    3

    Re Crisis in Middle East;

    Here is a “simple Solution to Israel- Palestine conflict”:

    RELOCATE ISRAEL INTO UNITED STATES.

    hIGHLIGHTS

    = Israelis are most loved by Americans.
    = Americans will welcome Israelis with open arms into their homes.
    = America has plenty of land to accommodate Israel as it’s 51st state.
    = Israel can have a real safe Jewish state surrounded by friendly states.
    = America will no longer have to spend $ 3 Billion tax payers’ money per year for Israel’s defense.
    = The transportation cost will be less than 3 years of defense spending.
    = Palestinians will get their land and life back.
    = Middle East will again be peaceful without foreign interference.
    = Oil prices will go down, inflation will go down and the whole world will be happy!

    forwarded by a pal from Australia…

    As well, why not Lanka find a solution by creating two nations, solve the problem and live happily ever after ? !

    • 1
      3

      Bruz

      “= Middle East will again be peaceful without foreign interference.”

      Then the Wahhabis, Salafis, ISIS, Talibans, Deobandis and other Versions of Devil, Satan, Shitan Followers will run amok and bring the Middle East to the 7th Century.

      #Wahhabi #Salafi #Quran #Devil #Satan The Wahhabi Islamist Project & Curse

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MCZ4QAV7A4

  • 1
    3

    not to worry their precision weapons only get the vermin . Russians are the barbarians . killing 200000 in two attacks in japan was ok . it was to save the world . other countries have no right to peace . they need to negotiate . only jews do not .

    Cheers

    Abhaya

    • 4
      0

      Abhaya

      “not to worry their precision weapons only get the vermin.”

      Of course you are right. Weapons from China and other country did exactly that in Vanni.

      Innocent Tamils were victims of their own success, committing mass suicide. The shells fired by SL armed forces stopped, searched, and verified before blowing up each of the LTTE cadres.

      “other countries have no right to peace”

      You have to find peace within yourself, make peace with yourself, no one can give you peace from outside.

      A spell in the jungle would do you good.

  • 3
    1

    This one line News is about and for Srilanakn issue. Please write about SL issues only

  • 1
    5

    Simple rule we all need to understand is this : If you have the might, you are always right. If you need proof, think of instances when US was taken to the Hague for Human Rights violations and got them to accept the ruling, any time, anywhere.

    Moral of the story : If you want to be right, first build your might.

  • 8
    2

    Kabi,

    I am as confused as you are about what Dr LF is on about.

    I cannot for the life of me see how he can say that the US “nuclear bombing in Hiroshima and Nagasaki might be excused considering the Japanese threat not only for their interests but also for the independent existence of Asian countries.” Interestingly he then adds, “However, the number of civilians killed in those bombings at least exceeded 200,000”. What he seems to overlook is the fact that when the US decided to drop those nuclear bombs, the war in Europe was well and truly over and it was only a matter of days before Japan would surrender. And 200,000 lives are 200,000 lives! But in the same breath as he seeks to exonerate the US for its bombing in Japan, he goes on to fault the US intervention against the ISIS in Iraq. How odd!

    In my own mind, it is clear that the US bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki causing the deaths of so many civilians was a war crime and a crime against humanity. That action was wholly disproportionate to the threat posed by the Japanese. The stated objective of the US was to spare the lives of US service personnel – not to save Asian countries from the perils of Japanese expansionism, as has been suggested here.

    I am also in no doubt that the US was wrong, and it was illegal of the US to invade Iraq and depose Sadaam Hussein. That said, I am glad President Obama has seen fit to intervene now to save the beleaguered victims of ISIS. Dr LF states, “There is no question that some intervention is warranted, but it is questionable whether the US bombing is the right reaction.” If the US does not step in to help these people, who will? The UN is not going to step in. And there are no other countries prepared or willing to do so. And, action has to be taken now – without delay; not after whole villages and cities have been overrun and destroyed. The ISIS is a law unto itself, a set of ruthless and lawless terrorists and surely there is every justification to step in to combat their crusade of murder and indiscriminate killings. I can see a clear distinction between the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 and its intervention against the ISIS now. Whilst the former was not justified, the present action is wholly warranted.

    Dr LF has concluded his piece with the observation that “The US duplicity in foreign policy gives credence to worst violators of human rights and humanitarian laws in the world. The Sri Lankan regime is already exploiting the situation for their advantage.”

    Maybe, this is what the underlying objective of the article is all about – not so much about the US action against ISIS but about how the Rajapakse regime is allegedly taking advantage of the situation for its benefit!

    • 0
      5

      Know All,

      My intended main message was as you have outlined. However, there is another purpose. If the US and the West can ‘use the carrot instead of the stick’ (soft power instead of the hard) it is very much better for them and democracy in the world. I don’t deny any state’s right to control/defeat terrorism within its territory. Even there the ‘soft power’ should be priority. However, going beyond borders is dangerous unless a situation like Fascism (West or East) arises. It is more so when religious/cultural sensitivities are involved. I may have given too much of a concession to the US on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to pass this message.

      I also increasingly like to interpret situations without depicting them black and white. This is at the risk of certain ambiguity, I know. For peace and democracy, for possible amity between East and West, and on the issues of ethnic, religious and cultural sensitivities, a certain neutrality might be necessary without branding one side or the other as right or wrong (villains or heroes). As I write this, I see on TV increasing hate speeches against ISIS. No doubt that they deserve strongest condemnation. But all these happen within a vicious cycle which was created not recently. In this type of a humanitarian crisis, bombing is not the solution. Some avenues should be sought through Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other backers of the ISIS. UN also should send true peace keepers to the region. This is something the UN has neglected in recent times. The current UN peace keeping efforts are just mockery.

      • 4
        5

        “The US duplicity in foreign policy gives credence to worst violators of human rights and humanitarian laws in the world. The Sri Lankan regime is already exploiting the situation for their advantage.” –

        external attitude.

        So the internal attitude;

        Did you hear the joke of the 3 eggs?? Two Bad!

  • 1
    7

    Muslims getting just what they deserve.

    When will USAF attack Kathakudy?

    We are waiting.

Leave A Comment

Comments should not exceed 200 words. Embedding external links and writing in capital letters are discouraged. Commenting is automatically disabled after 7 days and approval may take up to 24 hours. Please read our Comments Policy for further details. Your email address will not be published.