World leaders urged Turkey to step back from the brink of war with Syria after its parliament voted to attack Bashar al-Assad’s regime at will. Ankara’s forces continued their artillery bombardment of Syrian territory for a…
Category: Specials
The mainstream American press has trumpeted for days the claim that Turkey is “retaliating” for artillery fire coming from Syrian government forces on the Syrian-Turkish border near the town of Akçakale. Because Turkey is a member of Nato (for 50 years), a declaration of war by Turkey could well drag Nato into a conflict. The Turkish people don’t like the turn of events … thousands of Turks took to the the streets in Ankara and Istanbul after Turkey’s parliament approved military operations against targets in Syria following the mortar attacks. The New York Times concedes: It was unknown whether the mortar shells were fired by Syrian government forces or rebels fighting to topple the government of President Bashar al-Assad. The Turkish response seemed to assume that the Syrian government was responsible. Many alternative news sources claim that this was a “false flag” attack to justify a Turkish attack on Syria. Indeed, before the mortar attacks, Russia warned of such a possibility: Russia expresses its concerns about the tense situation on the Syria-Turkey border and warns both to avoid tension.
On October 9, 2012, a rather terse Netanyahu announced early elections to the Knesset on January 2013. Can we trust him this time? After all, in May he announced early elections for September. The previous…
An Iranian man counts his banknotes after Iran’s currency, the rial, crashed to a record low Photograph: Abedin Taherkenareh/EPA (updated below) The Economist this week describes the intensifying suffering of 75 million Iranian citizens as a…
On May 31, 2010, the Israeli right-wing government sent armed military troops to illegally board in international waters Gaza aid ships of the Gaza Freedom Flotilla organized by the Free Gaza Movement and the Turkish…
Weapons of Mass Destraction Ten years ago, on October 10, 2002, the United States House of Representatives made one of the most calamitous mistakes of a generation. Congress, with willful blindness, voted to attack, invade and occupy a sovereign, oil-rich nation in the Middle East that did not attack us and did not pose a threat to the American people. The war in Iraq will ultimately cost the United States five trillion dollars. Four thousand, four hundred, eighty eight Americans were killed. Tens of thousands of Americans were injured. At least one million innocent Iraqis were killed. Iraq has become a home to Al Qaida which it certainly was not before our intervention. Resentment against the United States has made pursuing peace more difficult. And we still have thousands of armed contractors in Iraq — paid for by U.S. taxpayers. Many are trying to rewrite the history of the Iraq war.
Turkey’s muscle flexing vis-a-vis Syria provides the newest fuse for the perennially unstable Middle East. While the Syrians rushed to offer a rare apology to Ankara over an errant mortar round that killed five Turkish…
The Jerusalem Post reports today that the United States and Israel are planning a joint military operation to take out Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities. The report appeared in Foreign Policy following a speech by…
To mark the release of the French version of Peter Dale Scott’s latest book, “The American War Machine”, we are publishing a detailed study undertaken by this Canadian diplomat on the attacks of September 11….
Venezuelan Elections: a Choice and Not an Echo Introduction On October 7th, Venezuelan voters will decide whether to support incumbent President Hugo Chavez or opposition candidate Henrique Capriles Radonski. The voters will choose between two polar opposite programs and social systems: Chavez calls for the expansion of public ownership of the means of production and consumption, an increase in social spending for welfare programs, greater popular participation in local decision-making, an independent foreign policy based on greater Latin American integration, increases in progressive taxation, the defense of free public health and educational programs and the defense of public ownership of oil production. In contrast Capriles Radonski represents the parties and elite who support the privatization of public enterprises, oppose the existing public health and educational and social welfare programs and favor neo-liberal policies designed to subsidize and expand the role and control of foreign and local private capital.