Paris Attacks Were Revenge For French War on Terror

On November 16, 2015, French bombers continued their assault on the Islamic State’s capital of Raqqa in Syria, retribution for the terror attacks that killed at least 129 people and wounded over 350 in Paris on Friday, October 13.

“This is an act of war,” French President François Hollande said of the massacre in Paris. “An act committed by a terrorist army, [ISIS], against France, our values, who we are, a free country that speaks to the entire planet.”

But what Louis Caprioli, former head of DST, France’s retired anti-terrorism unit, said of the attacks was more accurate: “This attack is linked to our engagement in Syria and Iraq, to our engagement in the Sahel [Africa],” as reported in a Bloomberg article titled “France Pays Price for Front-Line Role From Syria to West Africa.” Further,

This isn’t the first time France’s involvement abroad has led to terrorism at home. In 1995, Algerian Islamists set off eight bombing attacks that killed eight people and wounded 200 in Paris to punish France for supporting the government in that country’s civil war…

“For 20 years we have fought this Salafist doctrine,” Caprioli said.

France began bombing ISIS in September of 2014, launching over 200 airstrikes, mostly in Iraq. Even before this, France was supplying violent Islamic groups with weapons to fight Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad. In October 2015, France bombed Raqqa and other targets in Syria. 3,000 French troops are also active in Africa to counter Islamic militants with allegiances to ISIS and Al-Qaeda.

This is in stark contrast to the French refusal to join the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, for which many Americans vilified France.

ISIS claimed responsibility for the Paris attacks, leaving no question that French military intervention was its inspiration. It called France a “crusader nation”:

Let France and all nations following its path know that they will continue to be at the top of the target list for the Islamic State and that the scent of death will not leave their nostrils as long as they partake in the crusader campaign, as long as they dare to curse our Prophet (blessings and peace be upon him), and as long as they boast about their war against Islam in France and their strikes against Muslims in the lands of the Caliphate with their jets, which were of no avail to them in the filthy streets and alleys of Paris. Indeed, this is just the beginning. It is also a warning for any who wish to take heed.

The ISIS statement also touched on the well-established fact that Islamic extremists view Western military intervention as part of a broader religious war, calling Paris “the lead carrier of the cross in Europe” and saying the attackers were “hoping to be killed for Allah’s sake, doing so in support of His religion, His prophet…”

The statement parallels what Osama bin Laden wrote in his 1996 “Declaration of War Against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places” (which refers to the U.S. military in bin Laden’s home nation of Saudi Arabia): “The people of Islam awakened and realised that they are the main target for the aggression of the Zionist-Crusaders alliance.”

Yet both bin Laden and U.S. military officials stated plainly that U.S. military intervention in the Middle East in the 1980s and 90s (not American freedom, democracy, or religion) was the direct impetus of the 9/11 attacks. U.S. leaders even recently warned Russia that bombing Syria would “only fuel more extremism and radicalization,” creating more terrorists and terror attacks, a truth that these leaders would like to pretend doesn’t apply to either the U.S. or its ally France.

As with the American experience after 9/11, only a few dissenting voices in France, drowned out in the screams for more war and revenge, push for a deeper understanding of why the Paris attacks occurred and warn that more war will only create more terrorism.

France’s NPA (New Anticapitalist Party) is one such voice. Its statement after the Paris attacks said:

This contemptible cruelty in central Paris responds to the equally blind and even more fatal violence of the bombings by French planes in Syria following the decisions of François Hollande and his government… Imperialist cruelty and Islamist cruelty feed each other.

The NPA called for “the withdrawal of French troops from all countries where they are present, in particular in Syria, in Iraq, in Africa.”

This is not to say that an attack within a certain nation is without fail the direct result of said nation’s foreign policy. While the French Islamists connected to Al-Qaeda in Yemen, who killed 12 people at the French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo in January, struck after French involvement in the Middle East and Africa began, they had been radicalized against the United States long before, inspired by American torture of Muslim prisoners at Abu Ghraib.

They had been planning for a long time to join jihadis in Iraq, attack American interests in France, or kill French Jews to do their part in the old Jewish-Muslim conflict. When Charlie Hebdo published a cartoon of Muhammad, an act considered blasphemous by many Muslims, these terrorists took their revenge.         

But the knowledge that religious hatred (or other causes, like oppression) also sparks violence, or is used as justification for violence, does not mean that terrorism cannot be greatly reduced by refraining from further military intervention.

Whether one supports further French bombings against ISIS, it will, if the American experience is any indication, breed more terrorism and draw France into a cycle of violence without end.

Bin Laden declared war on the U.S. after bloody American military intervention in places like Somalia, Lebanon, and Iraq. Al-Qaeda attacked American embassies, a warship, Washington, D.C., and New York. After 14 years of America’s “War on Terror,” Al-Qaeda has spread out to a massive geographic area, its numbers significant, as dead terrorists are replaced by new members radicalized by the war, and global terror has increased fivefold. The chaos of war in Iraq birthed new terror groups, one of them ISIS, whose founders the U.S. originally supported. Boston saw a terror attack, as did nations that joined the U.S. interventions in the Middle East, such as Spain and Britain. And now France.

In its rush to vengeance and its escalation of its war, France will know the American experience of endless war: the massive destruction of innocent Arab and Muslim civilian bystanders (Raqqa is a city of hundreds of thousands, and strikes have already hit electricity grids, clinics, a museum), an increasing French death toll of both soldiers and civilians, more Muslims radicalized by the war, more terrorist attacks on French soil, perhaps the erosion of the French soul by way of torturing enemies, and the elimination of freedoms at home. Indeed, there are already calls in France to extend the state of emergency provisions that allow

French authorities to impose curfews, carry out arbitrary searches of private homes at any time, censor the press, impose military tribunals, order the house arrest of individuals without trial, close public places, and collect private weapons.

After the attack, a musician played John Lennon’s “Imagine” on a piano in the streets of Paris, a song that calls for an end to religion and nations to establish peace. Perhaps it would be wise to find long-term, nonviolent solutions to war and terrorism.

Elsewhere, Lennon said: “If you want peace, you won’t get it with violence.”

For more from the author, subscribe and follow or read his books.

The Science of Homosexuality

On November 13, 2015, a juvenile court judge in Utah rescinded his order that an 9-month-old foster child be removed from the home of a lesbian couple and placed in the home of a straight couple, citing research that says children experience greater emotional and mental stability with heterosexual parents. While the baby girl won’t be taken from the couple at this time, a hearing December 4th will determine her fate.  

The alleged research, which the judge hasn’t bothered to make public, reminded me of a study out of the University of Chicago published a weeks ago that found children raised in religious homes are less likely than children from non-religious homes to share with others; they were also more likely to judge and punish others for disagreeable behaviors.

I suppose foster children should therefore be removed from religious homes.

Clearly, even if the mystery study the judge cites is actually legitimate, it is not reason enough to remove children from foster homes. It does not constitute neglect or abuse.

And it is fueled not by concern for children, but by religious hysteria over homosexuality, in the same way conservative terror over gay marriage was not actually driven by a legitimate threat to heterosexual marriage, the so-called “institution” or “tradition.”

Many religious Americans perceive homosexuality as “unnatural” or “a perversion” based on ancient writings of primitive Middle Eastern tribes. Within the Torah, the Christian Bible, and the Koran, we find these descriptions of homosexuality, as well as barbaric edicts from God calling for the execution of homosexuals.

Fortunately, most people (but not all) no longer take such edicts seriously, preferring to focus on more ethical commandments about loving others and judging not. Many of these individuals nevertheless maintain homosexuality is a “sin” because of these ancient texts, a sin that must be “resisted,” “forgiven,” or even “cured.”

Biological research paints a very different picture, one that leads any reasonable person to conclude there is nothing more natural than homosexuality in the human species.

Homosexuality has been observed in many animal species, not just humans. It is often a very small percentage of a group’s population, as with humans, but it persists over generations. And it can actually more accurately be called “bisexuality,” rather than absolute “homosexuality.”

Male lions have sex with each other often. The entire species of dwarf chimpanzees practices bisexuality. Male dolphins sometimes stay with their male mates for years, as can killer whales. Many female Laysan Albatroses pleasure each other and raise children together, as do the males. They are “married” for life. 4-5% of geese and duck couples are homosexual couples. 8% of male domesticated sheep prefer other males, ignoring females completely; their hypothalamus, which releases sex hormones, is smaller than straight male sheep.

Petter Bockman of the University of Oslo, highlighting the difficulty of proving a negative statement like “No geckos are gay,” says, “No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist, with the exception of species that never have sex at all, such as sea urchins and aphis.”

Some 1,500 species so far have been researched and found to engage in homosexual intercourse.  

“How would this contribute to the survival of a species?” many ask. Isn’t it unnatural and counterproductive in that sense?

Simple as this sounds, some animals presumably do it because it feels good. This has nothing to do with reproduction. Female Japanese Macaques have lesbian sex much more often than sex with males, and have been observed experimenting with each other to “maximize the genital sensations.”

Other animals, like male fruit flies, simply try to mate with any member of their species the instant they are born, desperate to quickly pass on genes before death. Male flour beetles deposit sperm in each other and then mate with a female to increase their chances of passing on someone’s genes.

In some species, female couples are a response to a shortage of males — raising youth as a couple helps the young survive better than going it alone. Bonobos have a lot of both gay and straight sex, not to mention oral sex, hand jobs, orgies, kissing, and sex with youths.

Scientist think it reduces stress and cements social bonds — it makes the group feel close. Some scientists suggest homosexual males might, by avoiding females, inadvertently maintain female fertility or the female desire to mate. However, some evolutionists suggest it may be a form of population control. There is much more to learn.         

But how did homosexuality arise in the first place? While homosexuality still may not seem conducive to evolving and reproducing, even after noting most creatures that enjoy gay sex still reproduce with a member of the opposite sex, the same can be said of many mutations in genes: Most genetic mutations are not “helpful” in evolution. That is the nature of random mutation. Some will be beneficial, and will be passed on rapidly, others unhelpful, passed on in limited fashion, or eliminated from the gene pool entirely.

Homosexuality has not been eliminated, perhaps because it is helpful in a small way, as noted. In any case, evolution keeps “unhelpful” mutations in check. If all bottlenose dolphins were homosexual, and had no desire for heterosexual sex, the species would fail. But if bisexuality is the norm, or if only 5%, 7%, or 8% of the creatures reject straight sex, the species will survive.

What is clear is that there are genes that determine sexual orientation, discovered through genetic mapping and sociological studies, like looking at twins separated at birth that both turn out to be homosexual. Identical twins are much more likely to have the same sexual orientation as fraternal twins–see Levay’s work below.

A geneticist named Dean Hammer lead the way in this research in the 1990s, discovering a genetic marker on X chromosomes that homosexual men had, but (nearly all) heterosexual men did not. A breakthrough study last year looked at over 800 gay brothers, including non-identical twins, and found similar layouts of genes on the X chromosome and chromosome 8 that aren’t usually a feature in straight men.

A study in 2015 looked at 47 pairs of identical twins and found that homosexual males have a genetic structure difference in nine places compared to their straight identical twins. The presence of these differences predict homosexuality with an accuracy of 70%.  

One might also look into the work of Simon Levay, who discovered in the 1990s that a region of the gay male hypothalamus is smaller than in straight men–just like domesticated male sheep that show homosexual behavior.

What notice when studying all this is that scientists have not yet ruled out environmental factors in homosexuality, as there is increasing evidence that your environment can actually change your genes. Religious persons who insist homosexuality is a choice may delight in this, until the realization dawns that the altering of the epigenome via external influences doesn’t actually constitute a conscious choice.

What is clear is that genetics are everything; that homosexuality is, to an undeniable degree, an integral part of what it means to be human. The only thing that stands in the way of accepting this, for many people, is religion.

For more from the author, subscribe and follow or read his books.

Ending the Military, Ending War

Last night, in anticipation of Veterans Day, Veterans for Peace reminded us that the holiday was originally Armistice Day, created as a “worldwide call for peace that was spurred by universal revulsion at the huge slaughter of World War I.”

But with Veterans Day, Veterans for Peace writes,

…honoring the warrior quickly morphed into honoring the military and glorifying war. Armistice Day was flipped from a day for peace into a day for displays of militarism. This November 11, it is as urgent as ever to ring the bells for peace. We must continue to press our government to end reckless military interventions that endanger the entire world. We must call for an end to war.

A year ago, the organization, founded in the 1980s after Reagan’s military interventions in Central America killed tens of thousands (see Chomsky, 9-11), called Veterans Day “a hyper-nationalistic worship ceremony for war.”

Perhaps this is why platitudes like “support our troops” and “honor the vets” are empty: Not all soldiers think the same way. Some come home and start preaching a very strange message, to which we must listen.

 

War, rather than protecting our freedoms, consistently works to destroy them

During American wars, citizens are spied on, censored, arrested, imprisoned, or killed by the government. Free speech and privacy are curtailed, opponents of the war vilified, and people of the same nationality, race, or religion of the “enemy” are demonized and persecuted, from the Japanese, who were called “yellow monkeys,” “cockroaches,” and “vermin” to Muslims and Arabs, called “towelheads,” “sand niggers,” and “goat fuckers.”  

Critics of President John Adams were imprisoned under the Sedition Act during the undeclared naval war with France. Habeas corpus, your right to dispute an unlawful imprisonment, disappeared during the Civil War. 900 Americans were imprisoned under the Espionage Act for opposing World War I.

120,000 Americans were rounded up and put in concentration camps, as President Roosevelt called them, during World War II. The careers of people suspected of radical leftist leanings were destroyed during the McCarthy trials of the Cold War. Gravest of all, from colonial times to Vietnam, men were drafted–forced, under the threat of prison, to kill others in wars many opposed, conscientious objector status saving only a few (see A People’s History of the United States by Howard Zinn, a veteran).

In modern memory, President Bush’s “War on Terror” opened the door to the National Security Agency’s massive domestic spying program; the government recorded nearly 2 billion phone calls, text messages, and emails every day, and obtained personal records of citizens from libraries and universities.

Bush ensured that American citizens could be held indefinitely without charge, without a lawyer, without a trial, if the government labeled them an “enemy.” After 9/11, the government rounded up 5,000 people of Middle Eastern background, arresting 1,200. “Many with no link to terrorism were held for months, without either a formal charge or a public notice of their fate,” writes historian Eric Foner (Give Me Liberty!).

Under President Obama, American citizens could be imprisoned or assassinated anywhere on Earth without evidence or trial. Whistleblowers like Bradley Manning, who exposed U.S. war crimes in Iraq, were declared traitors and imprisoned. Edward Snowden, who exposed the Orwellian spying program, had to flee the country.

 

War is declared by people who will suffer least from the decision, and often in the interests of big business, not national security

Looking at U.S. history, it is safe to say wars don’t usually occur because politicians reluctantly yielded to massive pressure from the common people to use guns and bombs.

On the contrary, building popular support often took widespread propaganda, the relentless stoking of patriotic fervor, and sometimes cunning deceit, such as lies behind the Rio Grande affair that sparked the U.S.-Mexican War, the Gulf of Tonkin incident that justified the invasion of Vietnam, the West Berlin discotheque bombing falsely blamed on Libyans before we bombed them in 1986, and lies about weapons of mass destruction and an Iraqi link to 9/11 that launched the Second Gulf War (see Zinn, A People’s History; Chomsky, Hegemony or Survival, Hopes and Prospects, Imperial Ambitions, Understanding Power; Stone and Kruznick, The Untold History of the United States).

The decision to use the military is not a democratic one, not one made by the people. Jean-Paul Sartre put it best: “When the rich wage war, it’s the poor who die.” War is declared by the wealthy and powerful few (sometimes just the one, the president), and fought by the many, whether brave volunteers or bitter draftees. Those who declare the wars face no risk of death. Should not war be a decision all Americans make, as it is waged in their name?

If the decision was democratic, perhaps there would be fewer wars fought to serve corporate interests. Soldiers simply want to defend their country; the government is not so noble. 

There is a reason the U.S. invaded Haiti in 1915: to force the nation to open land to American corporate use. There is a reason the U.S. overthrew the Guatemalan government in 1954: it was in the interests of the United Fruit Company. There is a reason the U.S. vies for geo-political control of the Middle East, a reason American oil companies like Baker Hughes and Halliburton (favored by top politicians like Vice President Dick Cheney, its former CEO) received contracts to rebuild the Iraqi oil industry, reaping billions from resources on foreign soil.

People die, but war is good for business.

Major General Smedley Butler, two-time winner of the Congressional Medal of Honor, remembered his time in the military serving the interests of corporations in his book, War is a Racket:

I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street.

I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested.

It is no surprise corporate powers push for war. Beyond access to foreign resources and markets, companies that make guns, planes, ships, tanks, and bombs profit enormously from war spending, and pressure politicians to allocate billions for weapons even the military doesn’t want.

Mike Prysner, a U.S. soldier who fought in Iraq, called himself the “real terrorist” and the U.S. occupation the “real terrorism,” and said, “Our real enemies are not those living in a distant land whose names or policies we don’t understand; The real enemy is a system that wages war when it’s profitable…”

For over a century and across the globe, the U.S. government has overthrown democratically-elected governments, rigged elections, crushed people’s movements, assassinated leaders, installed, armed, and funded brutal dictators (Saddam Hussein included) and terror groups, and bombed, invaded, and occupied weaker nations, not to defend freedom or the homeland, but to protect American economic interests and global power. Millions died, and many victim countries fell into extreme poverty or civil wars from which they have yet to recover (see sources above for detailed histories).

War will kill innocent people

The only question is how many.

War will always destroy adults, children, and the elderly, and leave many more maimed, homeless, impoverished, and orphaned. The War on Terror killed over 1 million human beings. Is that justice for the 3,000 Americans who died on 9/11? Or an act of terror beyond all imagining? Unless we consider foreigners less worthy of life than Americans, shouldn’t we condemn the war as fiercely as we condemned Al-Qaeda’s horrific act?

Screen Shot 2017-11-17 at 10.17.45 AM

It is predictable that war will have horrific consequences, but what they will be specifically is unknown. Could you have predicted, as Ronald Takaki reported in A Different Mirror, that

When 2 million Afghan war refugees “trekked across the mountains into Pakistan, they were herded into crowded, dangerous, and disease-infested camps. In the midst of grinding poverty, many parents were forced to make their children work in brick and carpet-weaving factories where they were beaten, sexually abused, and given opium to stimulate them to work harder.”

Further, in war, people will be tortured, both innocent and guilty alike.

In 2003, Guantanamo Bay held nearly 700 men, age thirteen to ninety-eight, most given to the U.S. military for cash by “Afghan warlord militias and both Afghan and Pakistani bounty hunters,” but only 8 percent turned out to be Al-Qaeda. “Six hundred have been released, six convicted, and, according to the government, nine have died, most from suicide” (see Stone and Kuznick, The Untold History of the United States).

At Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, suspects were beaten, electrocuted, attacked by dogs, and made to lie naked on other prisoners.

A 2014 Senate Intelligence Committee report found that at least 119 people, some innocent, were tortured during the Bush years in secret prisons—and failed to provide information leading to any high-level terrorists. The report

described in disturbing detail the mistreatment meted out by untrained CIA officers, some with histories of violence. The abuse included detainees being interrogated for days on end, hooded and dragged naked across floors while being beaten, threatened with death, deprived of sleep for up to a week, and subjected without medical reason to “rectal rehydration” and to “rectal feeding” with a puree of humus, raisins, nuts and pasta with sauce.

Others were nearly drowned (“waterboarded”), many were kept in coffin-sized boxes for days, some were told their mothers would be raped and killed, and at least two prisoners died—one from beatings, the other from hypothermia. High-level military officials have warned that such methods do not yield accurate information, and inspire individuals to join terror networks and participate in suicide bombings (see Chomsky, Hopes and Prospects).

Even our advanced technology cannot prevent civilian deaths. Despite the government’s assurances that drones limit collateral damage, for every one terrorist that dies by U.S. drone, nine innocent bystanders burn with him.

And if the widespread death and suffering of foreigners fails to give you pause, what of the effect of war on U.S. soldiers?

In the War on Terror, nearly 7,000 soldiers died. By 2015, nearly half a million were diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder or had a traumatic brain injury, with thousands of amputees, in a war that has lasted 14 years. Depression and suicide consume many. 

True, they bravely volunteered, they knew the risks. But how many more need to be maimed or killed before Americans condemn war? Are the deaths of our children a fair price to pay for the deaths of foreign children?

One dying vet wrote to Bush and Cheney, “You may evade justice but in our eyes you are each guilty of egregious war crimes, of plunder and, finally, of murder, including the murder of thousands of young Americans — my fellow veterans — whose future you stole.”

 

War will lead to more war

According to both the U.S. military and Osama bin Laden himself, Al-Qaeda declared war on America because of U.S. military interventions in the Middle East, such as U.S. atrocities during wars in Lebanon and Somalia, the Gulf War of 1991 and the economic warfare that followed (which killed half a million Iraqi children under the age of 5), U.S. military bases in Saudi Arabia, and U.S. support for Israel.

So Al-Qaeda bombed the World Trade Center, a symbol of American global power, in 1993, killing six people. They did the same to the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, killing 200, mostly Africans. In 1999, they bombed the U.S.S. Cole in a port in Yemen, killing seventeen. And finally, in 2001, brought down the World Trade Center.

The U.S. responded with the very thing that began the cycle of violence, despite the pleas of some families of 9/11 victims. As documented by Zinn, a woman who lost her husband said:

I have heard angry rhetoric by some Americans, including many of our nation’s leaders, who advise a heavy dose of revenge and punishment. To those leaders, I would like to make clear that my family and I take no comfort in your words of rage. If you choose to respond to this incomprehensible brutality by perpetuating violence against other innocent human beings, you may not do so in the name of justice for my husband.

The U.S. invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, and sent drones into other nations. Relatives of victims founded 9/11 Families for Peaceful Tomorrows.

Predictably, nations that joined the U.S. invasion became bombing targets, like Spain in 2004 (191 killed) and Britain in 2007 (52 killed). In 2013, terrorists set off a bomb in Boston that killed three Americans. After France took a major role in bombing ISIS, the terror group killed 129 people in November 2015.

After predicting and even welcoming the rise of ISIS (and supporting extremists that later formed ISIS)the U.S. began bombing the barbaric terror group when it took over Syria and northern Iraq. ISIS publicly promised revenge.

After 14 years of the “War on Terror,” Al-Qaeda now inhabits a more massive geographic area, its numbers significant, reinforced by new members radicalized by the war, and global terror has increased fivefold.

U.S. officials have publicly acknowledged intervention breeds terrorism.

Screen Shot 2017-11-17 at 10.18.02 AM

Perhaps the central problem is Americans accept terrible means as a way to achieve a noble end, but the end is never certain in war.

You may support ousting a murderous dictator or stopping genocide through force, but what happens when American troops or bombers exit, as they one day must, and the nation falls into sectarian violence, back into genocide, or under the control of another tyrant or a terrorist group like ISIS? Do we launch another war, another invasion, more bombs? That is endless war. Our intervention simply cannot solve the fundamental problems that lead to genocide, atrocities, civil war, and authoritarianism in many nations, such as extreme poverty, race hatred, religious hatred. 

Intervention only puts blood on our hands the same as a dictator or terrorist, breeding enemies and revenge attacks, broadening violence, widening death to a scale a despot or terror group could only dream of. It bears repeating: the War on Terror took over 1 million lives.

That is the futility of war. By trying to prevent death, we are much more likely to cause more of it. By trying to keep people safe, we make them less so.

The use of the military has left us in an endless, and predictable, cycle of death and destruction.

As hard as it may be, it is wiser to refrain from violence, to embrace peace, diplomacy, and humanitarian aid, and encourage people living under despotic rulers to rise up on their own in revolution, as millions did in the Arab Spring starting in 2010, which toppled dictators across North Africa and the Middle East. Were the U.S. to stop supporting such dictators, this may happen more frequently, with more success.

Should one nation invade another, it must be the United Nations alone that decides, democratically, whether force is acceptable should diplomacy fail. This article does not argue against the use of force in all imaginable circumstances.

Ideally, the U.S. would no longer hold disproportionate power at the U.N., and the citizens of member nations would participate in an international vote on a proposed military response (also having the power to vote the war to an end at any point). Ideally, a U.N. force would be made up of soldiers and war machines, created only in times of need, from all member states, a tiny, equal offering from each nation forming a formidable army. Though the end of such a venture is still uncertain and innocent deaths likely, no longer would war be declared by the few, no longer would war serve the corporate and political interests of one nation, no longer would one rogue superpower be the target of revenge attacks. It would make torture, secrecy, and the erosion of civil liberties far less likely, especially if the international courts protected the rights of whistleblowers and prisoners, and if the press were guaranteed unlimited access to prisons and war zones. 

World security is the world’s problem to solve, not one nation’s. In humanity’s quest to end war, that is a step in the right direction.

 

The Hope for Peace

There are nations that have no standing army, like Costa Rica, Panama, Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Haiti. Many others, such as Switzerland and Japan, have very limited forces, long unused. They don’t use force to preserve their global power or access to resources or markets on foreign soil. They do not attempt to police the globe. 

Neither are they Al-Qaeda or ISIS targets. They do not live in fear of the next 9/11.

Screen Shot 2017-11-17 at 10.18.13 AM

Many have personal freedoms and living standards that rival and even surpass the U.S.

America does not need to maintain nearly 1,000 military bases around the world, nor keep a military presence in 150 countries, nor support dictatorships like Saudi Arabia, nor launch bloody wars that kill millions, to be free, safe, and prosperous. Neither must we waste trillions. We currently devote over half our national budget to the military, $600 billion a year, while preserving some of the worst poverty and inequality, education and health care systems, and infant mortality rates in the advanced world.

Perhaps it is time to do the unthinkable: to close our bases, destroy our war machines, and disband our military.

War is not a solution to the fundamental causes of regional conflicts and oppression. But there are real long-term solutions: ending global poverty and hunger, eradicating disease, airdropping food, water, and medicine to democratic movements in totalitarian states, increasing education and literacy, opening our doors to all war refugees, promoting religious tolerance and the parting of church and state, retreating from the whole idea of nations, and creating an Earth that is one large country with one democratic government, of the human race, by the human race, for the human race.

These are monumental tasks. They take longer than launching a missile strike, but they will be more effective at ending war and saving lives in the long run.

After Al-Qaeda bombed American embassies in 1998, Vietnam veteran Robert Bowman said that the

…hatred we have sown has come back to haunt us in the form of terrorism…. Instead of sending our sons and daughters around the world to kill Arabs so we can have the oil under their sand, we should send them to rebuild their infrastructure, supply clean water, and feed starving children…. In short, we should do good instead of evil. Who would try to stop us? Who would hate us? Who would want to bomb us?

For more from the author, subscribe and follow or read his books.

On the JFK Assassination Conspiracy Theory

If one thing is certain after 50 years, it’s that the CIA and President Johnson wanted the Warren Commission to conclude that Oswald worked alone.  

*   *   *

President John Kennedy was assassinated in his limousine on November 22, 1963 in Dallas, Texas. In September of the next year, the Warren Commission, a task force selected by President Lyndon Johnson made up of congressmen, the Supreme Court Chief Justice, the former head of the CIA, the former head of the World Bank, and a small army of lawyers, concluded that Kennedy was killed by Lee Harvey Oswald alone.

The Warren Commission

According to the Warren investigation, Oswald shot Kennedy from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository in Dealey Plaza. He fired three shots from behind Kennedy as the limousine moved away from his location.

Doubts about this account arose immediately. Critics maintained that someone fired from ahead of Kennedy and to his right, from the infamous Grassy Knoll. John Kelin wrote in his 2007 book Praise from a Future Generation of the earliest skeptics of the Warren Commission, like Vincent Salandria. Kelin summarizes in an op-ed for U.S. News and World Report:

Of the 121 Dealey Plaza witnesses whose statements appear in the commission’s published evidence, 51, by one count, said gunshots came from the right front – that is, from the infamous grassy knoll. Only 32 thought shots came from the building, while 38 had no opinion.

Former Kennedy aide Kenneth O’Donnell, who rode in the ill-fated Dallas motorcade, said he heard two shots from the grassy knoll. He did not tell that to the Warren Commission, but later conceded, “I testified the way they wanted me to”…

[There were] Dealey Plaza witnesses who saw unidentified armed men in the vicinity; witnesses whose observations suggest a radio-coordinated hit team; three Dallas cops who encountered fake Secret Service agents; and one who testified to meeting an hysterical woman screaming, “They’re shooting the president from the bushes!”

Graphic footage taken by a bystander, Abraham Zapruder, has caused the most controversy of all. Kelin writes:

The 8mm Zapruder film of the assassination unambiguously shows JFK’s head and upper body slammed back and to the left. Newton’s third law of motion states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Thus the bullet that destroyed JFK was fired from the right front – from the grassy knoll – far from the alleged location of the alleged assassin.

Anti-conspiracy writers, like journalist Gerald Posner, author of Case Closed, counter:

As the cortex of the brain is destroyed, a neuromuscular response shoots down the spine, sending a seizure through the body. The body’s muscles twitch, with the large muscles in the back predominating.

Remember, Kennedy’s wrapped into a back brace. It’s wrapped right underneath his breast all the way down and wrapped around his legs. You can’t tell from that seizure where he’s going to move in the car. But then something happens. Out the right side of his head, an explosion takes place. On the enhanced Zapruder film, you can see a cloud, a red mist of brain and blood tissue moving forward. It’s almost a jet effect. As that propels out his head, it has much more force than the force of the bullet moving in, and it shoots him in the opposite direction. It shoots out to the right front and left, violently.

But as Life magazine noted in 1966, the two shots that hit Kennedy in the film go off within one second of each other, an impossibility for the weapon Oswald allegedly used, the Italian Carcano bolt action rifle.

Italian weapons experts in 2007 concluded that the 8.3 seconds the Warren Commission insisted Oswald took to make three shots with that rifle is less than half the time needed for even the most advanced shooters (19 seconds), contradicting tests conducted by the FBI and U.S. marines and police.

A Cuban Revenge Hit?

As reported by Politico in 2015, a declassified CIA report written two years ago states CIA director John McCone was involved in a, in the CIA’s words, “benign coverup” to keep the Commission focused on the agency’s view “that Lee Harvey Oswald…had acted alone in killing John Kennedy.”

McCone told the CIA to give “passive, reactive and selective” assistance to the Warren Commission, possibly at the request of President Johnson.   

The most important information that McCone withheld from the commission in its 1964 investigation, the report found, was the existence, for years, of CIA plots to assassinate Castro, some of which put the CIA in cahoots with the Mafia. Without this information, the commission never even knew to ask the question of whether Oswald had accomplices in Cuba or elsewhere who wanted Kennedy dead in retaliation for the Castro plots.

The U.S. has a long history of violence against Cuba, invading and occupying the nation three times (1889-1902, 1906-1909, 1917-1922), controlling Guantanamo Bay since 1903, and of course the CIA operation to overthrow Castro, prepared before Kennedy took office but approved by him: the landing of 1,400 Cuban exiles, armed and trained by the CIA, on the southern shore of Cuba–the Bay of Pigs.

Castro had overthrown the brutal dictator Fulgencio Batista, an American ally, in 1959, and launched Communist programs typical of revolutionary movements: public education and housing, and distributing land formerly held by foreign corporations to landless peasants–Castro took back over 1 million acres from three American corporations alone. For this, the U.S. sought to eliminate Castro. The Bay of Pigs was followed by five decades of economic warfare that, despite recent steps by the Obama administration to ease relations with Cuba, remains U.S. government policy. It was also followed by the CIA introducing the African swine fever virus into Cuba in 1971 (see Zinn, A People’s History of the United States).

One might be inclined, in the light of this history, to doubt the CIA had evidence of Cuban involvement. The U.S., determined to oust Castro, would have had no better justification for an invasion of the island than the murder of a sitting president. With a history of deceitful justifications for intervention (such as “liberating” Cuba from Spain at the end of the 19th century, only to become its occupier; or the needs of American corporations), it could have been open season on Castro. The Bay of Pigs disaster, so embarrassing to the government not only for its failure but because officials, including the president, were caught in a lie about American involvement, would have become a distant memory.

Castro reportedly said after he heard of Kennedy’s death, “They will try to put the blame on us for this.”

Yet perhaps the government had credible evidence, but feared an invasion of Cuba would lead to a nuclear response from the Soviet Union. There is evidence these fears prompted the government to keep the Warren Commission focused on Oswald and him alone (see below).

The CIA report Politico covered was declassified–it was not leaked by a whistleblower–and had 15 redactions. That is, some information was blacked out. What was left reveals the CIA was willing to hide information from the Warren Commission, at the very least to protect its secret assassination plots from becoming public. (The plots became public anyway in the 1970s.)

Of course, those who believe the CIA took the lead in killing Kennedy might look at the report differently. One might suppose that in the same way the CIA kept the Warren Commission focused on Oswald, perhaps the declassification of this report is meant to keep the public speculating about a Cuban revenge hit on Kennedy, rather than CIA involvement. Indeed,

In a statement to POLITICO, the CIA said it decided to declassify the report “to highlight misconceptions about the CIA’s connection to JFK’s assassination,” including the still-popular conspiracy theory that the spy agency was somehow behind the assassination.

After all, would the CIA declassify information that incriminated it in Kennedy’s killing?

Did the CIA kill Kennedy?

Like others, Vincent Salandria, a history teacher in the 1960s, spent decades independently investigating the assassination and believes the CIA assassinated Kennedy with the military’s approval because he was moving toward ending the Cold War with the Soviet Union and the war in Vietnam. He believes the Warren Commission was a fraud, that it was instructed to conclude Oswald worked alone to cover-up the coup.

Salandria has chipped away at members of the Commission. Even Arlen Specter, a prosecutor who investigated for the Commission and later became a U.S. Congressman, told Salandria in 2014, after spending decades defending the validity of the findings of the Commission, that he would prefer to be called “incompetent” rather than “corrupt.”

Salandria suggests James Douglass’ JFK and the Unspeakable as the best book on the topic.

Oliver Stone, who directed JFK, agrees:

Douglass lays out the “motive” for Kennedy’s assassination. Simply, he traces a process of steady conversion by Kennedy from his origins as a traditional Cold Warrior to his determination to pull the world back from the edge of destruction.

Many of these steps are well known, such as Kennedy’s disillusionment with the CIA after the disastrous Bay of Pigs Invasion, and his refusal to follow the reckless recommendations of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in resolving the Cuban Missile Crisis. (This in itself was truly JFK’s shining moment in the sun. It is likely that any other president from LBJ on would have followed the path to a general nuclear war.) Then there was the Test Ban Treaty and JFK’s remarkable American University Speech where he spoke with empathy and compassion about the Soviet people, recognizing our common humanity, the fact that we all “inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children’s futures. And we are all mortal.”

But many of his steps remain unfamiliar: Kennedy’s back-channel dialogue with Khrushchev and their shared pursuit of common ground; his secret opening to dialogue with Fidel Castro (ongoing the very week of his assassination); and his determination to pull out of Vietnam after his probable re-election in 1964.

All of these steps caused him to be regarded as a virtual traitor by elements of the military-intelligence community.

Indeed, the feelings may have been mutual. Kennedy, feeling the heat after the Bay of Pigs disaster, told White House staff, “I’ve got to do something about those CIA bastards.”

The Intercept writes,

John F. Kennedy famously described his desire to “splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it into the winds” after the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba. Peter Kornbluh points out in his book Bay of Pigs Declassified that the State Department at that same time proposed the CIA be stripped of its covert action capacity and renamed.

Enter Oswald, conspiracy theorists say. According to Politico, the 2013 CIA

…report identifies other tantalizing information that McCone did not reveal to the commission, including evidence that the CIA might somehow have been in communication with Oswald before 1963 and that the spy agency had secretly monitored Oswald’s mail after he attempted to defect to the Soviet Union in 1959.

This confirms earlier evidence.

Historian John Newman of the University of Maryland, citing CIA documents ordered released in the 1990s, writes that in September and October of 1963, Oswald visited Mexico City to try to get a visa to travel to Cuba. Politico writes that he met with “spies for the Cuban and Soviet governments.”

The CIA station in Mexico noticed his activities and requested information on him from CIA headquarters, which falsely informed them that it had no information on Oswald since he returned to the U.S. from Russia. In truth, they had received and studied many reports on Oswald, sent by the FBI.

Note this was before the assassination. After Kennedy died, the CIA claimed it did not know of Oswald’s visit to Mexico City before they investigated Kennedy’s death (the FBI went along with this lie) and also falsely claimed that the tapes of the calls from the CIA station in Mexico City were destroyed. These lies could have been told to protect the CIA’s image after the assassination, but why did the CIA lie to its station in Mexico, as this was before the assassination?

That question has yet to be answered. If the CIA is seeking to clear its name, an explanation for this would be a good place to begin.

Additionally, some FBI files on Oswald from 1959-1960 remain classified, and could give us a better understanding of what the CIA didn’t want to relay to its Mexico station.

However, an additional detail begs attention:

after Oswald failed to get the visas, CIA intercepts showed that someone impersonated Oswald in phone calls made to the Soviet embassy and the Cuban consulate and linked Oswald to a known KGB assassin — Valery Kostikov — whom the CIA and FBI had been following for over a year.

Who was this impersonator? Someone Oswald recruited just to make a few phone calls, without knowledge of the plot? Or a co-conspirator, an ally of Oswald, in the hit on Kennedy? Or was it someone with knowledge of the upcoming hit, someone attempting to frame Oswald by impersonating him and mentioning KGB hitmen?

Whatever the case, an implied Russian connection to Oswald was a terrifying notion to the United States.

The Soviet Union

The FBI informed President Johnson of the impersonator. According to Newman, Johnson said that

Oswald’s apparent connection to Castro and Khrushchev had to be prevented “from kicking us into a war that can kill forty million Americans in an hour.”

[At first] Chief Justice Warren…refused at first to take the job even after both Robert Kennedy and Archibald Cox had asked him. [Johnson] “ordered” Warren to come to the White House and in that meeting Warren had twice refused the president’s request. LBJ continued, “And I just pulled out what Hoover told me about a little incident in Mexico City.” The president told Warren this would make it look like Khrushchev and Castro killed Kennedy. LBJ said that Warren started crying and agreed to take the assignment.

In a 1972 documentary for public television Warren himself told the same story — except for the tears. He said that Johnson felt the argument that Khrushchev and Castro had killed Kennedy might mean nuclear war.

Was the Warren Commission told to focus solely on Oswald because a deeper investigation might reveal Oswald’s connection to Cuba or Russia? If Khrushchev and Kennedy were forming a bond, would the Russian leader order his death? Or did the KGB circumvent Khrushchev?

Having just come back from the brink of nuclear war with the Soviets during the Cuban Missile Crisis, was a successful assassination of a U.S. president by a foreign power covered up, ignored, for the sake of the human race? Would the proudest and most powerful nation on Earth let that slide?

If so, the tapes of someone impersonating Oswald would have to be covered up.

Yet again, those who believe the CIA orchestrated the assassination might suspect the whispers of foreign involvement to be a sideshow. Here again we have a public confession (via Warren in the 1972 documentary) of the government’s goal for the Warren Commission: to focus on Oswald and him alone because of possible Cuban or Soviet connections.

Better a conspiracy theory involving foreign powers than one involving the CIA, perhaps? Johnson told Walter Cronkite in a 1969 television interview, “I’ve never been completely relieved of the fact that there might have been international connections.” In private conversations, it was a different story. Arthur Schlesinger of the Washington Post reported in 1977 that Johnson told his White House staff that “the CIA had had something to do with this plot” as early as 1967.

The Unanswered

There is much we do not know, yet without question the government wanted the Warren Commission to conclude Oswald was a lone wolf.

It is interesting indeed that President Johnson, who selected the members of the Warren Commission, should include the former head of the CIA, Allen Dulles. The CIA is the foreign intelligence branch of the U.S. intelligence community, while the FBI handles domestic cases. This at the least hints at suspicion of foreign involvement in the assassination, at the worst CIA involvement.

If Dulles was on the Commission to steer it in the right direction–not an unreasonable assumption considering the evidence–he did his job. The former head of the World Bank on the Commission, John J. McCloy, was originally skeptical of the lone assassin theory, but it was his old friend Allen Dulles who convinced him (see Kai Bird’s biography on McCloy, The Chairman). McCloy became a staunch supporter of the lone wolf theory.  

The volume of conspiracy theories surrounding Kennedy’s murder is immense.

Over the decades, theories have been fueled by the alleged deathbed confession of a CIA agent that said Johnson ordered the hit. And a man who said his father, a Dallas police officer who served in the Marines with Oswald, was one of the assassins. And another man who claimed to be one of the shooters, hired by the Mafia to get revenge for Robert Kennedy’s war on the mob, who allegedly was photographed by Oswald, ate pancakes with Jack Ruby (Oswald’s killer), and accidentally left behind a .222 cartridge with his teeth marks on it in the Grassy Knoll (dug up in 1987). And Johnson’s alleged mistress who claimed the vice president told her hours before the assassination, “After tomorrow, John Kennedy will never embarrass me again. That’s no threat. That’s a promise.” And journalists, witnesses, and investigators who died in allegedly mysterious circumstances. And theorists who think a Secret Service agent accidentally shot Kennedy.

It is even theorized that Kennedy was murdered because he was about to reveal that extraterrestrial beings were taking over Earth.

For more from the author, subscribe and follow or read his books.

What the Guy Fawkes Mask and Confederate Flag Have in Common

The appropriation of symbols is interesting indeed.

Today being the fifth of November, much attention will be paid to the Guy Fawkes mask, popularized in the U.S., like the “Remember, Remember” rhyme, by the 2006 film V for Vendetta, in which a vigilante wearing the mask battles to overthrow a fascist dictatorship in Britain in a dystopian future.

The vigilante is the protagonist, murderous toward his enemies but compassionate toward his friends, with enough humanity to allow the British Parliament building time to empty before he blows it up.        

Since the film, the Fawkes mask has become a symbol of anti-government resistance, used by the hacker group Anonymous, which publicizes State secrets, the Occupy Wall Street movement, which opposes how corporations and the wealthy control the State, and popular uprisings against authoritarian regimes in the Middle East and Asia.

Of course, there exists a serious disconnect between the modern use of this symbol and the historical person on whom it is based, as I will explain. The dichotomy reminds me, actually, of the appropriation of the Confederate flag and the embarrassingly anhistorical justification of its use.

It’s an interesting comparison because on the one hand we have a symbol that might be associated with the most radical of leftists, and on the other a symbol usually associated with the far right.

After a young white racist tried to spark a “race war” by massacring nine black people in a church in Charleston, South Carolina on June 17, 2015, fierce debate over the Confederate flag (which the shooter displayed in his personal life) shook the U.S. It led to the removal of many Confederate flags from government buildings in the traditional South.  

The debate over the flag was fierce. True, flying the Confederate flag doesn’t necessarily make you a racist, but it is a racist symbol regardless. These things are in no way mutually exclusive.

Many whites who fly it likely do carry conscious anti-black prejudice (nearly all whites have subconscious biases), but surely not all, in the same way many whites who use “nigger” are racist, but not necessarily all of them (Nigger: The Strange Career of a Troublesome Word, by Randall Kennedy, explores this).

So we have non-racists who fly the flag, actual racists who fly the flag, and progressives who despise the flag.

Regarding the first of these, American whites (and even blacks) who display the Confederate flag say liberals who hate the flag (and actual racists who love it) are misrepresenting it, that it really represents “heritage, not hate.”

This is somewhat vague. By heritage, I suppose this means all Southern culture, tradition, and history besides slavery, insurrection, Jim Crow laws, white terrorism, lynching, etc. In reality, it’s only these non-racists who fly the flag that misrepresent it (appropriate it), in a “positive” way: ignoring its white supremacist origins. They are sugarcoating, whitewashing it.

It is well-known that the symbol originated as a battle flag for traitorous states that sought to preserve black slavery, and was popularized by a white terrorist group, the Ku Klux Klan, after the war. According to Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens, the Confederacy’s

…foundations are laid…upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth…   

The creator of the flag (which originally had the stars and bars in the corner, the rest white) was quoted in the Daily Morning News on April 23, 1863 as saying:

As a people we are fighting to maintain the Heaven-ordained supremacy of the white man over the inferior or colored race; a white flag would thus be emblematical of our cause.

It’s nonsense to claim progressives or actual bigots misrepresent its true meaning. It has evolved to mean something else, something benign, for some whites, which absolves them of blatant racism but also threatens to breed historical amnesia.

The Guy Fawkes mask is a similar story.

Fawkes was a Catholic terrorist who, along with co-conspirators, tried to blow up Parliament on November 5, 1605. Unlike the hero of V for Vendetta, he did not seek to destroy an empty building. He and his companions wanted to assassinate King James I, a Protestant, no matter how many innocent people died beside him. The plot was uncovered in time and Fawkes was executed.

It was an act of religious and political terrorism, as Fawkes opposed decades of persecution of Catholics by the British royal family, a small act in an era of unspeakable religious violence, both within European nations and between them.

In the early 1500s, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and others broke from the Roman Catholic Church to create a more “pure” Christianity. Northern Europe became dominated by Protestant states (like Britain), Southern Europe by Catholic states. Central Europe (primarily Germany) plunged into violence that lasted more than a century. Torture was widely used. It all then culminated in the Thirty Years’ War (1618-1648), which devastated Europe and killed some 8 million people.

Perhaps one will justify Fawkes’ actions as being acceptable because of State oppression of Catholics (predictably, a justification more likely if the one making it is Catholic). Yet I wonder if one would say the same of a Sunni terrorist attempting to assassinate an oppressive Shiite ruler in a Middle East nation, an attempt that would massacre innocent bystanders. Would one not be quick to call that terrorism?

The Fawkes mask is a symbol of the violence bred by religion–both State violence against a minority religious group, and group violence against the State out of revenge. It symbolizes violence as the answer to religious conflict.

I support the actions of the groups mentioned above that today wear the Fawkes mask. Yet like the Confederate flag, their symbol should be buried. Why would decent human beings hold a flag created to represent the superiority of the white race, or wear a mask of a religious terrorist willing to kill innocent people to get to one enemy?

Put bluntly, it’s because they do not study history.

Remember, remember!

The fifth of November,

The Gunpowder treason and plot;

I know of no reason

Why the Gunpowder treason

Should ever be forgot!

Guy Fawkes and his companions

Did the scheme contrive,

To blow the King and Parliament

All up alive.

Threescore barrels, laid below,

To prove old England’s overthrow.

But, by God’s providence, him they catch,

With a dark lantern, lighting a match!

A stick and a stake

For King James’s sake!

If you won’t give me one,

I’ll take two,

The better for me,

And the worse for you.

A rope, a rope, to hang the Pope,

A penn’orth of cheese to choke him,

A pint of beer to wash it down,

And a jolly good fire to burn him.

Holloa, boys! holloa, boys! make the bells ring!

Holloa, boys! holloa boys! God save the King!

Hip, hip, hooor-r-r-ray!

For more from the author, subscribe and follow or read his books.