The US is establishing Australia as a proxy in a war against China; Prime Minister Albanese must stand up to the US and say NO to nuclear-capable B-52 bombers stationed on our territory; Australia must stay out of any US plans for a war against China. As revealed by the ABC in an investigative report on 31 October 2022, the United States has been secretly planning to station six, B-52 long range bombers in the NT, each capable of carrying conventional or nuclear payloads.
Following Russia’s intervention to help the Syrian army on Wednesday 30 September, there was a report on the World Today by Barney Porter (who also produces the program). It left an awful lot to be desired, not all of which could be blamed on Porter and his choice of interviewees. He only allowed Kerry to describe his own delusion that ‘Assad only controls 25% of the country’ – ( so Russia is backing a loser..). But of course the whole tone of the report was anti-Russian and Anti-Putin.
Today October 2, 2015, there was another report from Barney on the World Today, which wasn’t a huge lot different. I have noticed in the past that he often speaks to half a dozen people – but of course they still all sit on the same side of the fence. There continues to be a stunning lack of different viewpoints in the Western media sphere, think-tanks and commentators.
Porter’s report was followed by an interview by ELizabeth Jackson, who is quite hopelessly biased against Assad. She was speaking to Peter Jennings from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (APSI). It is significant that this man (a) was from the dept of Defence, and (b) was appointed to APSI – an ‘independent’ government funded think-tank set up by Stephen Smith in 2012, with Hugh White as director.
So Peter Jennings effectively suggests or promotes government policy.
You can read the interview below, with the worst bits highlighted. You might also read what was an article in the Weekend Australian on September 12th, just after our ‘declaration of war on Syria’. See https://www.aspi.org.au/publications/opinion-pieces/destruction-of-islamic-state-is-the-first-step-on-the-road-to-middle-east-solution/Destruction-of-Islamic-State-is-the-first-step-on-the-road-to-Middle-East-solution.pdf
In this article, Jenning’s proposals, for cruise missile strikes on Syrian air force bases – ‘the Russians mightn’t like’.. and replacement of Assad with ‘another Alawite general’ in the meantime, followed by a ‘Sunni from the refugee camps’, are almost beyond belief.
I also noticed in the interview today that Jennings referred to ‘Bashir al Assad’, and to Tarsus, not Tartus ( both corrected in the transcript).
Clearly the man doesn’t have the slightest idea about Syria, or Russia, and what he advises seems based on bigotry and a fossilised idea about the region.
But it’s also an indication of the problem for the ABC for instance, if it thinks to present a reasonable alternative point of view.
Porter also interviewed the hawkish Kilcullen briefly today, who oddly allowed some truth to slip through the orchestrated propaganda. Kilcullen admitted something about Al Nusra and ISIS being around Homs in Syria. In this he contradicted the falsity of what the west has been maintaining. The West has been pretending that ISIS isn't prevalent in the area where Russia has dropped bombs, and, on the basis of this fiction, has accused Russia of actually dropping bombs on the spuriously designate 'moderate opposition'.
ABC Australia World Today, Thursday, October 1, 2015 12:20:00
ELIZABETH JACKSON: Peter Jennings is the executive director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute.
He says Russia's actions demonstrate that its loyalty to Bashar al-Assad is stronger than its desire to defeat IS.
PETER JENNINGS: I think everyone needs to be looked at pretty sceptically when it comes to Syria. I certainly don't believe the Russians because their only interest is really in propping up Bashar al-Assad, and the Americans I think are scrambling to cover for really three or four years of completely ignoring the crisis and they're coming to this rather late and in a weak position.
ELIZABETH JACKSON: So you are of the view then that Russia has deliberately bombed rebels not IS fighters. Is that correct?
PETER JENNINGS: That seems to be the effect of the reporting. It's happening in the city of Homs where IS has not actually been present. This is all about shoring up their client’s position, but you know, one has to wonder if the Russians haven't in some ways made a really big strategic mistake.
Because I don't see Assad being able to claw himself back from what is a continually weakening position, and the Russians need to be careful that they don't find themselves actually becoming the brunt of the jihadist's campaign.
ELIZABETH JACKSON: So the Russians now appear to be trying to justify their actions using very diplomatic language, saying we agree about the goal, we just have different ideas about the methods of achieving that goal. What do you make of all of that?
PETER JENNINGS: Well, we've seen what their methods are, which is frankly indiscriminate bombing, and then after the Russian strikes, in flew the Syrian helicopters to drop more barrel bombs. This is, as we've seen with Vladimir Putin's behaviour in Ukraine, it's deeply cynical.
It's covered in the language of principle, but it's clearly not that, and it is only about shoring up Russia's increasingly weak looking client in the form of Bashar al-Assad.
ELIZABETH JACKSON: Is there any significance, do you think to the fact that the Russians only gave the Americans an hour's notice that they were going to start bombing?
PETER JENNINGS: Well, the Russians are in a position to do this, because they have the forces in the country and have had for decades, although they've recently reinforced them.
The Americans are really in no position to do anything other than watch what's going on, so you know, there is very clearly a sort of tactical advantage that the Russians have, and I guess the hour's notice to the Americans is just to make sure that when their aircraft are in the air, they're not going to be targeted by the Americans in any way, which neither side would have an interest in wanting to do.
So really, Washington can only sit back with some frustration, I imagine, at this moment to actually watch what the Russians are about.
ELIZABETH JACKSON: Do you consider this to be a risky strategy on the part of Russia?
PETER JENNINGS: Highly risky, highly. I mean I think there are two elements to this: one is there are significant number of Chechens, several hundred possibly already fighting for IS, so by going in more actively and targeting Sunni extremist groups, the Russians risk terrorism coming back into their own country through enraging their own Chechen population.
And secondly, in the Middle East themselves, they're now going to be making themselves a principle target of IS and every other extremist group in Syria.
So this is, like a lot of the things we see from Vladimir Putin, it's highly risky, but he does have the advantage of being on the offensive and having some momentum, and I guess the challenge for Russia is not to let themselves get bogged down in the Syrian crisis in ways which make them the principle target.
ELIZABETH JACKSON: But why would he take a risk of that magnitude?
PETER JENNINGS: Well, they've backed the Syrian regime since the early 1970s, including Assad's father. They have a military naval port in Tartus in Syria, and I think Putin also sees that he's got a certain international political advantage to play be presenting himself as being a fighter against Islamic extremism in ways which might help him sort of bring him back from the outer after his invasion of Crimea.
So he's got a set of sort of political and strategic objectives at play, and I think we also see in Putin the instincts of a gambler who's prepared to take some risks, as against Obama who has really been only trying to avoid risk when it comes to dealing with Syria for the last three or four years.
ELIZABETH JACKSON: That's Peter Jennings, the executive director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute.
If you want to know more about Jennings, appointed to head the ASPI by Stephen Smith in 2012, read what he wrote for the Weekend Australian on September 12th, ... and scream!
A few snippets
The United States Congress was about to decide whether to give more money to the Contras in their campaign against the state of Nicaragua. I was a member of a delegation speaking on behalf of Nicaragua but the most important member of this delegation was a Father John Metcalf. The leader of the US body was Raymond Seitz (then number two to the ambassador, later ambassador himself). Father Metcalf said: 'Sir, I am in charge of a parish in the north of Nicaragua. My parishioners built a school, a health centre, a cultural centre. We have lived in peace. A few months ago a Contra force attacked the parish. They destroyed everything: the school, the health centre, the cultural centre. They raped nurses and teachers, slaughtered doctors, in the most brutal manner. They behaved like savages. Please demand that the US government withdraw its support from this shocking terrorist activity.' Raymond Seitz had a very good reputation as a rational, responsible and highly sophisticated man. He was greatly respected in diplomatic circles. He listened, paused and then spoke with some gravity. 'Father,' he said, 'let me tell you something. In war, innocent people always suffer.' There was a frozen silence. We stared at him. He did not flinch.
Innocent people, indeed, always suffer.
Finally somebody said: 'But in this case "innocent people" were the victims of a gruesome atrocity subsidised by your government, one among many. If Congress allows the Contras more money further atrocities of this kind will take place. Is this not the case? Is your government not therefore guilty of supporting acts of murder and destruction upon the citizens of a sovereign state?' Seitz was imperturbable. 'I don't agree that the facts as presented support your assertions,' he said.
The United States finally brought down the Sandinista government. It took some years and considerable resistance but relentless economic persecution and 30,000 dead finally undermined the spirit of the Nicaraguan people. They were exhausted and poverty stricken once again.
The casinos moved back into the country. Free health and free education were over. Big business returned with a vengeance.
'Democracy' had prevailed.
The United States supported and in many cases engendered every right wing military dictatorship in the world after the end of the Second World War. I refer to Indonesia, Greece, Uruguay, Brazil, Paraguay, Haiti, Turkey, the Philippines, Guatemala, El Salvador, and, of course, Chile. The horror the United States inflicted upon Chile in 1973 can never be purged and can never be forgiven.
Hundreds of thousands of deaths took place throughout these countries.
Did they take place? And are they in all cases attributable to US foreign policy? The answer is yes they did take place and they are attributable to American foreign policy. But you wouldn't know it.
It never happened...
It never happened. Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it wasn't happening. It didn't matter. It was of no interest. The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, but very few people have actually talked about them. You have to hand it to America. It has exercised a quite clinical manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force for universal good. It's a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis.
I put to you that the United States is without doubt the greatest show on the road. Brutal, indifferent, scornful and ruthless it may be but it is also very clever. As a salesman it is out on its own and its most saleable commodity is self love. It's a winner. Listen to all American presidents on television say the words, 'the American people', as in the sentence, 'I say to the American people it is time to pray and to defend the rights of the American people and I ask the American people to trust their president in the action he is about to take on behalf of the American people.' It's a scintillating stratagem. Language is actually employed to keep thought at bay. The words 'the American people' provide a truly voluptuous cushion of reassurance. You don't need to think. Just lie back on the cushion. The cushion may be suffocating your intelligence and your critical faculties but it's very comfortable. This does not apply of course to the 40 million people living below the poverty line and the 2 million men and women imprisoned in the vast gulag of prisons, which extends across the US.
The Invasion of Iraq
The invasion of Iraq was a bandit act, an act of blatant state terrorism, demonstrating absolute contempt for the concept of international law. The invasion was an arbitrary military action inspired by a series of lies upon lies and gross manipulation of the media and therefore of the public; an act intended to consolidate American military and economic control of the Middle East masquerading - as a last resort - all other justifications having failed to justify themselves - as liberation. A formidable assertion of military force responsible for the death and mutilation of thousands and thousands of innocent people.
We have brought torture, cluster bombs, depleted uranium, innumerable acts of random murder, misery, degradation and death to the Iraqi people and call it 'bringing freedom and democracy to the Middle East'.
How many people do you have to kill before you qualify to be described as a mass murderer and a war criminal? One hundred thousand? More than enough, I would have thought. Therefore it is just that Bush and Blair be arraigned before the International Criminal Court of Justice. But Bush has been clever. He has not ratified the International Criminal Court of Justice. Therefore if any American soldier or for that matter politician finds himself in the dock Bush has warned that he will send in the marines. But Tony Blair has ratified the Court and is therefore available for prosecution. We can let the Court have his address if they're interested. It is Number 10, Downing Street, London.
Pinter does not add the other crimes, white collar crimes, emanating from New York and London, the crimes of milking and debasing the financial systems of the free world.
Now Obama will replace Bush, Brown has replaced Blair, but the past sins remain. I have no doubt Obama will try to solve both the energy crisis and the financial crisis by a massive investment in renewable energy projects, and Brown is strutting his stuff as the saviour of the world banking system. They will both hope that we can forget Iraq etc, but should we?
Exerpts plus comments posted by Frank Holland