International

Could Chinese ‘Slave’ Revolt Mean Trouble for U.S?

07/29/10     By Victor Thorn, American Free Press, 08/02/10 Issue 31

     The deadly 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre delivered a clear message: China’s Communist Party would use any means necessary to beat down protesters if global financiers keep providing the capital to exploit a nation of cheap labor.

     Two decades later, China has emerged as the world’s premier slave empire. Sheldon Filger of Global Economic Crisis describes China as “an authoritarian workshop for multinational corporations that keeps wages at the lowest possible levels while making strikes and plant shutdowns strictly illegal.”

     However, Chinese laborers are fighting back, staging high-profile strikes at factories owned by Honda, Toyota and Mitsumi. Other plants are being marred by slowdowns, mass protests, walkouts and violent incidents.

     This supposed Marxist worker’s “paradise” is bubbling with class envy, social unrest, an alarming rise in suicides and sweatshop conditions. Primarily, disaffected employees are seeking “internationally competitive” compensation, which has caused minimum wages to increase by 20 percent in some cities.

     Workers are also rebelling against organized labor groups. Similar to American unions that are largely an extension of the Democratic Party, the All-China Federation of Trade Unions (AFTU) is a state-controlled vessel of Beijing’s industrialists. Rather than relying on AFTU representatives, strikers are now forming their own independent negotiation teams.

     Migrant factory hands, as well as a new generation of young adults, refuse to accept the brutally harsh regimens under which their parents suffered.

     Political science professor Wenran Jiang observed, “They will not put up with poor working conditions, work-related stress and low wages.”

     More importantly, Chinese youths are increasingly tech savvy, using cell phone cameras, web sites, video uploads, electronic bulletin boards and online message fora to evade government censors.

     Much to the consternation of China’s Central Propaganda Department, this new digital era is a direct result of their leaders’ desire to create a domestic consumer-driven economy. Of course, this double-edged sword cuts both ways. By striving to be less dependent on foreign markets, Asian capitalists allowed scores of rebellious teens to discover cyberspace, beyond Big Brother’s clutches.

     With cheap modern gadgets in everyone’s hands, old guard Communists fear a Solidarity-style uprising, like that which arose in Poland during the 1980s. To compensate, the Chinese Ministry of Public Security has launched a “Strike-Hard” campaign that targets labor organizers, political adversaries and subversives.

     Associated Press (AP) correspondent Cara Anna reported on July 14 that “walled compounds” are currently being used in Beijing to keep low-income indentured servants locked in encampments. It is officially called “sealed management.” Armed policemen check IDs at the sole entrance to these fenced communities while maintaining strict curfews.

     If indeed the age of slave labor is eroding in China’s coastal cities, what are the larger repercussions? Initially, corporate officers are moving their factories inland to exploit less-educated peasants. Still, added construction outlays and transportation costs (i.e., moving products further distances to shipping ports) will force prices to rise.

     Further, as AP’s Elaine Kurtenbach wrote on July 10, “Labor costs have been climbing about 15 percent a year since a 2008 labor-contract law made workers more aware of their rights.”

     If corporations accustomed to using Chinese coolie labor fear that China can’t control its workforce or the costs of production, they will begin exiting the country in search of cheaper labor, possibly in Africa.

     Another factor must be considered: Since China has agreed to loosen the de facto peg of its currency to the U.S. dollar, a stronger yuan makes exports more expensive. If this trend continues, American companies may opt instead for Mexican manufacturers who live under the rules of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

     In all, this complex scenario may hold dire consequences for the U.S. financial situation. If outside investment in China begins to wane, the result is potentially troublesome here in the United States. If China experiences a dwindling of its surplus of monetary reserves, that will leave China less able to finance U.S. debt through the purchase of U.S. Treasury notes. Once such a move develops, interest rates could skyrocket, pushing America deeper into recession and closer to bankruptcy. With consumers less able to buy imported goods at Wal-Mart, the entire web of international trade gets even messier.

     Such a development could also spell the beginning of the end of Chinese dominance in making consumer goods. With Americans already tired of the severe economic downturn, higher costs for Chinese imports could make American-made goods more competitive and lead to demands for more domestic manufacturing while discrediting free trade agreements even more.

The Only Correct Strategy in Afghanistan

07/06/10     By Willis A. Carto, American Free Press, 07/05/10 Issue 27

The corporate media is all abuzz about the General McChrystal flap, with Obama ordering him home from Afghanistan to face a dressing down and then dismissal because of some criticisms the general made in a magazine article about U.S. strategy.

Well, what is the correct strategy? As we have said before, there is one and only one correct strategy, and that is to get out. Get out now orAmerica will have one more no-win war in its portfolio.

This is true because there is no way to win in Afghanistan. Thus, no matter how many soldiers we lose or how much the taxpayers bless the military-industrial-banking complex, this is another no-win war that will drag on indefinitely.

So far, 1,132 U.S. soldiers, many of them in the prime of their lives, have been needlessly killed and many more wounded, some of them horribly, and they will spend the rest of their lives without limbs or a face or otherwise shut away from parades and media enthusiasts, unable to exult over how many of Afghanistan’s people have been similarly killed or wounded. And that number is just the official one. Many more die later from injuries, illness and suicides, much of it battle-related.

Ever since Alexander the Great failed in Afghanistan, no country, including Russia and England, has been able to bring the fierce Afghani tribesmen down, and we certainly can’t do so either, regardless of the brilliant strategists who write or regale us on television with their wisdom. Only Genghis Khan was able to conquer the country in the 13th century, but he had to commit genocide to do it.

As we have said so often before, America’s correct strategy militarily is that laid down by the Father of our country, George Washington,* who strongly warned the U.S. to stay out of the affairs of other countries and pay attention to making America better. ——

 

 

Israel Strikes on High Seas Again; World Outraged

06/23/10     By Victor Thorn, American Free Press, 06/14-21/10 Issue 24/25

Israelis show yet again why they are being ostracized by most civilized nations.

      On June 8, 1967, members of the Israel Defense Force (IDF) slaughtered 35 U.S. sailors, while wounding 170 others during their attack on the USS Liberty. Fast-forward to today, and the IDF continues to deliberately massacre innocent people (in this case civilians) in international waters.

     On the morning of May 31, the Mavi Marmara—part of a seven-ship international flotilla—flew a white flag, the universal symbol of non-violence. Aboard this craft were tons of medical supplies, food, wheelchairs and other humanitarian aid products. Absolutely no weapons were discovered among the cargo.

     Despite its benign nature, suddenly, in the pre-dawn hours, Israeli patrol boats, dinghies and helicopters approached the Mavi Marmara. While their sea-based vessels bristled with gunfire, the IDF’s airborne contingent unleashed an array of gas and sound bombs.

     One of the passengers, Jamal Elshayyal of Al Jazeera news, described the onslaught. “It was an unprovoked attack,” said Elshayyal. “Tear gas was used, sound grenades were launched, and rubber-coated steel bullets were fired from almost every direction.”

    The notion that these assailants only used “rubber bullets” or “paintball guns” is an obvious cover story.

     Yonatan Shapira, a former IDF officer, admitted, “No Israeli pilot would drop commandos on a ship in the middle of the sea, in the middle of the night, during such an operation without the soldiers carrying live ammunition. There is no doubt that the soldiers had, and were prepared to use, live ammunition.”

     Indeed they did. After assailants dropped onto the humanitarian ship from helicopters, eyewitness Nilufer Cetin, who held a one-year-old baby, remarked, “The operation started immediately with firing.”

     Writing for The Guardian in the UK on June 4, Robert Booth described the massacre. “The oldest victim, 60-year-old Ibrahim Bilgin . . . had been shot once in the right temple, once in the right side of the chest, once in the back and once in the hip,” wrote Booth.

     He further elaborated on 54-year-old Cetin Topcuotlu, who was shot “once in the back of his head, once in his hip and once in his belly.” Another victim was riddled with five bullets, one at point-blank range to the back of his head.

     Australian Sunday Morning Herald journalist Paul McGeough viewed the carnage from an adjacent ship. He said the IDF commandos went on a rampage like “hyenas hunting animals in the night.”

     To put this matter into perspective, on the one hand you had masked bloodthirsty murderers storming onto a ship filled with unarmed civilians, namely nurses, doctors, teachers and humanitarian aid workers. Nine of these passengers (one an American) were killed, 48 were wounded, while six still remain missing.

     Again, their mission must be reiterated: This flotilla’s sole aim revolved around delivering life-sustaining goods to the Gaza Strip, which the Brussels Tribunals calls “the world’s largest open-air prison and the 21^st century’s undeclared concentration camp.”

     The backlash against this undeniable war crime has been nearly universal. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogen spoke out at a funeral service for one of the teenage victims. “You killed 19-year-old Furkan Dogan brutally; which faith, which holy book, can be an excuse for killing him?” he asked. “It is no longer possible to cover up or ignore Israel’s lawlessness.”

     Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) agreed, stressing in a letter to President Obama that Israel’s preferred status “does not extend to shooting innocent civilians anywhere in the world, anytime it pleases.”

     Still, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu insists his military forces only acted in “self-defense.” Such blatant deceit is akin to a gun-toting burglar breaking into the home of unarmed citizens, slaughtering three of them in cold blood, then complaining to police that he only acted in such a brutal fashion to protect himself. Yet he was the only one with a weapon, and he intruded into the house.

     Any jury in the world would convict a thug for such murderous acts, but since Israel has the presiding judge (i.e. the United States of America) in its back pocket, its crimes continue to go unpunished.

     The Goldstone Report, which detailed Israeli war crimes in its war on Gaza, and the Mossad assassination of a Hamas leader in a Dubai hotel are two recent examples of Israel’s immunity from prosecution.

     Indicative of Israel’s appallingly demented mindset is an incident that occurred a week after the Mavi Marmara bloodbath.

     Another aid ship, the MV Rachel Corrie, was subjected to an Israeli hijacking. Although they didn’t unleash another killing spree on this occasion, it’s reported that the commandos refused to call the vessel by its proper name. When radioing into port, the Israelis referred to the Rachel Corrie as “Linda,” the boat’s previous name.

     Rachel Corrie, an American peace activist, died on March 16, 2003 when an IDF bulldozer crushed her to death as she stood in front of a Palestinian’s home set to be demolished. The IDF soldier driving the massive Caterpillar bulldozer claimed he couldn’t see Ms. Corrie, despite the fact that photos show her standing on a large pile of dirt, screaming at the operator with a bullhorn.

     Similar to how Israeli government leaders stonewalled that incident, Israelis, too, have refused any independent investigations into the Mavi Marmara attack.

     AFP correspondent Matthias Chang, the author of the Future FastForward series published by this newspaper, was on the Rachel Corrie. You can see Chang’s reports on Future FastForward.com.

Bin Laden Most Likely Dead

06/10/10     By Victor Thorn, American Free Press, 06/07/10 Issue 23

      Is Osama bin Laden dead? If so, why the cover-up by both Republican and Democratic administrations? There are many pieces of information, taken together, that amount to a pile of evidence that bin Laden is both dead and innocent of involvement in the 9-11 terrorist attacks.

      On May 5, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told ABC News, “I heard that Osama bin Laden is in Washington, D.C. He’s there because he was a previous partner of Mr. Bush. They were colleagues in the old days. They were in the oil business together.”

      Two Icelandic filmmakers released a documentary in April entitled Feathered Cocaine that alleged bin Laden resided in a luxurious Tehran penthouse since 2003.

      So what has happened to everyone’s favorite bogeyman, an enigmatic figure who can be anywhere, everywhere or nowhere—simultaneously—depending on the particular agenda at hand?

      What follows is a timeline chronicling the perfect Orwellian enemy.

      In March 2000, Asia Week cited bin Laden’s kidney infection, a medical problem that placed his life in serious danger.

      France’s Le Figaro reported in July 2001 that Dr. Terry Calloway of the American Hospital in Dubai performed surgery on bin Laden for a urinary tract infection related to his kidney disease. He flew there from Quetta Airport in Pakistan.

      During this treatment, Richard Labeviere, author of the book The Corridors of Terror, claimed that Dubai CIA Station Chief Larry Mitchell met bin Laden in the hospital. He then traveled back to CIA headquarters in Langley, Va. on July 15.

      On the Jan. 28, 2002 broadcast of The CBS Evening News, correspondent Barry Petersen referenced bin Laden’s admission to a Pakistani hospital in Rawalpindi on Sept. 10, 2001—one day before 9-11. He added that Pakistan’s ISI informed the CIA of bin Laden’s kidney dialysis treatment; whereas an onsite staff employee insisted, “I have seen many pictures of the man. He is the man we know as Osama bin Laden.”

      Following the Sept. 11 attacks, FBI files state that from Sept. 14, 2001 to Sept. 20, 2001, the bin Laden family chartered six different flights to scurry relatives and royal Saudi members out of America. The U.S. government permitted and helped coordinate these evacuations.

      If bin Laden did lie in a Pakistani hospital on 9-11, it explains his Sept. 16 statement to Al Jazeera: “I stress that I have not carried out this act, which appears to have been carried out by individuals with their own motivation.”

      Twelve days later, he similarly told Pakistani newspaper Ummat, “I am not involved in the Sept. 11 attacks in the U.S.” Bin Laden made two other denials. In July 2006, FBI officials admitted they had “no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9-11.”

      President GeorgeW. Bush snarled on Sept. 17 that he wanted bin Laden “dead or alive.” However, on March 13, 2002 he inexplicably flip-flopped: “I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea; and I don’t really care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority.” Bush referred to “Osama bin Forgotten” again during a presidential debate on Oct. 14, 2004. “I just don’t spend that much time on him.”

      Did Bush’s dismissive attitude reflect Prof. David Ray Griffin’s conclusion in Osama bin Laden: Dead or Alive? that the purported al Qaeda leader actually died on Dec. 13, 2001 of kidney failure (or associated complications) in Afghanistan’s Tora Bora Mountains and was buried 24 hours later in an unmarked grave?

      This date is vitally important, for Dec. 13 also marks the last time U.S. intelligence sources allegedly monitored bin Laden’s voice transmissions from Tora Bora. Up until then, he had been detected on a regular basis. Also, Dec. 13 marked the first of bin Laden’s “confession” tapes.

      Prof. Bruce Lawrence (a bin Laden specialist), Prof. Angelo Codevilla, David Ray Griffin, 9-11 researcher Vinnie Sammartino, Swiss scientists at the Dalle Molle Institute and Richard Mueller of Berkeley’s National Laboratories all unequivocally refute the authenticity of subsequent bin Laden audio and videotapes.

      Verification of bin Laden’s death appeared in the Dec. 26, 2001 edition of Egypt’s al-Wafd newspaper: “A prominent official in the Afghan Taliban movement announced the death of Osama bin Laden, stating that he suffered serious complications in the lungs.” They included his funeral notice and references to family members and colleagues attending this service.

      Scores of other media sources and political leaders have confirmed bin Laden’s demise.

      • Fox News, Dec. 26, 2001: “Osama bin Laden has died a peaceful death due to an unrelated lung complication, The Pakistan Observer reported.”

      • Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf, Jan. 18, 2002: “I think now, finally, he is dead for the reason he is a kidney patient.”

      • CNN’s Peter Bergen, Feb. 1, 2002 (commenting on a Dec. 2001 videotape): “He looks pretty terrible. He’s barely moving the left side of his body. He’s clearly got diabetes. He has low blood pressure. He’s got a wound in his foot. He’s apparently got dialysis for kidney problems. He has aged enormously.”

      • FBI counterterrorism chief Dale Watson (July 18, 2002) and Afghan President Hamid Karzai (Nov. 6, 2002) both said bin Laden was “probably dead”; while The World Tribune reported on Oct. 16, 2002, “Israeli sources said Israel and the United States assess that bin Laden probably died in the U.S. military campaign in Afghanistan in December.”

      • Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said on Oct. 7, 2002, “Osama bin Laden is either alive and well or alive and not too well, or not alive.”

      • During a Nov. 2, 2008 interview with UK personality David Frost, Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto referred to bin Laden being assassinated by al Qaeda double agent Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh.

      • In March 2009 Prof. Angelo M. Codevilla, a U.S. foreign intelligence officer, quipped, “All the evidence suggests Elvis Presley is more alive today than Osama bin Laden.”

      • On April 27, 2009, Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari said, “Osama bin Laden is probably dead.”

      • Prolific 9-11 author David Ray Griffin quoted former National Security Council member Oliver North in an Oct. 9, 2009 article. “I’m certain Osama is dead; and so are all the guys I stay in touch with.”

      • In the Dec. 8, 2009 edition of Time magazine, CIA agent Robert Baer quoted a colleague who’s been hunting bin Laden for years. “He’s dead, of course. No wonder there’s no intelligence on him.”

      • Lastly, on March 16, 2010 Attorney General Eric Holder testified during Senate hearings. “The reality is that we will be reading Miranda rights to the corpse of Osama bin Laden.”

      Why does our government keep perpetuating pure fiction in regard to the bin Laden’s status?

      Mike Rudin of The Conspiracy Files provided the most succinct of answers on Jan. 10, 2010. “U.S. intelligence services are manufacturing the bin Laden statements to create an evil bogeyman to justify the so-called war on terror.”

 

 The Shocking Truth About Suicide Bombers

08/03/08

One of the more stunning aspects of the perpetual war on terror is the phenomenon known as the suicide bomber. This individual, we are told, is so insanely and fanatically devoted to his warped cause that he is willing to strap on explosives and make his way into a crowded venue of innocent citizens so that they can be collectively blown to smithereens. The modus operandi of the suicide bomber is difficult to understand because the major accomplishment of his self sacrificing act is to enrage and alienate virtually everyone…including those who sympathize with his larger cause but deplore the destruction of innocent life. Then again, why should the actions of a lunatic suicide bomber make any sense…right?

Often in our present confused geopolitical climate, we encounter the observation by common folk that they simply don’t begin to know how you can deal with someone who is crazy enough to blow himself to bits in pursuit of his twisted agenda. Such observers then shake their heads in resignation to the inevitable conclusion that we must accept any response deemed necessary by our leaders in light of the fact that we are up against such irrational conduct.

As Mel Gibson’s character stated in the movie, Conspiracy Theory, the essence of a good conspiracy is that it can’t be proven. Unfortunately many of the very influential parties that operate the levers of power behind the scenes are accomplished masters of the art of conspiracy and disinformation. In their own twisted view of the world the end always justifies the means and there is literally nothing that they will not resort to in pursuit of the fulfillment of their oppressive agenda. Suffice it to say that there is more often than not a story behind the story that, when known, helps make sense of the otherwise senseless surface view of reality. The curious spectacle of the suicide bomber is no exception to this standard rule of thumb.

What follows is an explanation of that which actually constitutes the anatomy of a significant percentage of suicide bombings. An unfortunate Iraqi of some unspecified stripe is singled out by representation of the occupational force and told that he must report to a certain location within the Green zone for questioning or interrogation. After exiting the location at which this confrontation has taken place he is ordered to drive his vehicle to another public location where he is instructed to simply park and await further directive. As he sits nervously awaiting this next contact…KABOOM…the explosives that have been planted in his vehicle are detonated from afar and, presto, we have yet another installment of the suicide bomber phenomenon! It’s all so easy and the overall psychological impact of such contrived acts of fanaticism is useful and beneficial to an extraordinary degree by those who are in the business of tearing down existing structure and institutions in preparation for globalization and world government.

When you next hear about the latest instance of suicide bombing you might ask yourself if the case in point is of the variety we have been referencing in this article.