Tuesday 31 January 2017

Syrian Rebel Group Withdraws From Ceasefire


Accuses Russia of 'Lack of Commitment' to Truce


by Jason Ditz,


A rebel faction in the northern Hama Province, which mostly has fought to capture villages populated by religious minorities in the area, has announced that they are withdrawing from the Turkey-Russia ceasefire today, blaming Russia for a “lack of commitment.”
The ceasefire has largely been holding, and the rebels involved in the Astana peace talks agreed to extend the ceasefire just days prior. Previously, there had been arguments about whether or not al-Qaeda’s Nusra Front was a party to the ceasefire, as Syrian forces kept attacking them.
This appears to have been resolved with the text of the ceasefire confirming Nusra was never intended to be part of the deal, and Nusra attacking rebels who went to the peace talks on the grounds that they were “conspiring” against them.
It’s unclear exactly where Jaish al-Ezza, the rebel faction that withdrew, stands in the ongoing fighting between the anti-Nusra coalition that formed last week and Nusra’s own coalition, which formed yesterday, but being at least a little bit south of the Idlib Province allows them to play both sides without being directly involved.

Top Trump Aide Calls Environmental Movement 'The Greatest Threat to Freedom'

Published on
by

Myron Ebell also said the Trump administration would definitely withdraw the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement


by

A sign held up at the 2014 People's Climate March in Sydney, Australia.
A sign held up at the 2014 People's Climate March in Sydney, Australia. (Photo: Takver/flickr/cc)
Close advisor to President Donald Trump and avowed climate change denier Myron Ebell characterized the environmental movement on Monday as "the greatest threat to freedom and prosperity in the modern world," and promised that the U.S. would soon withdraw from the Paris climate accord.

"The environmental movement is, in my view, the greatest threat to freedom and prosperity in the modern world," Ebell said, according to the Guardian, while speaking to the press in London.

Ebell, who oversaw the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) transition team before Trump's inauguration, also strongly affirmed the Trump administration's commitment to climate change denial.

"I don't think there is any doubt that [Trump] thinks that global warming is not a crisis and does not require drastic and immediate reductions in greenhouse gas emissions," Ebell said.

"The people of America have rejected the expertariat, and I think with good reason because I think the expertariat have been wrong about one thing after another, including climate policy," Ebell added. "The expert class, it seems to me, is full of arrogance or hubris."

Ebell is CEO of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a think tank devoted to fighting regulations. "Our special interest is, I would say, freedom," Ebell said of the think tank,which ExxonMobil has helped to fund in the past.

Ebell also said that the U.S. would definitely withdraw from the Paris climate accord, reneging on its international climate promises, the Independent reported. "[Trump] could do it by executive order tomorrow, or he could wait and do it as part of a larger package. There are multiple ways and I have no idea of the timing," Ebell said.
Ebell went on to echo Trump's conspiracy theory that climate change is a hoax invented by China, the Guardian observed.

"China is making big investments in producing more solar panels and windmills, which they sell to gullible consumers in the western world, so that power and electricity prices will become higher and the Chinese economy will become more competitive," Ebell said.

The Trump administration is already moving toward fulfilling environmentalists' worst fears, it seems, as Trump's executive order signed Monday clears the path to wholesale gutting of environmental regulations, and the administration has also moved to clampdown on climate science within federal agencies.

Moreover, last week Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-Mo.) submitted a law to Congress that would cut U.S. funding to the Green Climate Fund, a U.N. initiative established by the Paris climate agreement which funds efforts to fight climate change around the world. (President Barack Obama sent $500 million to the Green Climate Fund in his last week in office.)

Meanwhile, climate experts are warning that the rise of Trump and other far-right candidates around the world is fueling a vicious circle: the far-right refuses to take action on climate change, which in turn leads to waves of climate-related migration, which then boosts the xenophobic far-right, and on and on:

Scientistsenvironmental activistsIndigenous people, and government employees are already mobilizing a resistance to this right-wing attack on the planet.

As meteorologist Eric Holthaus reminded in his daily newsletter Tuesday: "[K]eep in mind that Trumpism (and ascendant leaders like him in the U.K., Germany, France, and elsewhere) is a threat not only to democracy, but to the fate of the planet itself. It is our moral duty to resist."

BBC Daily Distortion

1


The BBC has appointed arch Tory Sarah Sands as editor of the flagship Radio 4 Today programme. She is best known to the public for a leaked policy memo she wrote while at the Telegraph, including memorably advocating
“Play on people’s fears… stop just short of distortion”.
The extraordinary thing is that if Sands does “stop just short of distortion” she will actually be improving the performance of BBC News. The BBC Trust has upheld a decision against Laura Kuenssberg for a most disgraceful piece of lying, a breach of every journalistic ethic. At the time of the Paris attacks, Kuenssberg had this interview with Jeremy Corbyn.
Kuenssberg “If you were prime minister, would you be happy to order people – police or military – to shoot to kill on Britain’s streets?”
Corbyn “I am not happy with a shoot to kill policy in general. I think that is quite dangerous and I think can often be counter-productive.”
Kuenssberg deliberately distorted this to make it appear a response to the Paris attacks, and what was broadcast was the following:
Kuenssberg “I asked Mr Corbyn if he were the resident here at number 10 whether he would be happy for British officers to pull the trigger in the event of a Paris-style attack.”
Corbyn “I am not happy with a shoot to kill policy in general. I think that is quite dangerous and I think can often be counter-productive.”
What makes the malice in Kuenssberg’s dealings still more evident is that she had in fact asked Corbyn a question specifically about Paris, and received a very different answer from Corbyn: “Of course you’d bring people onto the streets to prevent and ensure there is safety within our society.”
But she broadcast neither the actual question nor the actual answer about Paris.
The deceit, malice and deliberate bias could not be more obvious. The BBC Trust really had no choice in its finding, and it specifically noted that Kuenssberg “had not achieved due impartiality.” That is an extremely important word – it was not just a lapse in judgement, it was a clear indication that Kuenssberg is partial in her political affiliations.
That of course has been blindingly obvious to a great many people for a long time. You may recall the petition against Kuenssberg’s bias that was signed by 35,000 people before 38 Degrees took it down on the complete lie that it had attracted a significant number of sexist comments.
My personal favourite remains Kuenssberg’s frenetic anti-Corbyn broadcast of 28 June 2016 in which she prophesied that Corbyn’s confidence of winning a second leadership election was misplaced. I cannot imagine a more blatant example of gleeful bias. The piece is headlined “Jeremy Corbyn’s Support Begins to Show Signs of Fraying” and was, as a matter of provable fact, gloriously wrong about everything.
Being a completely biased charlatan will do no harm at all to Kuenssberg in the modern BBC. I leave you with the Head of BBC news, extreme Zionist James Harding, and his reaction to the decision of the BBC Trust, the body which “ensures” the BBC’s impartiality, about Kuenssberg’s blatant lack of impartiality. “We disagree with this finding” says Harding, adding that BBC News “formally notes it.” It could not be plainer said – the BBC no longer has any intention of not reflecting political bias. Mr Harding is no doubt delighted to welcome his new colleague, Sarah Sands, ex Daily Mail, ex Telegraph, and who as editor moved the Evening Standard way to the right.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2017/01/bbc-daily-distortion/

The soft coup – US Establishment goes to war with President Trump

Catherine Shakdam is a political analyst, writer and commentator for the Middle East with a special focus on radical movements and Yemen. A regular pundit on RT and other networks her work has appeared in major publications: MintPress, the Foreign Policy Journal, Mehr News and many others.Director of Programs at the Shafaqna Institute for Middle Eastern Studies, Catherine is also the co-founder of Veritas Consulting. She is the author of Arabia’s Rising - Under The Banner Of The First Imam
Get short URLAnd you thought President Donald Trump’s first TV interview was bad … I guess there are new bottoms to be still found when it comes to the 'Circus de Trump' and mainstream media’s propensity to fan hysteria. How fast can you say set up and manipulation?
Donald Trump unleashed a furious storm on his newly inaugurated presidential head when he decided to put ink to paper and sign off on what the world refers to as the infamous “Muslim ban.” And just like that, America … and most of the Western world flocked to the defense of Muslims, arguing Washington’s vile immigration policy and fascist streak!
Who knew it would take a visa ban for the world to jolt back to its humanity and realize that exclusion on the basis of one’s faith or ethnic profile equates to a pernicious act of terror? Hold on! THAT was former US President Obama.
All Trump did with his executive order was to temporary halt the entry of refugees into the United States. All he’s really done is use Obama’s policy as a springboard for his own tempestuous and misguided terror crusade against an enemy he has failed to identify adequately. So let’s give credit where credit is due and thank America’s very own presidential Nobel Peace prize for so kindly laying down the foundation of Trump’s misguidance.
To be perfectly fair, America has done a lot worse by way of injustice and state-sponsored criminal behavior over the years than an entry ban: rendition, black sites, drone strikes, systematic torture, unilaterally declaring war on countries … Need I go on?
Please understand that I am in no way, shape or form excusing or even rationalizing Trump’s decision – but at the same time, I do not like being ran circles around on account a few liberals are upset their “candidate” didn’t get into the White House.
Are we seriously asked to believe that this anti-Trump wave of dissent is organic, and not in the slightest orchestrated by powerful invisible hands? Repeat after me so that it may sink in: soft coup d’état.
No? What about colored revolution? That term might sit better actually. If you recall there were a few pink hats taking a stroll down the public squares the other day, trumpeting against the Donald.
What it is that El Presidente did? What it is that is so very evil and antithetical to American values, and sense of decency? I’m at a loss here. While I recoil at Trump’s entry ban in that it is humanely questionable and painstakingly pointless since it fails to address the very premise of its purpose: fighting terrorism, I don’t accept the tsunami of uber-sentimentalism liberals have showered us with.
Bottom line I don’t buy it!
The Oval Office did not manifest the list of countries; it recycled the intelligence that Obama’s administration put forth and then pulled a Trump on America.
I find the sudden cries of outrage both hypocritical and ever so conveniently timely.
From where I’m sitting the US did not exactly wait for Mr. Trump’s arrival to revel in all things Islamophobic. And yet today a litany of Hollywood stars and other “celebs” are having a day at the bashing their favorite tangerine pantomime to a nasty pulp.
I would personally argue that the United States has not only defined but architected the very industry that is Islamophobia, to the tune of misconceptions, bigoted generalizations, and downright fascist orientalism. Here I would say that Mr. Trump stands the product of decades of exceptionalism, political arrogance, and intolerant self-entitlement.
Let us remember for a second that President Trump sits in the White House not as conquering sociopath, but an elected official. In all fairness, every decision he has so far taken – good or bad, has been in keeping with his campaign promises. Might it be the Mexican wall, the anti-lobby act, or the Muslim ban, Mr. Trump has been consistent.
As his daughter once declared: “He says what he means, and he means what he says.”
So what gives?
Was America expecting Mr. Trump to suddenly transform into a Democrat and front liberal policies instead of enacting those he promised his fan base?
So yes Mr. Trump’s entry ban is abhorrent in its implementations, but then again I will say that former presidents have done a lot worse than stop people at the border over the years and no one batted an eyelid.
I will refer here to Dr. Ammar Nakshawani’s, who, amid a storm of nonsensical neoliberal platitudes saw through the smokescreen. He told me: “The issue here is not so much the Muslim ban but the landslide of human rights violations that made it possible. The real enemy here is not the seat of government or any one individual, but religious and political exclusionism. We can no longer afford to think ourselves against other people – violence, calls for dissent and vengeful retributions only serve to incense passions, not bring solutions. We need to rethink not just immigration but the way we address counter-terrorism.”
Even the UK has joined the anti-Trump bandwagon, with its petition, failing to look at its neo-fascist reflection.
While I applaud Jeremy Corbyn for speaking up against Washington’s latest stunt, he is most probably one of the few decent politicians left in town, I would rather a ban be implemented against those systematic right violators, who, to this day, buy billions of dollars’ worth of weapons from the UK – Bahrain and Saudi Arabia come to mind.
I would rather righteous anger be directed at those actors, who, from their pulpits fan ethnocentrism and sectarian bigotry, lumping Islam and the Middle East to the hateful ideology the likes of Deash have fronted over the decades.
But that, of course, would require real political involvement and THAT flash-in-the-pan-activists don’t really do, do they?
There is a dangerous agenda at play, and from the looks of it, most of us all have fallen for it.
While we should condemn any and all discriminatory policies against minorities, we cannot allow for anger and political myopia to distract from the obvious: the Establishment’s attempted takeover of America’s institutions. Let’s not confuse demagoguery with a genuine populist movement.
I agree! I cannot help but see an engineered narrative of planned dissent against President Trump on account he did not bow to the Establishment and played the neocons’ game.
So yes absolutely, most of his policies are crass and unsophisticated, but they pale in comparison to the horrors previous administrations have fronted. I would say that Mr. Trump’ real crime has been his delivery. Obama was much better at packaging mass murder than Mr. Trump has been at fronting unapologetic ethnocentrism infused with corporate supremacism.
Does anyone really want to play Soros and Clinton’s games?
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.