Category: Aggregated

As of this week, President Obama has de facto launched another U.S. war in the Middle East—this one against Syria. First came the announcement a week ago that the U.S. and Turkey had agreed on establishing a so-called “ISIS-free zone” inside Syria. Then came the decision announced two days ago to provide U.S. air cover to any “friendly forces” the U.S. is supporting inside Syria, who are actively trying to overthrow the Assad government in that country. This Obama decision of course means that the U.S. could at any time attack military forces of the Assad government—no U.N. mandate, no Congressional approval, just another de facto war.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov spoke to the press after meeting in Qatar Monday with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Saudi Arabia’s Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir, and he denounced the U.S. decision as “counterproductive.” Air strikes alone will not stop ISIS, he said; you need a coalition with the Syrian and Iraqi governments, and with the Kurds.

“We told our U.S. colleagues that the most important [thing] is, that up until now, all examples of US instructors training militants, the so-called moderate opposition, on the territory of neighboring countries, resulted in the vast majority of those militants ending up on the extremists’ side.” He added: “I hope that these gentlemen [Kerry and Jubeir] offer their assistance.”

Fyodor Lukyanov, head of the Moscow-based Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, which advises the government, stated, “The danger now is that IS may seize the whole of Syria,” Interfax reported. That same point was emphasized in an Aug. 3 RT article, which uses a quote from a Syrian journalist, Alaa Ibrahim, as its headline: “US air cover to Syrian rebels could be game-changer.” RT further quotes Ibrahim saying that “this could be very dangerous for the Syrian Army, because the main advantage it has over rebels right now is having an air force. If that is diminished, the rebels are more capable of providing a higher number of fighters because of the ongoing influx of foreign fighters crossing in from Turkey into Syria to join in the fight against the Syrian government.”

Preparations are moving forward rapidly for the grand opening of the New Suez Canal Project on August 6, exactly one year after the construction begun under orders of Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah el-Sisi. Dignitaries from all over the world have been invited. The celebrations include a fireworks display, a naval and air show, and a performance of Verdi’s opera Aida, which was commissioned for the opening of the Khedival Opera House, as part of the celebrations for the 1869 inauguration of the Suez Canal (the opera was not able to premiere in Cairo until December 1871). The ceremonies will be streamed live on mega-screens around the world, including in New York and Washington, Beijing, Tokyo, and London. There will also be a distribution of 50 fishing boats to locals and the opening of 460 fisheries.

Speakers will include both President el-Sisi and Adm. Mohab Mamish, chairman of the Suez Canal Authority (SCA), who is in charge of the project.

According to the daily Al Ahram, the ceremony is a major project in itself and is designed to show Egyptians and the world the great accomplishments the Egyptian nation is now capable of.

“It is a message to all humanity,” declared Sami Abdel-Aziz, a media expert and member of the group planning the event. Underlying the fact that the new Suez Canal is a “unique endeavor” he said, “There were two core messages we wanted to convey. On the local level, we wanted to build a sense of pride and trust in the project; that the people had invested their money in the right way.” The message on the regional front is that “Egypt is a key player in the economy of the region, using sound facts and figures.” Meanwhile, “to the world, we wanted to show the impact of the new canal on the global economy, in terms of minimizing shipping time and cost.”

The ceremony has been financed by private donations from wealthy Egyptians and corporations.

Following the first trial run of several large container ships through the canal, Mamish told a news conference last July 31, “Everyone can now see a reality that showcases the ability of Egyptians to make progress and make miracles…. The idea, decision, planning, funding, and execution of the project are entirely Egyptian, with the help of Egypt’s patriotic youth. This endeavor is a rebirth for Egypt.”

With the widening of the southern part of the canal and the building of a new parallel channel in the northern part, waiting time to pass through the canal has been reduced from 22 to 11 hours. With an expected doubling of ships passing through the canal, revenues are expect to increase from $5 billion to $13.2 billion from transit fees.

Of course, the project is not over: There are proposed development projects across the entire canal zone.  “We have to keep the momentum going for all the other projects that will surround the new Suez Canal,” Abdel-Aziz said. At the July 31 news conference Mamish announced that el-Sisi had directed SCA to oversee development plans for East Port Said, and that work will begin on developing the Suez Canal region on Aug. 7, the morning after the celebrations.

The “Port Said East Container Terminal,” on the northern entrance to the canal, will be an extension of the current container terminal and allow for the largest size container ships to load and unload containers. The project is being carried out by China Harbor Engineering Company Ltd (CHEC), while the design and engineering is being done by AECOM, a large American corporation specializing in infrastructure and large engineering projects. The project includes construction of a 3,937-foot (1,200-meter) extension to the existing deep-water berth for next generation container vessels.

This the conclusion of a study printed in the British medical journal Lancet, which was led by radiation protection expert Dr. Koichi Tanigawa from the Fukushima Medical University in Japan. The study found that “although the radiation dose to the public from [the] Fukushima [accident] was relatively low, and no discernible physical health effects are expected, psychological and social problems, largely stemming from the differences in risk perceptions, have had a devastating impact on people’s lives.”

Left unstated is the fact that these “differences in risk perception” are not due to any differences of opinion, or interpretation of fact, but rather the lying scare stories fabricated by anti-nuclear organizers and their cohorts in the media, who manufacture fantastic scenarios to terrorize populations any time someone sneezes in a nuclear power plant.

The article—one in a series of three studies in Lancet on nuclear power—also reports on a 2006 study by the United Nations on the worlwide effects of the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident. Although in that case there were fatalities, these were largely among the workers who knowingly risked their lives to bring the situation at the plant under control. The “most serious public health issue,” the study found, was the adverse effects on the mental health of the population. “Poor communication” about the health risks of radiation, the report states, made the problem worse. Again, the “communication” through the media was the continuation of a decades-old campaign, begun by Bertrand Russell, to terrorize the population regarding anything nuclear.

In the case of Fukushima, where no adverse health effects have been found, the (unnecessary) evacuation of 170,000 residents within a 30-km radius of the plant, led to a threefold increase in deaths among elderly people in the first three months following their evacuation, the study found. Syndromes similar to post-traumatic stress, and long-term “distress,” were seen in evacuated residents.

The number of lives that have been lost since the 1980s due to the sabotage of expanding civilian nuclear power is counted in the millions.