theAnalysis.news

Paul Street argues that it's wrong to call January 6th an "insurrection"; this wasn't a grassroots rank and file populist uprising by the people, it was instigated from the top down and part of a larger organized fascist effort.

Abby Martin explains what President Biden really means by the duplicitous language in his major Feb. 4 foreign policy speech on ending the Yemen war.

Abby Martin explains what President Biden really means by the duplicitous language in his major Feb. 4 foreign policy speech on ending the Yemen war.

Transcript

Joe Biden has made a major announcement that he is taking action to end the Yemen war. This, of course, is encouraging news to the many anti-war organizations who have been fighting to stop this US backed genocide. But with so much at stake, it’s important to take a careful look at what Biden actually said.

Saudi Arabia and its allied Gulf dictatorships have been bombing the world’s poorest country since 2015 to fight the Houthi rebels that they claim threaten them. The threat the Houthis actually posed was ousting a Saudi puppet who had been sending all of Yemen’s wealth to Saudi princes, and imposing severe austerity measures on the Yemeni people at the behest of the International Monetary Fund.

As a result of the US-backed war, Yemen reels from a catastrophic humanitarian crisis, where millions teeter on the brink of starvation from a Saudi imposed blockade. According to the UN, 80% of Yemen’s 30 million people are on the verge of famine.

So ending the war, which Biden pledged to do during his campaign, is an urgent necessity. Let’s look at how he phrased his policy change during his February 4th foreign policy speech, paying attention to certain keywords:

“Ending all American support for offensive operations in the war in Yemen.”

That sounds like good news, and a significant shift from Trump, who could have stopped the US backed carnage years ago, but instead opted to veto a resolution that would have ended US weapons shipments to Saudia Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. In fact, one of his last acts was expediting MORE weapons to the coalition bombing Yemen.

But the keyword used by Biden here is “offensive” operations. Why did Biden need to add the qualifier “offensive,” rather than just say he was ending support for military operations? See, according to Saudi Arabia and its allies, the entire war is defensive! In fact, the word “defensive” was used to justify the US getting into the war in the first place under the Obama/Biden administration.

Up until now, the US has been providing training, logistical, tactical support for targeting and more. But by the Pentagon’s logic many, or even all, of these actions could be considered “defensive.”

In the same speech he said this:

“At the same time, Saudi Arabia faces missile attacks, UAV strikes, and other threats from Iranian supplied forces in multiple countries. We’re going to continue to support and help Saudi Arabia defend its sovereignty, and it’s territorial integrity and its people.”

Ok, hold on. This leaves the door open for a lot. It could mean the same exact operations against Yemen will continue, but reframed as “defending Saudi sovereignty.”

Let’s look at more of Biden’s statement:

“Ending all American support for offensive operations in the war in Yemen, including relevant arm sales.”

Ending arms sales to the Saudi coalition, used to relentlessly bomb poor Yemenis and commit countless war crimes––Like the Lockheed Martin bomb that struck a school bus in 2018, killing at least 26 children and wounding 19 more--would be a very important policy shift.

Biden says he has only “paused” such shipments--implying it’s temporary. But why did Biden announce he would be ending “relevant” arms sales, not arms sales in general? Because he knows the US will continue to sell the same weapons to the war coalition, as long as they are officially not “relevant” to the “offens...

Abby Martin explains what President Biden really means by the duplicitous language in his major Feb. 4 foreign policy speech on ending the Yemen war.

YouTube has censored and suppressed my report on the events of January 6th. I'd like to know why, but Google doesn't owe me an answer. They can promote or suppress whatever they please.

YouTube has censored and suppressed my report on the events of January 6th. I'd like to know why, but Google doesn't owe me an answer. They can promote or suppress whatever they please. 

Transcript

Hi, I'm Paul Jay; welcome to theAnalysis.news. 

YouTube has censored and suppressed my report on the events of January 6th. I'd like to know why, but apparently Google doesn't owe me an answer. They can promote or suppress whatever they please. 

I am an experienced journalist and filmmaker. My documentary work has appeared on major television networks around the world. For ten years, I was the Executive Producer of Counterspin, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's news channel's primetime daily debate program. I am the creator and host of theAnalysis.news, distributed on YouTube and its website. 

I posted a video on YouTube on February 7th titled, "A Failed Coup Inside a Failed Coup." According to an email I received from YouTube, it violated their policies. How? “Content that advances false claims that widespread fraud, errors, or glitches changed the outcome of the U.S presidential election is not allowed on YouTube.” 

In fact, the video said the opposite of that. The report's central theme was that the events of January 6th were the final act of a failed military coup attempted by Trump after his false claims of fraud failed in the courts. All the sources in my report were from mainstream news outlets, like the Washington Post, the New York Times, and Time Magazine. The video did include clips of Trump's speech on January 6th, where he claimed the election was stolen from him, but that was clearly to illustrate his role in inciting the crowd. I appealed the takedown to Google, so far there's been no reply. 

Thinking that the Trump clips had triggered an algorithm looking for content calling the elections a fraud, I posted a new version of the story without any clips from Trump's speech. This video was titled "Trump's Treason and McConnell's Mayhem." This story included evidence that Majority Leader Mitch McConnel knew the mob's intentions and did not take measures to secure the Capitol buildings properly. YouTube has allowed this video to remain on the site, but when I tried to promote the video with Google Ads, my entire Google Ads account was suspended. Google policy states that a suspension takes place when there is an egregious violation of YouTube policy. What is an egregious violation? According to Google, "an egregious violation of the Google Ads policies is a violation so serious that it is unlawful or poses significant harm to our users or our digital advertising ecosystem." Further down, it says, "Given that egregious violations will result in immediate account suspension, upon detection and without prior warning, we limit these to cases when such action is the only effective method to adequately prevent illegal activity and/or significant user harm." I've appealed this action to Google as well, and that appeal has now been reviewed and turned down. I've been banned from all Google advertising forever. 

I don't know how my report causes such "user harm" unless the users are Trump, McConnell, and the corporate elites who would like the attempted coup covered up. 

Why did Google do this? That's the thing; Google doesn't have to justify its decision at all, so I don’t know. They are a private company; they can do as they please. Whether this censorship is the result of a crazy algorithm or a just as crazy human decision, this is the shape of things to come . . . censorship by monopolies of the only public platforms available for independent journalism. In the name of suppressing Trump's ravings,

YouTube has censored and suppressed my report on the events of January 6th. I'd like to know why, but Google doesn't owe me an answer. They can promote or suppress whatever they please.

Paul Jay is a guest on Muslim Network TV discussing Trump's attempt to enlist a military intervention in the transfer of power and McConnell's role in the lack of security on Capitol Hill.

Paul Jay is a guest on Muslim Network TV discussing Trump's attempt to enlist a military intervention in the transfer of power and McConnell's role in the lack of security on Capitol Hill.

Transcript

Malik Mujahid

Salaam and peace. This is Malik Mujahid, and you are watching Muslim Network TV, we are there 24/7 on Galaxy 19 satellite as well as Amazon Fire TV, Roku, Apple TV, and of course you can download our apps, Muslim Network TV, or watch online muslimnetwork.tv, and if you're into watching everything on YouTube, we are there, but do remember to subscribe.

Today we will be talking about the politics of impeachment 2.0. There are many interesting, you know he [Trump] was impeached, but the Senate did not agree with the House, except that some of the senators did agree with the House, but not enough votes to punish former President Trump, but many interesting angles are coming out. The professor who was quoted by Trump's defense, that professor is going to be our guest. He's saying actually he was misquoted there, and we have someone who is not a constitutional lawyer, but with a keen eye on the development starting from the beginning of January about the military coup and why the police were incapable of dealing with all the crowds and things like that, and that is Paul Jay.

Welcome to Muslim Network TV, Paul.

Paul Jay

Thank you for inviting me.

Malik Mujahid

Paul Jay is a journalist and a filmmaker, is the founder and publisher of TheAnalysis.news and has been to the White House and Capitol Hill as a journalist, with passes and everything, and has good insight into that. So, Paul, tell me. You have a unique take on it. Do you think Trump actually was trying to have a military coup that didn't quite work out? So what is your thesis about it?

Paul Jay

Well, honestly, it's kind of my thesis in the sense that it's all out there in the public domain. It's just for reasons, I guess, we can get into, the media and the political class don't want to talk about because I think it reveals a great weakness and dysfunctionality in the American political structure, but essentially, what I've been able to piece together and I say it's nothing secret that it's all out there, but on January 4th, this is sort of the trigger into it, 10 former Secretaries of Defense from both parties organized by Dick Cheney, no less, apparently, issue a letter warning the Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller, who had just recently been appointed by Trump after firing the previous secretary of defense, warning him in no uncertain terms not to interfere or let the military interfere in the outcome of the elections.

In a letter that comes out the same day by an admiral, I always mess up his name, it's a Greek name, [James G.] Stavridis. This is a retired admiral, but he's not just a retired admiral, he's also the former Supreme Commander of NATO, and he's also an operating executive board member of Carlyle Group, which is one of the largest private equity firms on Wall Street and a major investor in arms manufacturers, and the industrial-military complex.

He writes an op-ed column in Time magazine supporting the letter of the ten secretaries of defense. So they obviously think there is a real possibility because the admiral names Christopher Miller. He actually uses the words the secretary of defense doesn't have the "temperament to stand up to a willful president." So they are clearly concerned that Trump is leaning on his new secretary of defense not to get involved in the elections, and then the admiral says that the letter of the former secretaries of defense,

Paul Jay is a guest on Muslim Network TV discussing Trump's attempt to enlist a military intervention in the transfer of power and McConnell's role in the lack of security on Capitol Hill.