DISCLAIMER: This film contains unedited, graphic and violent imagery of what your US tax dollars are actually paying for.

‘American Bisque’ is a no narration documentary of raw footage set to a chronological timeline that follows the history of US foreign policy and White House lies, from Vietnam and Nixon to Obama’s war on whistleblowers. Electronic music reflecting every era of the chronology accompanies the video. The film was fully edited and produced by Robbie Martin, co-host of Media Roots Radio.

This is Part Three: Obama ‘Now You Know the Real Deal’, consisting of Obama’s broken promises, and exacerbation of George Bush’s neoconservative agenda of surveillance and endless war.

Parts One & Two will be released by September 2013.

***

COMING SOON Part One: ‘The Deadbeats Lost’ will cover the presidencies of Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr. and Clinton.

COMING SOON Part Two: ‘Cart Blanche’ will cover the presidency of George W. Bush: the events of 9/11 and the complete stonewalling of an investigation, the run-up to the Afghanistan war, the planting of seeds for an indefinite ‘War on Terror’.

‘American Bisque’ includes temporary music score by: AFX, The Tuss, Autechre, LFO, Wendy Carlos, Opiate, Download, Plastikman, Skinny Puppy, Throbbing Gristle, Nancy Sinatra, Bass Clef, 2562, Machinedrum, Gescom, Oneohtrix Point Never, :Zoviet*France:, Scorn/Mick Harris, Dopplereffekt, Nommo Ogo, Mika Vaino, VHS Head and a glitched out jumbo-tron James Taylor broadcast.

‘American Bisque’ contains clips from: Loose Change Final Cut, Dylan Avery, 9/11 Press for Truth, CSPAN, ABC, CNN, FOX, Jon Gold, WeAreChange, Luke Rudowski, Russia Today Official White House broadcasts + others who i will credit in due time. Many other youtube users and clip finders deserve to be credited.

This video is released under a creative commons attribute of fair share distribution. No profit is being made from it and its only purpose is educational. 

MEDIA ROOTS — Last month, President Obama claimed that there has not been a significant amount of civilian deaths in Pakistan from unmanned US drones.  Yet, more than a dozen Pakistani families of dead civilians have petitioned to the United Nations for an intervention to immediately cease U.S. drone attacks.  The UN’s Human Rights Council (HRC) is expected to review the complaint soon.

Considering the fact that Pakistan possesses nuclear weapons, this issue is of great concern for human rights as well as international security.  Last year, the UN HRC recognized that while 40 countries have drone technology, the United States is the dominant user of drones for targeted killings.  Additionally, the Government of Pakistan has previously stated that the continued use of drones in their airspace, without prior consent, is a direct violation of their sovereignty.  Imagine Pakistan, or any other foreign military, flying drones, without consent, over U.S. airspace.

Reprieve, a UK-based legal charity, is formally delivering the complaint.  Activist Shahzad Akbar explains, “the international community can no longer afford to ignore the human rights catastrophe which is taking place in North West Pakistan in the name of the ‘War on Terror.’”

Shockingly, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism reveals that, during the year the United States increased its drone operations, multiple civilians were specifically targeted as, either, rescuers or for simply attending the funerals of the slain.  The Bureau adds, since Obama took office three years ago, 60 of these victims have been children.

The increased use of drones is the latest example of industry fueling military expansion.  Earlier this month, Congress approved a $63 billion spending bill for the Federal Aviation Administration to test and license domestic drone use.  As many as 30,000 drones could be in use over U.S. skies by 2020.

Oskar Mosquito is a writer for Media Roots and producer at truth-march.

Photo by Flickr user the US Army

MEDIA ROOTS- Fighting wars with robots is becoming an increasingly popular way for the US government to engage in combat. With the lack of US troop presence in the country, people might hardly consider America to be at war with Pakistan. However, US drone strikes in the region have dramatically escalated under the Obama administration, destroying thousands of families and further devastating the land that is still recovering from last year’s devastating floods.

Despite the government and corporate media’s propagandistic talking point about only alleged “militants” being the targets and victims of US drone strikes, the evidence compiled by independent researchers paints a more realistic picture: 90% of casualties from drone strikes are innocent civilians. Glenn Greenwald further analyzes the discrepancy between the government’s official line and the perception of Pakistanis.

Abby

***

SALON– Two weeks ago, President Obama’s former Director of National Intelligence, Adm. Dennis Blair, excoriated the White House for its reliance on drones in multiple Muslim nations, pointing out, as Politico put it, that those attacks “are fueling anti-American sentiment and undercutting reform efforts in those countries.” Blair said: “we’re alienating the countries concerned, because we’re treating countries just as places where we go attack groups that threaten us.” Blair has an Op-Ed … in The New York Times making a similar argument with a focus on Pakistan, though he uses a conspicuously strange point to make his case:

Qaeda officials who are killed by drones will be replaced. The group’s structure will survive and it will still be able to inspire, finance and train individuals and teams to kill Americans. Drone strikes hinder Qaeda fighters while they move and hide, but they can endure the attacks and continue to function.

Moreover, as the drone campaign wears on, hatred of America is increasing in Pakistan. American officials may praise the precision of the drone attacks. But in Pakistan, news media accounts of heavy civilian casualties are widely believed. Our reliance on high-tech strikes that pose no risk to our soldiers is bitterly resented in a country that cannot duplicate such feats of warfare without cost to its own troops.

Though he obviously knows the answer, Blair does not say whether this widespread Pakistani perception about civilian casualties is based in fact; if anything, he insinuates that this “belief” is grounded in the much-discussed affection which Pakistanis allegedly harbor for fabricated anti-American conspiracy theories. While the Pakistani perception is significant unto itself regardless of whether it’s accurate — the belief about drones is what fuels anti-American hatred — it’s nonetheless bizarre to mount an anti-drone argument while relegating the impact of civilian deaths to mere “belief,” all while avoiding informing readers what the actual reality is. Discussions of the innocent victims of American military violence is one of the great taboos in establishment circles; that Blair goes so far out of his way to avoid discussing it highlights how potent that taboo is.

Read the full commentary about Pakistani Belief About Drones: Perceptive or Paranoid?

Written by Glen Greenwald

© 2011 Salon

Photo by Flickr user JimNTexas

AOL NEWS– When it comes to measuring casualties and death rates, Pakistani computer scientist Zeeshan-ul-hassan Usmani is a world-class expert. His Ph.D. thesis looked at complex simulations calculating blast waves from suicide bombings, with an eye toward preventing mass casualties from such attacks.

Now Usmani, an assistant professor at Ghulam Ishaq Khan Institute in Pakistan’s North-West Frontier Province who recently completed five years as a Fulbright scholar in the U.S., is applying that expertise to the contentious debate over drone strikes. And his website, Pakistan Body Count, draws a striking conclusion about the unacknowledged CIA drone strikes in Pakistan: More than 90 percent of the reported casualties are civilians.

Pakistani youngsters sit beside the bloodstain wall of a house after a suspected U.S. drone missile strike in Mohammadkhel, a village in the Pakistani north Waziristan region along Afghan border, 2008.

Since the beginning of the drone attacks, Usmani estimates that over 1,200 civilians have been killed by the strikes, compared to only 30 members of al-Qaida.

Usmani brings a unique background to the work. His work on blast simulations has looked at the details of a terrorist attack that may determine who lives and who dies. He and his colleagues found, for example, that circular crowds suffer the worst in terrorist attacks (more than a 50 percent death rate), while people arranged in rows, such as at prayer in a mosque, had only a 20 percent death rate.

Read the full article about Pakistani Scholar Disputes US Drone Death Tallies.

© 2011 AOL News

Photo by Flickr user sdasmarchives

TARPLEY.NET– China has officially put the United States on notice that Washington’s planned attack on Pakistan will be interpreted as an act of aggression against Beijing. This blunt warning represents the first known strategic ultimatum received by the United States in half a century, going back to Soviet warnings during the Berlin crisis of 1958-1961, and indicates the grave danger of general war growing out of the US-Pakistan confrontation.

“Any Attack on Pakistan Would be Construed as an Attack on China”

Responding to reports that China has asked the US to respect Pakistan’s sovereignty in the aftermath of the Bin Laden operation, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Jiang Yu used a May 19 press briefing to state Beijing’s categorical demand that the “sovereignty and territorial integrity of Pakistan must be respected.” According to Pakistani diplomatic sources cited by the Times of India, China has “warned in unequivocal terms that any attack on Pakistan would be construed as an attack on China.” This ultimatum was reportedly delivered at the May 9 China-US strategic dialogue and economic talks in Washington, where the Chinese delegation was led by Vice Prime Minister Wang Qishan and State Councilor Dai Bingguo. [Reference] Chinese warnings are implicitly backed up by that nation’s nuclear missiles, including an estimated 66 ICBMs, some capable of striking the United States, plus 118 intermediate-range missiles, 36 submarine-launched missiles, and numerous shorter-range systems.

Support from China is seen by regional observers as critically important for Pakistan, which is otherwise caught in a pincers between the US and India: “If US and Indian pressure continues, Pakistan can say ‘China is behind us. Don’t think we are isolated, we have a potential superpower with us,’” Talat Masood, a political analyst and retired Pakistani general, told AFP. [Reference]

The Chinese ultimatum came during the visit of Pakistani Prime Minister Gilani in Beijing, during which the host government announced the transfer of 50 state-of-the-art JF-17 fighter jets to Pakistan, immediately and without cost. [Reference] Before his departure, Gilani had stressed the importance of the Pakistan-China alliance, proclaiming: “We are proud to have China as our best and most trusted friend. And China will always find Pakistan standing beside it at all times….When we speak of this friendship as being taller than the Himalayas and deeper than the oceans it truly captures the essence of our relationship.” [Reference] These remarks were greeted by whining from US spokesmen, including Idaho Republican Senator Risch.

The simmering strategic crisis between the United States and Pakistan exploded with full force on May 1, with the unilateral and unauthorized US commando raid alleged to have killed the phantomatic Osama bin Laden in a compound at Abottabad, a flagrant violation of Pakistan’s national sovereignty. The timing of this military stunt designed to inflame tensions between the two countries had nothing to do with any alleged Global War on Terror, and everything to do with the late March visit to Pakistan of Prince Bandar, the Saudi Arabian National Security Council chief. This visit had resulted in a de facto alliance between Islamabad and Riyadh, with Pakistan promising troops to put down any US-backed color revolution in the kingdom, while extending nuclear protection to the Saudis, thus making them less vulnerable to US extortion threats to abandon the oil-rich monarchy to the tender mercies of Tehran. A joint move by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to break out of the US empire, whatever one may think of these regimes, would represent a fatal blow for the fading US empire in South Asia.

As for the US claims concerning the supposed Bin Laden raid of May 1, they are a mass of hopeless contradictions which changes from day to day. An analysis of this story is best left to literary critics and writers of theatrical reviews. The only solid and uncontestable fact which emerges is that Pakistan is the leading US target — thus intensifying the anti-Pakistan US policy which has been in place since Obama’s infamous December 2009 West Point speech.

Obama Has Already Approved Sneak Attack on Pakistan’s Nukes

According to the London Sunday Express, Obama has already approved an aggressive move along these lines: “US troops will be deployed in Pakistan if the nation’s nuclear installations come under threat from terrorists out to avenge the killing of Osama Bin Laden… The plan, which would be activated without President Zardari’s consent, provoked an angry reaction from Pakistan officials… Barack Obama would order troops to parachute in to protect key nuclear missile sites. These include the air force’s central Sargodha HQ, home base for nuclear-capable F-16 combat aircraft and at least 80 ballistic missiles.” According to a US official, “The plan is green lit and the President has already shown he is willing to deploy troops in Pakistan if he feels it is important for national security.” [Reference]

Extreme tension over this issue highlights the brinksmanship and incalculable folly of Obama’s May 1 unilateral raid, which might easily have been interpreted by the Pakistanis as the long-awaited attack on their nuclear forces. According to the New York Times, Obama knew very well he was courting immediate shooting war with Pakistan, and “insisted that the assault force hunting down Osama bin Laden last week be large enough to fight its way out of Pakistan if confronted by hostile local police officers and troops.”

Read the full article about US, Pakistan Near Open War

Written by Webster G. Tarpley, Ph.D.

© 2011 Tarpley.net

Photo by Flickr user Coda2