‘Hit the Brakes’: Anthropic CEO’s Push to ‘Pace’ AI Development Called Latest Sign Congress Must Act
September 13, 2026, Julia Conley Common Dreams, https://scheerpost.com/2026/09/13/hit-the-brakes-anthropic-ceos-push-to-pace-ai-development-called-latest-sign-congress-must-act/
“When the future of humanity is at stake we need a PAUSE on advanced AI development and a ban on artificial superintelligence,” said Sen. Bernie Sanders.
As Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei added his voice on Saturday to the growing call to slow down development of artificial intelligence, writing in a 3,800-word essay that companies must pace “the rate of capabilities advancement” in light of recent cyberattacks by AI models, progressive lawmakers and journalists were among those who said the warning made clear that action must be taken—but with Congress and regulatory agencies, not tech billionaires who have spent years pushing for an AI expansion, leading the way.
Amodei wrote that two things have convinced him that “we must slow the pace at which we improve the capabilities of AI models”: the fact that in recent months, “AI has been advancing drastically faster, driven primarily by AI’s growing ability to build the next generation of AI”—also known as recursive self-improvement—and the recent OpenAI-HuggingFace incident, in which hundreds of agents in OpenAI’s security test systems broke out of confinement and hacked into the AI startup HuggingFace, conducting cyberattacks on targets they had not been asked to attack.
As The Wall Street Journal and Politico reported Friday, another cyberattack was carried out by OpenAI’s agents months before the HuggingFace incident in July. The company’s models that were being tested and had not been given full access to the internet nevertheless hacked into an online coding service called RubyGems earlier this year. The models created reports and filled out spreadsheets. Anthropic and Meta have also reported autonomous cyberattacks by their AI agents.
Amodei said the incidents led him to call for a three-step plan to pace AI development and allow companies time to “align and safeguard their models, and for third-party evaluators to confirm this.”
He called for:
- Embedded evaluators, with each AI company committing to giving “ongoing, employee-like access to a team of embedded third-party evaluators” who would “verify adherence to safety practices and commitments, report incidents, and help assess the alignment of not just completed AI models but training pipelines and processes”;
- Democratic coordination, with companies establishing “common safety standards as well as limits on the rate of unchecked AI progress”; and
- Global coordination, with democratic governments attempting to “coordinate with authoritarian governments, to the extent this is possible, while taking seriously the challenges of verifying compliance.”
Amodei’s essay was published days after Jacob Coxon, a researcher at Anthropic, publicly resigned out of fear that the company’s AI technology “could kill us all by the end of the decade” as it builds “superhuman systems”—a concern he said is shared by many in the industry.
Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, and tech billionaire Elon Musk expressed agreement with Amodei. Altman called “independent evaluators with employee-like access” a “great idea.”
“We will do the same,” said Altman. “We’ll have more to share soon.”
US Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) was among those who appeared less than impressed by Amodei and Altman’s sudden push for their industry to slow down their rapid pace of development.
In a video posted on social media, Khanna called on Amodei to disclose whether or not he agrees with Coxon about the possibility that AI could wipe out humanity, and to back more far-reaching regulations on AI.
“AI guys act as if they’re a priesthood speaking Latin, keeping the rest of us in the dark,” said Khanna. “But behind all the jargon, it’s actually pretty straightforward… We need to stop, ban, self-improving AI. You cannot have recursive, self-improving AI that basically is able to improve itself and exceed human capability, that has us lose control.”
He added that laws must be passed establishing “mandatory liability and criminal penalties. If you’re creating an AI that is doing illegal things, you either should face liability or criminal sanctions.”
Journalist David Sirota of The Lever agreed, writing that “if the law explicitly made AI CEOs financially and criminally liable for any mass destruction their technologies create—and if AI industry shareholders knew their companies faced the threat of significant financial losses for such destruction—much of the ‘AI is getting out of control!’ threat would instantly end.”
“Those CEOs would instantly make AI far safer and impose guardrails on their companies,” he said.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who has called for a nationwide moratorium on the construction of AI data centers and this week announced a bipartisan hearing on the “extraordinary dangers” of rapid AI development—including testimony from one leading AI scientist who has warned against self-regulation by tech firms—said the calls by Amodei, Altman, and Musk were “not enough.”
“When you are racing towards a cliff, you don’t just ease up on the gas pedal,” said Sanders. “You hit the brakes. When the future of humanity is at stake we need a PAUSE on advanced AI development and a ban on artificial superintelligence—an AI mind smarter than any human and capable of operating independently beyond our control.”
Sanders called on President Donald Trump—who has aggressively pushed for more AI data center development and sought to stop states from passing their own AI regulations—to negotiate a treaty pausing AI and banning superintelligence with Chinese President Xi Jinping. The two leaders are set to meet later this month to discuss AI.
Trump on Friday dismissed concerns about warnings coming from the AI industry, telling a Los Angeles Times reporter, “It’s going to be fine,” and adding that his top worry about the technology is falling behind China.
Reps. Chris Deluzio (D-Pa.) and Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) and Democratic Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker were also among the politicians who said Amodei’s warning was the latest sign that Congress and the Trump administration must take action to rein in the industry.
Juliette Kayyem, the faculty chair of homeland security at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, said AI CEOs’ warnings about their technology would be seen as more credible if they also announced a pause on their plans for initial public offerings (IPO), which Anthropic and OpenAI are both pursuing in the coming months.
Altman said Friday that OpenAI will not plan for an IPO, which could value the company at $1 trillion, in 2026.
Amodei, said Kayyem, should “put his money where his mouth is.”
“He has known of this danger a while,” she said. “It is now threatening his valuation in the IPO. Cancel the IPO. Then I’ll believe he’s serious.”
Journalist Peter Rothpletz noted that the safety concerns within the AI industry must be “much more dire” than the public is aware, considering “Dario, Sam, and Musk are all issuing these statements in unison.”
A PUBLIC health expert has issued a major warning about Scotland’s AI datacentre boom.
It comes with at least 24 proposed AI data centres currently
in the planning system across the country, with others expected to be
imminent. This includes an £8 billion AI investment zone in North
Lanarkshire, a £5 billion data centre project near the small village of
Auchtertool in Fife, and a £2 billion data centre proposal in the Borders.
While proponents stress the economic opportunity with such developments,
critics, including local campaign groups, have warned of the centres’
impact on the environment, including extremely high electricity and water
usage.
Now, Andrew Watterson – an emeritus professor at the University of
Stirling whose research has focused extensively on occupational health and
safety and environmental health policies – has said that Scotland is
“rushing” to develop AI and that we “do not know whether we can
control it or not”.
“If those that work at the cutting edge of
researching its safety have profound doubts we can control it – and they
have voiced those doubts this week – and prevent harm to society, it’s
astonishing GB governments and local authorities are contemplating
approving hyper data centres at this stage,” he said.
“We have also seen evidence about a wide range of adverse impacts associated with such
developments. This is at a time when global warming is visible to all and
heat islands and mortality and morbidity from ‘rushed’ failed past energy
and economic policies are clear.”
The National 11th Sept 2026, https://www.thenational.scot/news/26542059.public-health-expert-issues-warning-scotlands-ai-data-centres/
A dump, not a future
We’re not buying it. This is a nuclear dump dressed up as an “innovation campus,” and DOE is simply hoping that the temptation of jobs and billions of dollars will convince us to turn Idaho into America’s nuclear waste dump.
by beyondnuclearinternational, https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2026/09/13/a-dump-not-a-future/
The “innovation” pitch for Idaho doesn’t match the radioactive reality, writes Leigh Ford
The Department of Energy (DOE) has a problem. They have a nuclear addiction and a growing mountain of toxic, radioactive waste. To solve it, they are eyeing Idaho once again. Governor Little recently signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the DOE, and they are trying to sell it to us as a “Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Hub.”
We’re not buying it. This is a nuclear dump dressed up as an “innovation campus,” and DOE is simply hoping that the temptation of jobs and billions of dollars will convince us to turn Idaho into America’s nuclear waste dump.
Recently, I sat down with Roland Beres, who wanted to get the Snake River Alliance’s reaction to the governor’s signing the MOU with DOE. Roland has a lot of experience following nuclear issues.
Notably, he covered events leading up to the Idaho Settlement Agreement, when Govenors Batt and Andrus were fighting the feds for sending out-of-state radioactive waste into Idaho. That history matters, because it tells us this isn’t a new fight — it’s the same fight, with slicker marketing.
Today’s political machinery is quickly paving the way for Manhattan Project 2.0, endangering our health and silencing local opposition. Per Executive Order 14300, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is revising radiation standards and reducing protections for workers and communities. Idaho’s Senate passed SCR 120 to claim that reprocessing nuclear waste fits into the Idaho Settlement Agreement framework. Not to be left out, Idaho’s House passed HB 714, which prohibits local governments from saying “NO” to these dumps and reprocessing facilities in their communities.
The Nuclear Myths
The first myth is money. The DOE isn’t handing Idaho billions of dollars. According to their own request for proposals, they are looking for projects that *prioritize private and state capital*. They offer “targeted, conditional, and time‑limited federal support.” In other words, Idaho taxpayers are on the hook for the cost, while the feds offer a loan and a promise to protect themselves from “open-ended liabilities.”
The second myth is the jobs. Idaho’s response to DOE’s request states we already have the infrastructure and can start fast. That translates to fewer construction jobs. And while the Tech bros designing these untested reactors are boasting that they “practically run themselves,” that means they aren’t going to hire many permanent workers. The promise of “thousands of jobs” is a mirage. We might fix a few roads, but beyond that, thousands of long-term jobs are far-fetched.
The third myth is the waste. Our radioactive legacy can still be seen out at the site in the Arco Desert. Last year, when the Snake River Alliance visited Idaho National Lab I noticed the waste we got from the Three Mile Island meltdown in 1979 is still there, sitting in huge concrete sarcophagi. We saw a warehouse stacked with barrels of waste, much from the Rocky Flats bomb factory—barrels that needed to be recategorized because we have no idea what Colorado actually shipped us. We drove around the 90-acre burial grounds, where a “thousand-year cap” will be placed.
Governor Little might say “that’s all been cleaned up,” but that is dangerously deceptive. We can’t completely clean up nuclear waste. INL has done a good job mitigating a lot of it, but the truth is there is no permanent nuclear waste repository in the country. The waste just keeps piling up, mostly at nuclear power plants back east, and if that waste comes here, it will stay in Idaho permanently. The DOE has a track record of broken promises, and they are not to be trusted.
A Dangerous Bet
Some politicians and nuclear cheerleaders claim we can reprocess our way out of this. We cannot. Some point to the DOE’s Waste Isolation Pilot Project (WIPP) facility in New Mexico, but it only takes defense-related transuranic waste, and was never meant to be permanent. There have already been two 10-year extensions since 2010, and New Mexico isn’t a solution for Idaho’s burden. New Mexicans don’t want a permanent nuclear dump either.
Idaho is being asked to accept a permanent nuclear burden in exchange for a few temporary construction jobs and mythical money. The waste isn’t leaving. The feds and the nuclear industry have had decades to solve this, and they haven’t. We shouldn’t be the dumping ground for their failures. It is time to reject this dangerous bet and demand a real plan that doesn’t put our people, water, and land at further risk.
Idaho is not America’s dumping ground – not for cash, not for jobs, and not for nuclear waste that outlives our great, great grandchildren’s grandchildren.
“UKRAINE WILL BE A CANCER ON BOTH EUROPE AND RUSSIA”
In conversation with Ambassador Chas Freeman
Ian Proud, Sep 13, 2026, https://thepeacemonger.substack.com/p/ukraine-will-be-a-cancer-on-both?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=3221990&post_id=215480162&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
In my latest conversation with Ambassador Chas Freeman, he describes what Ukraine is becoming, and what Europe will be left holding when the war ends. Ukraine will not be the keystone of a whole and free Europe. It will not be a buffer and a bridge between Russia and the rest of the continent. It will be a rump state: poorer, more corrupt, landlocked, unqualified for the EU, shut out of NATO, and dominated by western Ukrainian ultra-nationalists who will not accept defeat. Ukraine will be driven by a more virulent antagonism towards Russia than Britain, Poland and the Baltic States and feeling spurned by a Europe that egged it on to its destruction. Right now, there are no obvious upsides to Ukraine joining the EU and some restoration of relations with Russia may take a generation, if it happens at all.
In Freeman’s words, Ukraine will become “a cancer on both” Europe and Russia. I see no evidence of anyone in London or European capitals thinking about the monumental challenge of rehabilitating Ukraine after the war ends. The reason, I suspect, is that that would also require dialogue with Russia. Because the corrosiveness of Ukraine’s failed statehood is everyone’s problem.
Our conversation ranged more widely into Israel’s diplomatic escalation which has neutered Britain’s ability to engage with Palestinians through its diplomatic network. And, of course, to Iran, where no amount of huffing and puffing by Donal Trump will change the reality that he is failing badly and is trapped by virtue of his ego.
Across all three theatres, Ukraine, Palestine and Iran, the missing ingredient is diplomacy.
You can watch the conversation above.
You can follow Chas on his excellent substack here.
Wherever you are in the world, whatever your nationality and religion, I wish you much peace.
The Race to Solve Nuclear Energy’s Biggest Problem
By Felicity Bradstock – Sep 12, 2026,
https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/The-Race-to-Solve-Nuclear-Energys-Biggest-Problem.html
https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/The-Race-to-Solve-Nuclear-Energys-Biggest-Problem.html
- Nuclear expansion is increasing pressure on governments to establish permanent disposal facilities for spent fuel.
- Canada is advancing a deep geological repository near Ignace, Ontario, using copper-coated containers, bentonite clay, and hundreds of metres of rock.
- The United States still lacks an operating permanent repository and is exploring new nuclear-waste arrangements beyond the stalled Yucca Mountain project.
Nuclear power is growing in popularity once again as governments worldwide look to diversify their energy mix and reduce reliance on fossil fuels. Several countries are now looking to develop or expand their nuclear energy capacity over the coming decades. However, one challenge remains – nuclear waste. Disposing of waste materials from nuclear energy operations remains a complex task with no perfect solution.
As countries worldwide have grown their nuclear power capacity, many governments are still struggling to decide on the best solution for disposing of nuclear waste. There are three types of nuclear waste: low-, intermediate-, and high-level radioactive waste. Most of the waste produced by nuclear plants consists of lightly contaminated items, such as tools and work clothing, with radioactivity levels of around 1 per cent. High-level waste consists of spent fuel, which accounts for around 3 per cent of the total volume of waste from nuclear energy production, yet contains 95 per cent of the radioactivity.
Nuclear facility operators are responsible for the safe disposal of any radioactive waste they produce. Nuclear power plants generate relatively little waste compared to many other energy sources; however, it is some of the most difficult to manage. Nuclear fuel is very energy-dense, meaning little is required to generate large quantities of electricity and just 5 grammes of high-level waste is produced to provide for an individual’s annual energy needs. A conventional 1 GW nuclear plant, which can supply over one million people with electricity, produces around three cubic meters of vitrified high-level waste per year.
In Oakville, Canada, the Nuclear Waste Management Organisation (NWMO) has developed a test site for nuclear waste storage. The site is situated in a warehouse, where a driverless forklift stacks 8,000 kg of bentonite clay blocks into a narrow rock tunnel, and another autonomous machine fills the gaps around the blocks with crumbled clay. Each one encases a copper-coated steel container created to hold spent nuclear fuel. These blocks are then sealed behind additional clay and concrete in tunnels deep underground, so that the radioactive material can slowly decay over thousands of years with no risk to the public.
The metal fuel containers are designed to withstand the pressure of being buried beneath a 3-kilometre-thick glacier, should the next ice age arrive before the radiation has fully decayed. They have also been successfully tested for resistance to crushing under an extremely strong force, equivalent to being over 6 km underwater. The NWMO team aims to build the final site 1,600 km northwest of the test facility, in the town of Ignace. It will be buried at a depth of around 750 metres in the hard rock of the Canadian Shield. Once complete, around 2040, it is expected to be capable of storing nearly 6 million bundles of spent fuel produced by Canada’s four nuclear power plants over their operational lives.
Similar sites are also being developed in other countries, such as Finland, Sweden, and Japan. Scientists have overcome several technical challenges associated with developing deep geological repositories over the years, making them a viable site for nuclear waste storage. However, securing political and public support for these facilities remains a challenge due to fears of contamination.
The United States government began exploring potential deep geological repository sites in the 1980s but has now fallen behind other countries in development due to widespread local opposition. The government chose Yucca Mountain in northern Nevada as the location for the development of its first geological repository, becoming the first in the world to submit a licence application for such a site.
There are several concerns about developing a facility at this location, including the nearby volcano, which geologists still consider active. The proposed location is in an active earthquake zone and lies above the water table, posing a risk of radioactive particles, known as radionuclides, being released into the environment. However, the biggest challenge has been political opposition. When Nevada Senator Harry Reid became the U.S. Senate’s majority leader in 2007, he put the project on permanent hold.
In the age of the nuclear renaissance in the United States, the lack of progress in Nevada has led the Department of Energy (DoE) to return to the drawing board. The DoE selected sites in Utah, Idaho, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Tennessee as possible locations, but Yucca Mountain remains the only legal option for permanent storage at present. The Trump administration would need to pass legislation to remove Yucca Mountain from its designation as a federal site to develop a repository elsewhere. Meanwhile, the U.S. has built up around 95,000 metric tonnes of nuclear waste over the years, which needs to be suitably managed.
Several deep geological repositories are expected to commence operations in various countries over the coming decades. Meanwhile, scientists are continuing to explore alternative waste management solutions. However, as multiple governments are now exploring the potential to develop their nuclear power capacity, they must also address the waste problem and construct safe disposal facilities alongside new nuclear power projects.
Ten days before October 7, MBZ had informed Netanyahu of a major Hamas offensive.
Voltaire Network|September 11, 2026, https://www.voltairenet.org/article224921.html
According to חטופים – 843 ימים של הפקרה (Abducted: 843 Days of Abandonment), a
new book by Shlomi Eldar and Ruth Yuval (Kinneret Zmora Publishing), the President of the United Arab Emirates, Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan (MBZ), telephoned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a few days before the October 7 attack.
He informed him that Yahya Sinwar, the Hamas military chief, was preparing a major offensive against Israel. The call lasted 45 minutes. The Prime Minister replied that Israel was already prepared and that the attack would come from the West Bank, not Gaza.
According to the authors, MBZ’s call came after Netanyahu broke off negotiations between Israel and Hamas. The call reflected a direct threat from Yahya Sinwar, who was furious about the breakdown of talks. Sinwar spoke of ” Zinzal ” (earthquake), a word Arabs use to refer to wars and revolutions. Deeply concerned by Netanyahu’s dismissive attitude, MBZ reported the situation to William J. Burns, the CIA director . Burns then sent a confirming report to the Prime Minister.
Furthermore, the same book claims that Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman al-Thani, Prime Minister of Qatar, telephoned David Barnea, Director of Mossad, on October 7, the day of Operation Al-Aqsa Flood. He told Barnea that he had forced Hamas to release all its hostages in exchange for Israel’s commitment not to launch any further incursions into Gaza. However, Barnea replied: “If they want to release the civilians, let them release them. We are not ready to talk with Hamas.”
Furthermore, Yahya Sinwar had his right-hand man, in his presence, phone an associate of Mohammed Dahlan on October 8th. Dahlan pledged to release all civilian hostages, whether minors or over 50 years old, without any conditions. The offer was relayed to the Shin Bet, which responded: “Netanyahu doesn’t want to talk about anything anymore. He only wants war and the elimination of Hamas.”
Former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett commented on X: “This morning’s [Haaretz] article stating that Netanyahu was warned ten days before the October 7 massacre about Sinwar’s intentions is true.”
Netanyahu bears direct and personal responsibility for the failure that led to the deaths of thousands of Israelis under his watch.
His disregard for the warnings constitutes criminal negligence, and therefore he is doing everything he can to prevent the creation of a state commission of inquiry that will reveal the truth […]
If we do not replace this government, we will never know the truth, which will only be revealed by a state commission of inquiry, because it is preventing its establishment for fear that we will discover the terrible truth.
• General Yair Golan, former deputy chief of staff and chairman of the Democrats, had provided aid to victims on the day of the attack. He commented on X: “The ‘They didn’t wake me up’ excuse is over; he knew it. He was warned […]
The investigation reveals that Netanyahu received an explicit warning from the Emir of the [United Arab] Emirates and deliberately concealed it from the army chiefs and the Shin Bet. This shatters all the lies he told us.
Now it’s clear: Netanyahu is unfit and illegitimate. He belongs in prison for his crimes against the State of Israel.
We need to replace it now!
Moscow reveals potential timeline for trilateral Ukraine talks
Negotiations between Russian, Ukrainian, and US representatives could begin in October, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said
13 Sep, 2026, https://www.rt.com/russia/645646-moscow-reveals-potential-timeline-trilateral-ukraine-talks/
Trilateral talks between Russian, Ukrainian, and US representatives could begin in October, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said.
Speaking to reporters on Sunday, the official stated that Moscow “does not rule out such a possibility.”
“We’re specifically talking about the foreseeable future. That is, presumably of course, October,” Peskov clarified.
Earlier this week, the Kremlin spokesman stated that Moscow hopes “for a restart of negotiations between three parties – Russia, Ukraine, and America.”
The trilateral format was last used in Geneva in February, following two earlier rounds in Abu Dhabi. However, the talks later stalled without any significant breakthroughs, as the US shifted its focus to its war against Iran.
Peskov’s recent comments have followed a fresh round of shuttle diplomacy by US President Donald Trump’s special envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, who held a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow last week before visiting Kiev for talks with Vladimir Zelensky.
The Kremlin described the discussions with the US negotiators as constructive and “extremely candid,” while Witkoff said that progress had been made toward scheduling a three-way meeting. The potential resumption of talks in this format was also among the topics Putin and Trump discussed by phone on Tuesday, according to Kremlin aide Yury Ushakov.
At around the same time, Zelensky suggested that the next round of trilateral negotiations could take place in the UAE, Türkiye, Switzerland, or another country as early as September or October.
Moscow has repeatedly said it remains open to diplomacy, as long as the root causes of the conflict are addressed and the new realities on the ground are respected. Ukraine has in turn ruled out making territorial concessions to Russia.
The New German Militarism
what makes “The Tank” interesting and a sign of the times is not only that it invites its viewers to identify with German soldiers fighting against Soviets, certain to be read as Russians, and for Nazism, but that the film has coincided with the rise of a new German militarism.
This New Militarism is a phenomenon that goes beyond the fact of massive, debt-driven re-armament, disturbing as that may be: by the end of the decade, Berlin is planning to have a defense budget the size of those of France and Britain combined and be in self-asphyxiating debt for it. Half of the state budget will go to the military, while Germans are being shell-shocked by ever more austerity, already including a ruthless pension “reform,” that is, in reality, a demolition. A policy that will produce masses of Germans who are very deprived but also very well armed – what could go wrong?
The delusions come and go, German militarism abides
Tarik Cyril Amar, Sep 13, 2026, https://www.newglobalpolitics.org/the-new-german-militarism/
It is the summer of 1943. After catastrophic defeat in the Battle of Stalingrad, Nazi Germany’s legions are retreating before the Red Army. That’s the backdrop to the German – and Amazon–produced–movie “Der Tiger” (English title: “The Tank”). Officially billed as an antiwar movie, “The Tank” is anything but. Yet the fact that it is really about five tough men on a lonely commando mission is trivial.
For, just like “The Tank,” most so-called “antiwar” movies are, in reality, war movies, fascinating their Homo sapiens primate audiences with the action, suspense, and drama of fighting, while inviting identification with at least some of those who do that fighting, be they cast as heroes or anti-heroes. Consider, for instance, the American films “Platoon” and “Full Metal Jacket” (both set it Vietnam) or the Russian “9th Company” (set in Afghanistan). Indeed, it is hard to think of any genuine and consistent anti-war movies. Two that probably qualify are the American “Paths of Glory” (World War One on what the Germans called the Western Front) and the Soviet “Come and See” (World War Two on what the next generation of Germans called the Eastern Front).
“The Tank” certainly has heroes, and they form a classical “band of brothers,” Hollywood-style. There is the brave stoic (the commander) with ice in his veins but a humane, even self-sacrificing side reserved for his men, the intellectual and – mild – doubter (in civilian life a teacher of Latin with eternal-student glasses), the urban proletarian (the cursing driver, speaking not with a New York accent but in the demotic Berlin version of German), the man from the country (just not Kentucky or Alabama, but the Austrian Wachau and its vineyards), and, of course, the youngster, innocent, frightened, but, ultimately, up to a – German – man’s job (removing a booby-trapped tank mine).
At the end of the movie (spoiler alert), it is true, the fantastically implausible story of the men in the tank on their way to their own heart of darkness on the “Ostfront” has an unsurprising twist: “The Tank” is really a “Schauergeschichte,” a tale of sublime dread, a sort of “Erlkönig with Tanks” or “Sleepy Hollow and Nazis.” The crew’s militarily bizarre special mission is not, it turns out, real but a near-death experience or vision – think “Jacob’s Ladder” (1990) – confronting the commander with his responsibility for burning to death women and children in Stalingrad. The gray zone crossed by the “Tiger” to retrieve a mysterious and inexplicably important German officer holed up in a remote bunker – think Colonel Kurtz from “Apocalypse Now” (1979) – turns into the equivalent of either purgatory or the road to hell.
The horror, the horror: The audience has been watching, in essence, virtual ghosts mistaking themselves for the living – think “The Sixth Sense” (1999) and also the Russian “White Tiger” (2012), another spooky World War Two tank story that must have inspired “The Tank” but is, unsurprisingly, never mentioned.
But before (and despite) these revelations, the men in the tank are stereotypically attractive in a well-worn, macho way, baiting our sympathy. They also, of course, happen to serve Nazi Germany or, as they keep saying, the “Reich.” Indeed, the tank men are not merely members of the regular German military, the Wehrmacht, but the Waffen-SS, skull-and-crossbones emblems included.
Notwithstanding its especially striking form, this plot device is nothing special. In the 1980s, the extremely successful “Das Boot,” for instance, about a German World War Two submarine sinking merchant ships and their sailors while battling the British in the Atlantic, offered the same artless yet effective combination of identification with German soldiers and a plot that signaled some sanitizing distance from the regime they were actually fighting for: Yes, strictly speaking they are fascists burning and drowning literal antifascists, but you can still root for them. In “Das Boot,” as in “The Tank,” the effect is reinforced by everyone or almost everyone dying in the end, adding the pity that spectacles of futility among the brave may inspire.
Finding ways to feature German World War Two soldiers as heroes and victims while adroitly, or not so much, airbrushing their allegiance to a monstrous state waging often genocidal war has been a special skill of postwar (West) German film-making and succeeded with large audiences at home. Not so much Rainer-Maria Fassbinder, as it were, but the very popular kitsch of Peter May’s “08/15” trilogy, for instance.
Film-making in the former East Germany, incidentally, had its own, different, complicated as well as almost touchingly transparent ways of putting victims and even heroes into German World War Two uniforms, such as in the “Geheimkommando” miniseries.
Hence, what makes “The Tank” interesting and a sign of the times is not only that it invites its viewers to identify with German soldiers fighting against Soviets, certain to be read as Russians, and for Nazism, but that the film has coincided with the rise of a new German militarism.
This New Militarism is a phenomenon that goes beyond the fact of massive, debt-driven re-armament, disturbing as that may be: by the end of the decade, Berlin is planning to have a defense budget the size of those of France and Britain combined and be in self-asphyxiating debt for it. Half of the state budget will go to the military, while Germans are being shell-shocked by ever more austerity, already including a ruthless pension “reform,” that is, in reality, a demolition. A policy that will produce masses of Germans who are very deprived but also very well armed – what could go wrong?
Erdogan hints at larger nuclear partnership with Russia, unsettling Turkey’s allies
rfi, 12/09/2026
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is signalling a move to expand nuclear power cooperation with Russia, just as his country’s first Russian-built nuclear station prepares to go live later this year. The deepening partnership is likely to unsettle Turkey’s western allies.
On the sidelines of a recent gathering of regional leaders in Kyrgyzstan, Erdogan told his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, that Russia and Turkey “will take steps together to open some new power plants, along with the opening of the Akkuyu nuclear power plant”.
The Akkuyu nuclear power plant, built by Russia’s state nuclear company Rosatom on Turkey’s Mediterranean coast, is due to go online later this year.
Erdogan’s announcement comes amid strained ties with Russia, as the Turkish leader has deepened relations with United States President Donald Trump.
Ozgur Unluhisarcikli, head of the Ankara office of US think tank the German Marshall Fund, describes Erdogan’s move as a “gesture” to Putin.
“Although Turkey is competing with Russia geopolitically, and although Turkey is firmly anchored in NATO and is improving its relationship with the United States, it does not intend to sever all ties with Russia,” Unluhisarcikli explained.
“Indeed, Turkey sees the Turkey-Russia relationship as a long-term strategic one. And this is, by the way, consistent with Turkey’s balancing act.”………………………………………………………………………………… https://www.rfi.fr/en/podcasts/international-report/20260912-erdogan-hints-at-larger-nuclear-partnership-with-russia-unsettling-turkey-s-allies
Drone Attacks On Chornobyl Could Have Endangered The Safety Of Millions: UN
By Joji Xavier : 9/11/2026, https://www.rttnews.com/3690349/drone-attacks-on-chornobyl-could-have-endangered-the-safety-of-millions-un.aspx
A top UN official has expressed concern that a drone strike on the protective structure at Ukraine’s Chornobyl Nuclear Power Plant could have endangered the safety of millions of people.
UN Development Program Administrator Alexander De Croo is visiting Ukraine, with his mission focused primarily on restoring energy infrastructure and preparing the country for its fifth winter of full-scale war.
De Croo was talking to the media after visiting the Chornobyl Nuclear Power Plant and going inside the protective structure over Reactor Four, which was destroyed in 1986. He saw firsthand the damage caused recently by the drone strike.
“Anyone who’s attacking those protective structures – and those protective structures around a nuclear structure – is really gambling with the safety of millions of people.
“A nuclear installation can never be a target. There can absolutely be no excuse. There can absolutely be no ambiguity. This has to stop,” the UNDP chief said.
According to De Croo, the origin of the drone must be formally established through an investigation. At the same time, military personnel guarding the site told him that Russian drones fly over the facility on a daily basis.
“Whether it was a deliberate attack or an accident, this is something which is unacceptable. Making sure that drones are not flying above that site is one way of avoiding that things like this could happen,” he said.
During his visit to Chornobyl, the head of UNDP also took part in the opening of a new solar power plant. The project was implemented with support from Lithuania and Japan, in cooperation with the Ukrainian authorities and with technical expertise from the UN’s development agency. The plant will supply electricity to the cooling systems of Reactor Four.
Energy was one of the main focuses of De Croo’s visit. Over the past four years, UNDP has mobilised $1.3 billion to assist Ukrainians, with the restoration of the country’s energy system becoming its largest area of work.
Pack your suitcases’: Israel’s far right unveils its blueprint for emptying Gaza
Ben-Gvir’s party is demanding a new ministry dedicated to “voluntary migration.” Those living amid the rubble say they will not leave.
8 Sep, 2026 , By Elizabeth Blade, RT Middle East correspondent, https://www.rt.com/news/645274-pack-your-suitcases-israels-gaza/
Israel’s far-right national security minister has put a seven-year timetable on emptying Gaza of most of its people, and dressed it up as choice. Gazans RT spoke to call it what international law already names it: forced displacement.
Last week, Jewish Power chairman and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir unveiled ‘Disengagement 710’, a policy blueprint for what he calls the voluntary migration of Gaza residents to countries willing to take them. Destinations floated by his party include Türkiye, unspecified Arab states, Ethiopia, and Congo.
The numbers are not modest. The plan foresees the departure of about 250,000 people in the first year, 1.11 million within three years, and some 1.86 million within seven, encompassing the bulk of the Strip’s population.
To run it, Jewish Power wants the next government to create a dedicated ministry for “voluntary migration,” complete with a minister, a director-general, its own budget, an international negotiating team, and an implementation apparatus.
Ben-Gvir vows to make the ministry a coalition demand after Israel’s October 27 election. “Instead of illusions of peace now, we need actions of emigration now,” he said. “Instead of them digging tunnels, it’s time to pack suitcases.”
This idea is not new for the Jewish state.
A Zionist through-line
In 1937, David Ben-Gurion, then a leading Zionist figure, promoted the transfer of Palestinians and argued they should be moved to Transjordan. In the 1980s, the same ‘voluntary’ formula was championed by far-right politicians Rehavam Ze’evi – nicknamed ‘Gandhi’– and Meir Kahane. Their schemes never left the drawing board.
Ben-Gvir now presents his version as newly realistic, citing earlier public backing from US President Donald Trump. Trump floated mass relocation from Gaza in early 2025, then walked the idea back under Arab and international pressure.
His later 20-point framework stated that no one would be forced to leave and that residents should be encouraged to stay. Ben-Gvir treats the first Trump remark as political cover and the second as an inconvenience.
Gazans RT interviewed rejected the initiative as illegal under international law and a crime against humanity.
”People in Gaza and across Palestine know Ben-Gvir’s plans go far beyond our existence in the Strip,” said Abdallah Ali, a resident of central Gaza.
Ali said that is why Gazans, himself included, intend to stay put.
Rami Al Meghari, from Al-Maghazi camp in central Gaza, reached the same conclusion for a different reason: memory of exile.
“Many Palestinians found life in other countries, especially Arab states, awkward and humiliating,” he said. “They will not leave Gaza for a destination that cannot guarantee dignity, whether an Arab capital or some African country Israel has long suggested, like Somalia.”
Polls, rubble, and the meaning of ‘voluntary’
A PCPSR poll last year found 56% of Gazans interviewed unwilling to emigrate. A substantial minority, some 43%, said they would.
Ali and Al Meghari were not surprised. Despair is real, and the findings of various UN reports show it clearly.
As of June 16, 2026, satellite analysis by the UN Satellite Centre found 201,290 structures damaged, an estimated 82% of all buildings in Gaza. Of those, 134,422 were assessed as destroyed, 13,848 severely damaged, 28,096 moderately damaged and 24,924 possibly damaged.
Most of Gaza’s 2.1 million people remain displaced. The Shelter Cluster, surveying in June 2026, said 1.98 million people, 94% of the population, need shelter and household items.
Food and water continue to be an issue. Between mid-April and June 30, 2026, more than 1.2 million people (59%) were still in dire need of assistance.
Assessments in 2026 found 43% of households below the 15-liter humanitarian minimum per person per day, and 62% below the 6-liter drinking-water floor.
But Ali and Al Meghari insist the pull of the land is much stronger.
“Whatever the suffering, even with around 97 percent of cropland destroyed and most of the built environment gone, people are putting up tents and staying in displacement camps. They are not packing to leave,” Ali said.
Al Meghari still hopes the political weather will change. “Life can move forward in Gaza if there is serious international and Arab pressure to implement the second phase of the ceasefire. The United States has a particular responsibility to make that happen. Russia also needs to play a pivotal role to bring the suffering of the Palestinians to an end.”
Reconstruction as leverage
There is little movement on reconstruction. Israel is blocking construction materials, demanding that Hamas disarm and demilitarize first. The Board of Peace has pushed for weapons to be collected and placed under international supervision, a formula Israel rejects.
Ali sees the stalled effort as a policy, not an accident. “This is taking a very long time. I do not think Israel will accept Gaza’s reconstruction anytime soon. It will keep complicating reality until leaving becomes the only realistic option.”
Ahmed Al-Masri, a lawyer in Gaza, argues Israel has played this hand before and lost. “We lived this in 2014 [Operation Protective Edge – ed.]. Israel said Gaza should not be rebuilt. Then, under international pressure and with UN supervision, it was forced to comply.”
And he also pins some hope on Israel’s October 27 parliamentary vote. “If the far-right government is removed, there might be a beginning, a glimmer on the horizon, and a better political reality for people here, if Palestinians also insist on rebuilding political, social and economic life.”
That is the wager Gaza is making: that endurance outlasts a plan that needs other countries to open their doors, Washington to revive an idea it already shelved, and two million people to accept that ‘voluntary’ means leaving home because the alternative has been made unlivable.
Ben-Gvir is betting the opposite – that the wreckage, a ministry, and a slogan about suitcases can finish what earlier transfer schemes could not. Gazans say they have heard that speech before.
CIA ‘Proxy’: Unravelling Saudi Arabia’s True 9/11 Role
Kit Klarenberg Substack September 12, 2026, https://scheerpost.com/2026/09/12/cia-proxy-unravelling-saudi-arabias-true-9-11-role/
In the leadup to 9/11’s silver anniversary, it was widely reported a forthcoming New York District Court civil case brought against notorious Saudi government operative Omar Bayoumi would deliver “smoking gun” proof tying Riyadh directly to the attacks. Compelling evidence Saudi Arabian intelligence not only managed several hijackers as agents, but did so as a “proxy” for the CIA, has lain unexamined in plain sight for years. Yet, the Agency’s sinister shadowplay remains eerily absent from media consideration, despite mounting recognition of Riyadh’s role.
Bayoumi has long-been accused by major news outlets and US officials of maintaining an intimate and suspicious relationship with hijackers Nawaf Hazmi and Khalid Mihdhar, immediately upon their arrival to the US in January 2000. A subsequent FBI investigation, dubbed Operation Encore, ruled there was a “50/50 chance” Bayoumi – and the House of Saud by extension – had detailed advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks. This explosive finding was not publicly divulged until March 2022.
However, the media remained steadfastly silent a year later when a bombshell filing from the Office of Military Commissions – the legal body overseeing prosecutions of 9/11 defendants – was released. The document summarises classified government discovery disclosures, and private interviews conducted with anonymous high-ranking US intelligence officials. Its contents shed unprecedented light on how the CIA recruited at least Hazmi and Mihdhar if not others who participated in the 9/11 attacks, “via a liaison relationship” with Riyadh’s General Intelligence Directorate (GID).
The same document elucidates how the 9/11 Commission was deliberately sabotaged by its chief Philip Zelikow, who personally endeavoured “to blunt” inquiries “into Saudi involvement with the hijackers.” Concurrently, senior FBI officials tasked with investigating the attacks were prohibited from interviewing Saudi nationals, despite “many” leads pointing directly to Riyadh’s Washington DC embassy. No wonder – probing those connections would’ve amply revealed how the GID was acting as a “cutout” for the CIA, in all its clandestine dealings with the 9/11 hijackers.
High-ranking FBI officials quoted in the filing discuss how the GID was a longstanding CIA “proxy”, exploited by the Agency whenever it was “unwise or not practical…to undertake an operation directly.” This need was particularly pronounced in the context of cloak-and-dagger CIA connivances conducted “on US soil.” After 25 years, it appears Riyadh could finally take the fall for a dastardly CIA operation that one way or another resulted in 9/11. As planned, there is little chance of the Agency itself landing in the dock.
‘CIA Team’
Among the court filing’smost dynamite excerpts is the insider testimony of an FBI special agent, who was posted to Alec Station – the CIA’s Al Qaeda tracking unit, ultimately responsible for recruiting Hazmi and Mihdhar as assets. When in January 2000 the special agent learned the pair – known Al Qaeda operatives under intensive CIA and NSA surveillance – had multi-entry visas to the US, they produced a report warning Bureau headquarters. Its dispatch was blocked by an unnamed CIA analyst.
The same analyst not only directed the GID to make contact with Hazmi and Mihdhar upon their arrival, but falsely claimed to subsequent US government inquiries into 9/11 they had personally informed the FBI about the pair’s presence in the US. The FBI special agent personally witnessed CIA director George Tenet and Agency operations director James Pavitt bragging about how they “conspired to obstruct the 9/11 Commission,” by concealing the analyst’s activities and identity from investigators.
In the process, an extraordinary, hitherto unreported component of Riyadh’s relationship with the hijackers remained determinedly unexplored. The FBI special agent alleged Hazmi and Mihdhar were explicitly provided US visas by the American consulate in Jeddah, “to facilitate the operation run by the Saudis’ GID and the CIA team.” This disclosure is all the more tantalising given 14 of the 19 hijackers all received their visas from the same consulate. In many cases, the paperwork shouldn’t have been granted at all.
Adding to the mystery, 12 of the 14 visas were approved by a single consular official, named Shayna Steinger. Almost immediately after being appointed to the Jeddah consulate in July 2000 with zero diplomatic background, she began rubberstamping applications of future 9/11 hijackers. At the time, the consulate’s approach to issuing visas was strict, specifically due to local “terrorism” concerns. Internal guidelines stated applicants – particularly young male Saudis – should always be interviewed in person, and have clear grounds for travel.
However, Steinger personally took it upon herself to reverse this policy. Moreover, she issued visas to future 9/11 hijackers despite their applications frequently being incomplete or error-strewn, based on forged documents, and their contents giving ample grounds for suspicion. Steinger nonetheless interviewed Hani Hanjour, who purportedly piloted Flight 77, which struck the Pentagon. Afterwards, she rejected his application for a three-year US visa, due to apparent doubts over his stated purposes in the country. Nonetheless, Steinger approved Hanjour’s renewed application two weeks later.
In ensuing official investigations, she offered wildly contradictory accounts of why the hijackers’ visas were granted. In Hanjour’s case, Steinger initially claimed he provided requested supporting documentation. She subsequently admitted he actually hadn’t, but Hanjour’s “middle class” background purportedly led her to conclude he was trustworthy. Thanks to the court filing, we know in reality future 9/11 hijackers were granted entry to the US so they could be recruited by the CIA upon arrival, suggesting Steinger was acting on Agency orders.
‘Local Dissidents’
Once Hazmi and Mihdhar touched down in Los Angeles in January 2000, almost immediately they crossed paths with Omar Bayoumi at an airport restaurant. FBI reports cited in the court filing indicate a witness who observed their meeting saw Bayoumi “dropping a piece of paper” near the pair’s table, “then striking up a conversation with them” in a manner that appeared “unnatural.” The witness relayed this account to the Bureau in 2002, but it was never publicised.
In interviews with Operation Encore investigators years later, Bayoumi maintained his meeting with Hazmi and Mihdhar was pure happenstance. The extraordinary assistance he gave them immediately thereafter – including finding them an apartment, cosigning their lease, setting them up bank accounts, and gifting them substantial sums towards their rent – was simply charity for fellow Muslims who could barely speak English and were unfamiliar with Western culture, Bayoumi asserted. But the filing offers numerous striking insights into the dark reality of his contact with the future hijackers.
For example, it appears Bayoumi was secretly instructed to recruit Hazmi and Mihdhar at the Saudi Consulate in Los Angeles, by extremist cleric and Saudi Ministry of Islamic Affairs official Fahad Thumairy. The filing cites evidence indicating Bayoumi was himself in California “to spy on local dissidents” of Saudi extraction. He was seen with the two 9/11 hijackers “on numerous occasions,” at one stage organising “a social gathering for the hijackers.” We can only guess who may also have been in attendance.
Another stunning exposure in the filing concerns Hazmi and Mihdhar lodging with longtime FBI informant and asset Abdussattar Shaikh from September 2000 onwards. That Shaikh failed to provide their surnames to his handler despite being asked has been known for many years. The joint congressional and senate intelligence committee probe into 9/11 ruled the pair’s stay with Shaikh was “the [US] intelligence community’s best chance to unravel the September 11 plot.” Insulating Hazmi and Midhar from Bureau scrutiny may have been his explicit objective.
The filing indicates he himself “was receiving funds” from Riyadh, while simultaneously serving as an FBI informant. “Prominent” Saudis “would stay at Shaikh’s boarding house while visiting California,” it states. His mission was “to monitor the activities of [Saudi] citizens while they were abroad.” Hani Hanjour also stayed with Shaikh alongside Hazmi, after Mihdhar returned to Saudi Arabia in late 2000. It appears at every stage Stateside, the hijackers were in intimate proximity with figures connected to Saudi intelligence.
Given the GID was acting directly on the CIA’s behalf, this contact raises the obvious prospect the Agency – via its Riyadh “proxy” – was directly monitoring the movements of Hazmi, Midhar, and Hanjour if not other Saudi-born hijackers from the moment they entered the US at the Agency’s direction, until 9/11 itself. The extent to which the CIA could’ve influenced their actions, behaviour and movements throughout is unknown, but the scope was self-evidently massive.
Saudi Involvement’
All along, Alec Station deliberately concealed the presence of Hazmi and Mihdhar in the US from the FBI, until it was too late. The filing records how in June 2001 Station representatives showed senior Bureau officials photographs of three Al Qaeda operatives, including Hazmi and Mihdhar. However, the CIA refused to answer questions about the individuals in the photos, or provide identifying information. Had they done so, the FBI could’ve readily found Hazmi and Mihdhar’s names and addresses listed in San Diego’s local phone directory.
This was a flagrant dangle, obviously intended to gauge the Bureau’s cognisance of the identities of the individuals pictured, and their presence in the US. The filing also indicates the FBI conducted a dedicated counterintelligence investigation into Omar Bayoumi prior to 9/11, due to suspicions “he was operating as an intelligence officer.” Yet, when the Bureau contacted the CIA for information on Bayoumi, they were told the Agency “held no files” on him at all – a “falsehood”.
In reality, the CIA maintained plentiful “operational” records on Bayoumi, which were “never passed to the FBI.” Such brazen stonewalling persisted long after 9/11. Upon learning tens of thousands of dollars had been sent from Haifa bin Faisal, wife of Saudi ambassador to the US Bandar bin Sultan, to Bayoumi’s wife, the Bureau attempted to subpoena their financial records from Washington DC’s Riggs Bank. Per the filing, “officials at Riggs thwarted the FBI’s efforts to obtain the records for a year.”
Riggs Bank – which counted US Presidents and CIA-installed Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet as clients – collapsed amid major money laundering scandals, in 2005. Post-9/11 investigations identified financial improprieties in accounts held by several wealthy Saudis – including a lack of required background checks, and consistent failure to alert regulators over large transactions violating federal banking laws. Riggs’ downfall precisely mirrors the unceremonious end of many confirmed CIA front banks past, such as Bank of Credit and Commerce International, which assisted criminal cloak-and-dagger connivances including Iran/Contra.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the filing records how “diplomatic pressure” was exerted on the FBI not to investigate Riyad’s myriad connections to 9/11. Bureau agents testifying to the joint inquiry into the attacks were moreover “instructed not to reveal the full extent of Saudi involvement with Al-Qaeda.” Senior officials at FBI headquarters knew “of both Bayoumi’s affiliation with Saudi intelligence and…the existence of the CIA’s operation to recruit Hazmi and Mihdhar,” but “suppressed investigations” into these burning matters.
The filing concludes by noting Bayoumi was subsequently arrested in Britain on immigration charges immediately after 9/11, with authorities finding “extremist literature in his apartment.” The significance of this disclosure has gone entirely unnoticed, since 2022. Only now, as a result of the New York court case, has the media acknowledged how within days of the attacks, “game-changing” evidence directly implicating Bayoumi in 9/11 was seized from his British home by counter-terror police, then shared with the FBI, which actively buried the information.
Quite unbelievably, the incriminating haul supposedly included a phonebook listing over two dozen Saudi government officials in the US and Saudi Arabia; flight simulator software; tickets and travel documents; and a notepad featuring a sketch of an aircraft. An accompanying note from a British counter-terror officer stated of the latter: “contains handwritten notes mathematical calculations re height of planes.” A member of the 9/11 families’ legal team behind the court action boldly informed the BBC, “it’s the mathematical calculation of the [Pentagon] crash.”
By September 22nd 2001, this seemingly incontrovertible windfall was in the Bureau’s possession. So too highly illuminating home video tapes of Bayoumi roaming around Washington DC in 1999, highlighting security measures in place at the Capitol building, openly discussing nearby Reagan National Airport, and referencing an unspecified “plan” on camera. Other tapes feature Bayoumi in close quarters with senior Al Qaeda figures such as Anwar Awlaki, assassinated in a September 2011 US drone strike.
While British detectives apparently believed they possessed “more than sufficient evidence” to extradite Bayoumi to stand trial, Washington ordered him freed, and he returned to Saudi Arabia. US authorities’ resistance is understandable, given the overwhelming abundance of evidence pointing ineluctably to the CIA at the very least actively facilitating the 9/11 attacks, if not carrying them out, using the Saudis as scapegoats. Media determination to avoid mentioning how Bayoumi et al provably acted as “proxies” for the CIA shows the coverup continues today.
Britain stands against oppression in Palestine… by supplying F-35s
Finian Cunningham, September 11, 2026, https://strategic-culture.su/news/2026/09/11/britain-stands-against-oppression-in-palestine-by-supplying-f-35s/
Britain is fuelling the genocide by Israel, as it is with the NATO proxy war in Ukraine against Russia.
So, Britain announced with much fanfare this week that it was imposing sanctions on Israel’s illegal settlements in Palestine. Note that the sanctions are not against the Israeli state, but rather a much narrower definition: Israeli entities in the Occupied Territories.
British Prime Minister Andy Burnham claimed that the move was an example of Britain giving international leadership to stand against oppression and injustice.
Addressing the British Parliament, Burnham said: “In this difficult and dangerous world, Britain has to stand for something, Britain has to show leadership, Britain has to stand for fairness against injustice… That is what the British people expect of us, and that is what this government will do.”
Several other European states and Canada have also joined the British-led initiative to ban trade and investment with companies doing business in the Occupied Territories of the West Bank.
Israel’s occupation is illegal under international law, yet Britain, the European Union and the United States have done nothing in the way of imposing sanctions. Sanctions are something the West prefers to impose on Russia, Iran, China, Cuba, North Korea, among others.
In announcing the sanctions, the United Kingdom’s foreign minister Ed Miliband told the House of Commons that “Britain was a country that upholds its values at home and around the world, fighting against oppression and suffering, and standing up for what is right.”
The pious tones from London about Israel’s “ethnic cleansing” are not convincing.
For starters, the supposed sanctions do not cover British components for the F-35 fighter jets that the United States sells to Israel. The British parts are crucial for flying the US-made stealth aircraft. The warplane has played a major role in razing Gaza to the ground. Also not included in the sanctions are drones and surveillance equipment that British firms supply to the Israeli military. All those components are crucial for enabling the nearly three-year genocidal violence that Israel has conducted in Gaza.
If the British government were serious about “standing against oppression,” it would go a lot further than focusing on violations by Israeli settlers in the Occupied Territories. The pogroms and construction of new settlements are carried out with the full assistance of the Israeli state, not just by gun-wielding fanatical settlers. Britain and other Western states have provided the legal and diplomatic cover for Israeli war crimes.
In any case, the supposed measures against Israeli business and exports from the West Bank are minimal. A recent Al Jazeera investigation found that Britain has billions of dollars invested in companies that are intimately involved in illegal settlement building. We can be sure that London is not going to cancel investments.
Total British-Israeli trade is estimated at $8 billion a year, including lucrative military items. The amount of business that Britain does with the Occupied Territories is about 1 per cent of its total trade with Israel.
Burnham and Miliband said the British government did not support boycott and divestment sanctions against the state of Israel. Both of them were at pains to emphasize that the measures are nominally limited to the violations going on in the Occupied Territories, not what Israel is doing right across Palestinian land, including Gaza, which is a genocide.
So there you have it. Britain’s “moral leadership” is nothing but tokenism and duplicity.
Should we expect anything else? After all, as former British diplomat Craig Murray pointed out this week, Burnham’s government has decided to give top-secret information for building cruise missiles to the corrupt Kiev regime. Murray warns that the Storm Shadow missiles will soon end up being sold on the black market, given the rampant corruption of Ukraine under the Zelensky cabal.
Britain is also supplying this NeoNazi regime with long-range drones that are being used to target Moscow and Russian civilians.
Is this standing up against oppression and for supposed British values?
What’s really behind London’s belated show of concern for Palestinians?
As Burnham and Miliband alluded, it’s all about Britain appearing to show international leadership. It’s a cheap way to burnish London’s “moral posturing” as a defender of “humanitarian values.”
Israel has hit back with the usual denunciations of “anti-semitism” and by closing down the British consulate in East Jerusalem. But for London, these repercussions are bearable for the bigger gains of British international PR.
As noted above, the lion’s share of its lucrative trade with Israel will go on, business as usual.
The other key motive for the Burnham government is that it realizes that a majority of the British public has become staunchly opposed to the Israeli regime. The three-year genocide has opened the eyes of many Britons (and those of other Western nations) to the historical injustices and illegal occupation of Palestinian lands. Israel is increasingly seen as a pariah, apartheid state that should be prosecuted for war crimes.
Britain’s role as the former colonial power in the Zionist annexation of Palestine is one of deep complicity and shame.
Andy Burnham was shoehorned into Downing Street to take over from the hopeless and hapless Labour leader Keir Starmer. The British establishment has bet on Burnham to shore up its imperialist interests by boosting military spending and deepening involvement in the NATO proxy war against Russia in Ukraine.
However, Burnham’s popularity has quickly worn off as he looks like Starmer 2.0.
The tokenistic moves to support Palestinian rights and oppose Israeli violations are a cynical electioneering ploy. By talking up sanctions against Israeli illegal settlements, Burnham is calculating that it will garner votes from the growing public anger over the genocide.
But the measures that London is taking are negligible. They amount to a polite tap on the wrist of the Netanyahu regime as it continues its genocide.
Britain is fuelling the genocide by Israel, as it is with the NATO proxy war in Ukraine against Russia. British duplicity is as legion as its hypocrisy.
The case for declassifying 9/11 records
Government secrecy on intelligence related to the attacks impedes the justice process for some and allows conspiracy theories to fester.
MS Now By Lauren Harper, Sept. 10, 2026,
New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani recently ordered the release of more than 170,000 pages of city records about the air quality in Lower Manhattan after the 9/11 attacks. This release, the first in a series of planned disclosures, shows how opening decades-old records, including those that expose government wrongdoing, is in the public interest. Political will to expand such efforts elsewhere is crucial
Thousands of 9/11 survivors and victims’ families in Lower Manhattan have fought for more than two decades to hold foreign entities liable for the terrorist attacks — only to find that one of the biggest obstacles is their own government. While successive U.S. administrations have promised closure for victims, critical records remain classified 25 years after 9/11, delaying justice and accountability.
The executive order governing classification, EO 13526, mandates that most historical records must be automatically declassified at 25 years, unless they meet certain strict criteria.
In theory, this means the records of the defining national tragedy of this century should start becoming public on Dec. 31. In practice, the declassification system is so ineffective that millions of pages are all but certain to remain hidden in agency archives from Quantico to Langley for years, possibly even decades, whether or not they require continued protection.
This impedes justice on multiple fronts.
In the Southern District of New York, for example, thousands of people have been fighting since 2002 to hold a variety of defendants — from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to members of Al Qaeda — responsible for the attack. They have been impeded in part by the Justice Department, which has aggressively invoked the state-secrets privilege to block the release of records discussing, among other things, whether Saudi officials aided the hijackers when they arrived in the United States in 2000. While a Biden-era executive order forced the partial declassification of some records relevant to this case, many interagency communications and witness interviews remain heavily redacted or fully classified.
At Guantánamo Bay, enduring secrecy has complicated the prosecution of alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and several co-conspirators. The military commission has dragged on for nearly 25 years, costing taxpayers billions of dollars, in part because the government’s evidence was obtained from the CIA’s torture program. Although classification rules explicitly prohibit keeping records classified to conceal violations of law, including torture, the federal government has withheld records from the agency’s black-site prisons for years, ultimately prolonging proceedings. In doing so, the government prioritizes its need for secrecy over ensuring the commission’s tribunals proceed at a reasonable speed toward justice………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Although the summary and the closed-door interviews have not reached the 25-year mark, having been compiled by the 9/11 Commission in 2003 and 2004, releasing them would help promote public understanding of the attacks and government intelligence. It could also help dismantle agency pretexts for withholding the older, underlying intelligence………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… https://www.ms.now/opinion/9-11-victims-declassifying-records-intelligence-threats
9/11 and the War on Terror’s Darkest Paradox
“Never Forget” has become a national ritual. But remembering the tragedy without confronting the deeper story is its own kind of forgetting.
Amber Yang, Sep 12, 2026, https://wtkconsciousmedia.substack.com/p/911-and-the-war-on-terrors-darkest?utm_source=aweber&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=9-11-and-the-war-on-terror-s-darkest-paradox
Twenty-five years ago on 9/11, a vast machine of perpetual war, intrusive surveillance, high-tech human rights abuses, and unaccountable power was born in the ashes of our civil liberties.
The 9/11 Commission was given a $15 million budget to investigate the attacks. This might sound like a lot, but by comparison, the sprawling investigation of Bill Clinton’s scandals (which included the Monica Lewinsky affair) consumed at least $30 million. What does that say about the priority placed on finding out the deeper forces behind one of the greatest tragedies in American history?
WantToKnow.info has been investigating the unanswered questions surrounding 9/11 since our founding in 2003. Our comprehensive 9/11 Information Center includes detailed timelines tracing relevant events back to the 1980s, concise investigative summaries, documentaries and major-media reporting, along with collections of media statements from senior military, intelligence and government officials who have publicly questioned important aspects of the official account. The late theologian and prolific 9/11 researcher Dr. David Ray Griffin once wrote:
WantToKnow.info is a great source of information. I myself first learned about the problems in the official account of 9/11 from this website early in 2003. It has continued since that time to provide exactly what it says: ‘reliable, verifiable information on major cover-ups.’ WantToKnow.info is eminently worthy of support.
Below is a brief overview of some of the key facts, unanswered questions, evidence of concealment and obstruction surrounding the 9/11 investigation, and the far-reaching consequences of the War on Terror that followed. The post 9/11 realities we also explore presents a disturbing paradox; our response did not make us safer. Below, we bring together rarely connected evidence showing how the machinery built to fight terrorism has repeatedly fueled the very violence, terrorism, and extremism we’re told to fear—from FBI operations manufacturing terrorist plots at home, American military prisons serving as incubators for terrorist networks, brutal drone warfare creating new generations of extremists, to a War on Drugs that failed to stop the drug trade while enriching warlords and drug traffickers. In fact, former Congressman Dennis Kucinich recently pointed to the ultimate irony: forces descending from al-Qaeda went from being America’s defining enemy after 9/11 to emerging victorious in Syria after years of US-backed regime change efforts.
When it comes to the evidence of a 9/11 cover-up, here is what has held up after 25 years:
- One year before 9/11, the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), an influential Washington think tank, wrote that global US military dominance would likely be slow without a “catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor.” Several figures associated with PNAC went on to serve in the Bush administration. Around September 20th, four-star General Wesley Clark was informed by a senior Pentagon general that the decision to go to war with Iraq had already been made, and when Clark returned a few weeks later, the same general told him about a classified memo describing plans to “take out seven countries in five years,” beginning with Iraq and including Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.
Could 9/11 have been prevented? The CIA and FBI almost certainly received and discarded warnings about the attack. The US military’s advanced technology systems were capable of stopping the planes before they struck the buildings but chose not to do so. No adequate explanation for these failures has ever been presented to the public. Even stranger, stock market bets were made against the airlines that were involved by a firm formerly headed by CIA director “Buzzy” Krongard; the profits were never claimed. And more than two dozen members of Osama bin Laden’s family were allowed to leave the United States on specially arranged charter flights shortly after 9/11.
Three skyscrapers collapsed on 9/11, but only two were hit by airplanes. The 47-story World Trade Center 7 (WTC 7) was never struck by an airplane, yet later that afternoon roughly 26,000 tons of structural steel came down in a sudden, remarkably vertical collapse within seconds. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) concluded that WTC 7 was the first known building taller than 15 stories to collapse primarily because of fire. Yet if fires really caused such an unprecedented collapse, why hasn’t WTC 7 become one of the most important case studies in high-rise firefighting history? Retired Seattle Fire Captain Raul Angulo is an internationally recognized firefighting instructor and author of a major firefighting textbook published in conjunction with the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). In a 2024 article in the International Fire & Safety Journal, Angulo points out that fire-resistant high-rises are specifically designed to withstand severe fires without completely collapsing. He contrasts WTC 7 with other major high-rise fires that burned for many hours without producing total collapse. A later three-year University of Alaska Fairbanks structural study went further, concluding that fire could not have caused WTC 7’s observed collapse.
Were the buildings brought down through controlled demolition, the deliberate use of explosives and/or incendiaries to destroy a building from within? Countless testimonies including more than 150 firefighters and other first responders described explosions or explosion-like events at the World Trade Center. Particularly notable are accounts from two New York City officials Barry Jennings and Michael Hess who reported a major explosion while evacuating WTC 7 before either of the Twin Towers had collapsed.- Yet how do you seriously investigate controlled demolition when critical physical evidence was either already gone or never tested for it? Much of the WTC steel was rapidly removed and recycled from crash sites. In Angulo’s 2025 article in the International Fire & Safety Journal, he writes that the NIST even admitted that less than 1% of the steel from the Twin Towers was preserved, and next to none from WTC7. NIST never tested recovered Twin Towers steel for explosive or thermite residues despite physical evidence and witness testimony suggesting that explosives and/or incendiaries were involved in the collapse of the towers. And its computer modeling stopped short of explaining the Towers’ complete destruction, later acknowledging it was “unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse.”
- John Farmer, senior counsel to the 9/11 Commission, later described a government “culture of concealment” and wrote that the story presented to the public was “almost entirely, and fundamentally, untrue.” Critical records were withheld, difficult to obtain, or destroyed. FAA recordings were deliberately destroyed. CIA interrogation tapes sought by the Commission were withheld and later destroyed, and key government accounts of the military response on 9/11 turned out to be false. In fact, the collective voices of over 100 respected professors along with over 50 senior government officials, over 250 pilots and aviation professionals, and over 3,000 architects and engineers give credibility to the claim that the 9/11 Commission Report was tragically flawed.
The War on Terror we launched after 9/11 did not make us safer. In reality, the machinery built to fight terrorism fueled the very violence, terrorism, and extremism we were told to be afraid of.
Serious questions remain about how the post-9/11 terrorism threat has been measured and presented to the public. The FBI has had a notorious history of manufacturing terrorist plots, often targeting vulnerable minors who have significant cognitive and intellectual disabilities yet no history of violence. FBI operatives were found to have proposed terrorist plots, supplied money or weapons, coached vulnerable targets and then arrested them for participating. Human Rights Watch found that the majority of defendants in post-9/11 terrorist cases had no actual ties to terrorism or to terrorist organizations. The organization concluded that, “the FBI may have created terrorists out of law-abiding individuals.” National security expert Sahar Aziz put it best: “If there was a serious terrorist threat in America, the FBI would not be spending its time entrapping a mentally ill minor.”
The biggest Al Qaeda plot the FBI claimed to have foiled in the years following the 9/11 attacks involved no weapons, no plot, and no Al Qaeda. Instead, the vague, implausible threat by a group of construction workers in Florida to blow up U.S. buildings, including Chicago’s Sears Tower, was mostly the making of the FBI, whose undercover operatives sought out the men, promised them money, and coached them over months to implicate themselves in a conspiracy to commit violent acts they never actually intended or had the means to carry out. The “Liberty City Seven” case — known by its connection to the poor, violence-ridden Miami neighborhood where the men involved lived — was the most high-profile FBI investigation of a supposed terrorist cell after the attacks in New York City and Washington, D.C. The ordeal of the seven Black men, most of them Haitian American, who were manipulated by two paid FBI informants into pledging allegiance to Al Qaeda is recounted in a new Frontline documentary, “In the Shadow of 9/11.” The case set the stage for hundreds of FBI sting operations in the following years, as the bureau continued to frame individuals who were often poor, credulous, and had dubious ability to independently plan any attacks. Rather than abandoning stings as pointless and harmful … the FBI doubled down on them, in some cases even providing weapons to the individuals they set up.
— “The Most High-Profile Al Qaeda Plot Foiled After 9/11 Was an FBI Scam,” The Intercept
Many people imprisoned in the War on Terror were never terrorists, and senior Bush administration officials knew it. At the Abu Ghraib prison, the Red Cross estimated that 70–90% of Iraqi detainees had been arrested by mistake. CIA detainee Abu Zubaydah was waterboarded 83 times in a single month, slammed into walls, confined in coffin-like boxes and subjected to “rectal rehydration.” The government initially portrayed him as a senior al-Qaeda figure, until CIA contractors realized they had the wrong man. The Senate Intelligence Committee ultimately concluded that the CIA’s torture program was not an effective means of acquiring intelligence or gaining detainee cooperation. Read more about the CIA’s torture program.- Camp Bucca in Iraq, a US military detention center, came to be known widely as a “terrorist university“ that “absolutely radicalized young Iraqis” (quote from retired US Army lieutenant general and former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency [DIA] Michael Flynn). In fact, 80% of prisoners released from Camp Bucca rejoined terrorists. One senior leader of ISIS told The Guardian, “If there was no American prison in Iraq, there would be no [ISIS] now. Bucca was a factory. It made us all. It built our ideology.”
- At least 20,000 innocent civilians have died as a result of US drone warfare and targeted killings since 9/11. Yet the CIA itself warned that these tactics could fuel the very extremism and terrorism they were intended to defeat. A secret 2009 CIA assessment warned that killing high-value targets could radicalize populations and even create openings for more radical groups, particularly when civilians are killed.
- Drone warfare has also inflicted severe psychological trauma and PTSD on US military personnel ordered to kill people thousands of miles away through high-resolution cameras. Air Force Captain Kevin Larson, who died by suicide in 2020, described a mission in which he was told to follow a target’s body to his funeral and kill those who attended. Former drone operator Brandon Bryant recounted an emotional experience of killing a child in Afghanistan that his superiors told him was a dog. Intelligence analyst Bennett Miller told about a time when his team killed a supposed high-level Taliban financier, only to see the same target’s name appear again a week later. “We got the wrong guy. I had just killed someone’s dad,” Mr. Miller said. “I had watched his kids pick up the body parts.” Another drone operator Michael Haas once said that operators referred to children as fun-sized terrorists or TITS, terrorists in training.
- In our Substack, “A History of Militarized Policing in the US and the Suppression of Dissent Across the Political Spectrum,” we discuss how the militarization of domestic police was driven by the Pentagon supplying local police with military equipment after 9/11. Since then, the term terrorism has expanded to include any activist group across the spectrum not in favor of the political establishment.
- The War on Terror also deepened the War on Drugs as we document in our Substack, How the Deep State Won the War on Drugs: A Complete Timeline. Despite a successful ban on opium cultivation by the Taliban in 2000, which drastically reduced production, Afghanistan again became the world’s largest source of heroin after the US invasion in 2001. By the end of the war, opium production, drug addiction, and the flow of drug money had reached unprecedented levels, despite costly and ineffective anti-drug efforts. In fact, an interview with one official estimated that 40% of US aid to Afghanistan during the War on Terror had been pocketed by officials, gangsters, warlords, drug lords and insurgents.
Based on all of our research, we believe that these facts about 9/11 are just the tip of the iceberg. We deserve better than leaders who lie to us, create the very enemies we’re told to be afraid of, and kill in our name with our taxpayer dollars.
We can’t shift the chaos we’re in until we name it clearly. When we can recognize what’s really pushing us—in our personal lives and as a society—we already have a degree of freedom from it. Challenging information can paradoxically remind us of the greater good. It is the courage of the people and the love for the common good that bring these challenges to light—fueling open dialogue and constructive action.
With faith in a transforming world,
Amber Yang for PEERS and WantToKnow.info
1 This Month
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- September 2026 (184)
- August 2026 (330)
- July 2026 (355)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (375)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 