[Iran Press TV] The UN 1973 Resolution was to create a now fly zone in Libya that established within weeks of the start of the NATO ...the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. It's headquartered in Belgium. That sez it all.... campaign. However, the man who has no enemies isn't anybody and has never done anything... the second reason was to protect the Libyan civilians (or that is what we were led to believe).
We heard Cameron and Hague state firmly the action that had taken place and the reasons behind that action which they said was primarily on humanitarian grounds!
What we in the UK did not understand was the fact that the final outcome was nothing to do with saving lives but rather to get their hands on Libya's vast lucrative natural resources. The entire campaign became a total blood bath that would leave over 50,000 dead and many many thousands of innocent Libyan civilians would become contaminated with radiation from the weapons used by the coalition forces. The active use of Weapons of Mass Destruction's (WMD) has basically killed the genetics of Libya, adjacent countries and the world beyond by it's over excessive use of depleted uranium weapons.
I have lost count as to how many cruise missiles they have fired off to date but I know that in the initial stages of the war it was over 300. At one stage, whilst watching this ungodly act of aggression, I counted 18 cruise missiles being fired in just one night. The target was a military compound that just so happened to be right next door to a densely populated district in Tripoli. It was obvious to me at the time that they would be contaminating many thousands of people during this particular onslaught. The radioactive fallout of nanoparticles would then drift, not only over this area, but also over the entire city and the region beyond. From my perspective, I found the use of many Cruise Missiles within this high-populated residential district of Tripoli the last straw!
My question to Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy would now be how many lives do you think you actually saved? I can assure you all that as a direct result of their actions in Libya, they have now committed an act of genocide and thus should all be charged with war crimes.
It is clear that with the British media being totally censored we will never fully understand the consequences of this deplorable war that the United Nations ...what started out as a a diplomatic initiative, now trying to edge its way into legislative, judicial, and executive areas... had approved and its subsequent use of Weapons of Mass Destruction on the innocent population of Libya with an emphasis on the City of Tripoli. This was not a war to enforce a "No Fly Zone", it was a war to force a "Regime Change" which is in violation of UN1973 and in doing so also breaches at least five articles of the Geneva Convention.
To fire over 18 Cruise Missiles (WMD´s) into the heart of Tripoli was certainly an act against humanity to which NATO and its command structure should be placed before the International Court of Justice.
To fire over 18 Cruise Missiles (WMD´s) into the heart of Tripoli was certainly an act against humanity to which NATO and its command structure should be placed before the International Court of Justice. It was also a crime that was carried out right under the noses of the United Nations who stood by and did nothing to stop this genocide!
As we all know it didn´t just stop at the use of Cruise Missiles but also Bunker Busters, JDAM and Hellfire Missiles (as used by the Predators unmanned aircraft and also by the Apache Helicopters) all of which were in violation of the Geneva Convention based on the following criteria.
Depleted uranium weapons are recognized as weapons developed illegally under the Manhattan Project in World War II by the United States Government. Already illegal and in violation of the 1925 Geneva Poison Gas Protocol, in 1943 depleted uranium weapons were described as a "highly mobile indiscriminate killer and permanent terrain contaminant," recommended for development in the declassified Manhattan Project memo dated October 30, 1943.
It was only a matter of time when the scientist realised the military values of Depleted Uranium (DU) when they stated, "It has pyrophoric properties and may spontaneously ignite at room temperature in air, oxygen and water. These unique properties make it appealing for use in many civilian and military applications."
They have together concocted a trail of deceit and failed in their duty of care to protect the world's populations.
The propaganda that has been handed out by the UNEP, WHO, ICRP, IAEA, Governments, DOD's and many other authorities (not forgetting the pharmaceutical industry) show that, in their opinion , DU is Low Level Radiation and is therefore harmless which actually falls well short of the truth that lies behind its usage. They have all failed to understand the health implications when DU/LLR is inhaled into the body. They have together concocted a trail of deceit and failed in their duty of care to protect the world's populations.
Because of this mismanagement, we now are looking at dramatic increases in many forms of cancer, diabetes, and infertility. Because DU/LLR directly attacks the genetics of our body via our DNA, we are witnessing terrible birth defects in babies.
The most complicated of all is the inhalation of nanoparticle aerosols of DU/LLR. Insoluble DU particle deposited in the respiratory bronchioles and alveoli will be cleared much more slowly, and, therefore, would be expected to deliver a higher radiation dose to the lung from alpha radiation. Once DU/LLR has entered the blood and irreversible cycle commences. The tissues in our bodies filter out the depleted uranium particles from the blood and cause a web of diseases called "Gulf War Syndrome."
It was obvious that when the coalition forces pounded Libya with their WMD´s that the consequences for the people of Libya was going to be catastrophic. In the longer term, we are looking here at a progressive slow genocide that is beyond imagination.
Depleted Uranium has a half-life of 4.5 billion years...
Depleted Uranium has a half-life of 4.5 billion years and basically can never be cleaned up. It is fact that well over 500 missiles (each containing around 350 kg of DU) in some shape or form amounts to at least 175,000 kg. It takes about 50 tons (45,359 Kg) of DU contaminated dust to kill 500,000 people so one can see that when you add to this the DU that was also used by the US, UK and La Belle France in other forms of munitions such as Bunker Busters, JDAM bombs, other smaller missiles and the rounds fired from attack helicopters etc we are looking at an incredible volume of DU being spread around Libya, other countries and the world beyond.
It is not just a simply case of saying that the coalition forces only breached one violation of the Geneva Convention i.e. The 1925 Geneva Poison Gas Protocol (radioactive poison gas)... they did in actual fact breach at least another four which has been covered in many of my previous articles.
What I find totally unacceptable is the fact that the United Nations is supposed to stand behind any breach of the Geneva Convention and does so with many offenders. However, the man who has no enemies isn't anybody and has never done anything... these gross violations that have been committed by high profile members of the UN are not only totally disregarded but also dismissed.
...the United States used totally illegal "Tactical Nuclear Weapons" during the Iraq War and also during the Afghanistan War...
One need only look at the military plans currently being laid down by the United States, Israel and the United Kingdom in wanting to take action against Iran (and Syria if they can get away with it) shows not only the continued use of Depleted Uranium but also with other very high tech weaponry that will have catastrophic consequences if used.
It should also again be put on record that the United States used totally illegal "Tactical Nuclear Weapons" during the Iraq War and also during the Afghanistan War...It is clear that we have many ongoing breaches of the Geneva Convention as well as War crimes by creating genocide on innocent people.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/07/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran
#1
Writer is, to put it kindly, a drooling wacko.
Posted by: Whiskey Mike ||
12/07/2011 6:11 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Middle East Consultant, eh? I wonder if he's any relation to the actor who played Cinna the Poet in the 1970 movie Julius Caesar?
Or is he the same actor-looking-for-relevance?
The IAEA reported in 2003 that, "based on credible scientific evidence, there is no proven link between DU exposure and increases in human cancers or other significant health or environmental impacts"
#7
Worse than that, they're sending bananas to Libya! Do you know how radioactive bananas are?
Posted by: Eric Jablow ||
12/07/2011 8:25 Comments ||
Top||
#8
DU isn't radioactive (to speak of), of course, but it is a 'heavy metal', and like lead (or mercury) can cause health problems by being inhaled or ingested - or punctured by.
I'm not familiar with the alleged use in cruise missiles etc. - why waste valuable payload on that instead of explosives? And there weren't significant tanks neading busting with high inertia projectiles. Hard to tell if there's even a kernel of truth in this pile of bovine excrement.
#9
Years ago, a Marine vet of WW I wrote about the American part of the war. It was a pop history by Laurence Stallings, later a Hollywood screenwriter. Called "Doughboy!" He referred to revisiting some of the scenes of the fighting in France, including an orchard where they had fought for some time. The local farmer's wife reproached them for not picking up their expended cartridges, since the apples all tasted of brass and were unsaleable. That's a lot of brass.
She has a problem, if not a beef, I suppose. But the other end of the issue is...down range from all that brass is a lot of lead. Think about how much lead has been expended in Western Europe since the invention of gunpowder, how much is in the ground in the area of WW I's Western Front, or where the Napoleonic battles were fought.
Anybody worried about the problem of lead poisoning in the local populations, if not the entire continent?
Thought not.
So the concern about DU is entirely partisan. They have worse to worry about, and closer to home. But there's no blaming the Bad Americans or the Bad Capitalists for it, or at least it's too far in the past to make any partisan progress.
Posted by: Richard Aubrey ||
12/07/2011 8:44 Comments ||
Top||
#10
The lead and the DU were here on Earth before they were made into munitions. Yes we moved them about and concentrated bits into larger bits (and depleted the uranium to boot) but its not as if the Earth isn't a hostile place to live (especially if you are stupid).
h/t Instapundit
For a long time, the Left has gotten away with underselling Americas energy resources. The old chestnut that the U.S. uses 25% of the worlds oil but only has 2% to 3% of the worlds oil reserves has been repeated endlessly by Barack Obama and many others. This claim fooled millions of people who didnt understand that in the U.S., reserves means petroleum that is 1) legally available for development, and 2) profitably extracted at current prices. So if Democrats would stop preventing drilling, we could vastly increase our reserves, as legally defined, overnight.
Happily, the publicity that has recently been given to massive shale oil and natural gas deposits in North Dakota, Pennsylvania and elsewhere has awakened many Americans to the fact that our energy resources are truly vastgreater, in fact, than any other countrys. The point is driven home by a new report that has just been released by the Institute for Energy Research.
Here is the scenario: The U.S economy has hit the skids. Millions of Americans are unemployed. Federal stimulus programs have piled up debt but havent brought back jobs for most Americans. Critics charge that the stimulus funds have mostly gone to friends of the President. At the same time, the defense budget has been cut to the bone, and Americas troops have neither the weapons nor the personnel to carry out their assignments.
Sound familiar? Actually, we are describing the U.S. on Dec. 7, 1941the day Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and dragged the U.S. into World War II. What can we learn from the Pearl Harbor disaster?
A lot. In FDR Goes to War, we tell how President Franklin Roosevelt spent his first seven years showering money on social welfare programs that bolstered his partys majority. FDR showed the world how federal spending, when carefully targeted, could win elections from coast to coast. Roosevelt and his social engineers designed programs for farmers, for city dwellers, for needy youth, and especially for voters living in key battleground states.
At the same time that FDR was pouring out cash for welfare programs, he was starving the military of supplies needed to defend America. In 1935, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Douglas MacArthur said that his hopeful goal for the coming year was a 30-day supply of bullets for the U.S. Army. Even as Americas enemies gained strength in the late 1930s, FDR refused to arm the military for an adequate defense. By 1940, the U.S. still had fewer than 50 heavy bombers in its continental defense, few antiaircraft guns, only primitive tanks, and little ammunition for either bombers or guns.
Such weakness is noticed by other nations, then and now. High unemployment and a weak defense attract aggressors: Germany and Japan in the 1930s. Iran and North Korea today. And maybe Russia. The more decrepit our defense, the more aggressive the tyrants will be.
In 1940, neither the Germans nor the Japanese respected the American economy or our military. Our Army listed only nine divisions on paper, at a time when Germany had mobilized more than 90, and Japan controlled parts of China with 50 divisions. When FDR decided to enforce an oil embargo on Japan, Tokyo knew that both the United States and Great Britain had only minimal forces scattered throughout the Pacific. Japan decided to attack both powers in December 1941, in a misplaced belief that it could set up A New Order in the Pacific: Asia for Asians was their slogan, which really meant Japan Will Rule All Others.
Japan also taught its people that their home islands were invincible, protected by divine forces from harm. And because Japanese troops in Manchuria and China rolled over the weak Chinese forces that opposed them, the Japanese people continued to believe this myth. The U.S. in a Great Depression posed no challenge.
Thus the stage was set for the tragedy at Pearl Harbor. On the morning of Dec. 7, more than 350 Japanese planes bombed and strafed military installations in Hawaii for more than two hours. The attack crippled the U.S. fleet stationed there, destroyed 188 aircraft, and killed 2403 Americans. Within hours, the Japanese also bombed the Philippines in an offensive that would eventually reach the borders of Australia. Tens of thousands of American and British troops in Singapore, Guam, Wake Island, Hong Kong and the Philippines went into a terrible captivity.
A strong U.S. presence in the Pacific in the 1930s would have made the Japanese hesitate before launching such sweeping attacks. Today, we would also do well to remember that strength discourages attack. Because of Congress failure to cut social spending, we may be faced with automatic cuts to our defense totaling more than $600 billion during the next 10 years, and that is in addition to currently scheduled cuts of $489 billion.
Seventy years ago, at Pearl Harbor, the U.S. learned that a weak economy and a weaker defense are no deterrent to war. Lets not forget that lesson today.
#1
and the ChiComm president urges his military to prepare for combat.
Posted by: jack salami ||
12/07/2011 12:47 Comments ||
Top||
#2
MacArthur (PBUH) said this to Roosevelt after a round of to-the-bone budget cuts: "When we lose the next war, and an American boy, lying in the mud with an enemy bayonet through his belly and an enemy foot on his dying throat, spits out his last curse, I want the name to be not MacArthur, but Roosevelt." Old Mac definitely had a way with words.
But at least Roosevelt's basic patriotism and desire to see his country successful and safe couldn't be doubted. I DEFINITELY won't say the same about the empty-suit, affirmative-action Marxist now defiling the Oval Office. I have absolutely zero doubt in my mind that a weaker, poorer United States is Obama's central objective - don't you see, "social justice" requires that the "global community" be liberated from Evil Amerikkka's malignant influence.
Posted by: Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) ||
12/07/2011 14:44 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Within hours, the Japanese also bombed the Philippines in an offensive that would eventually reach the borders of Australia.
--- MacArthur's sayings about lack of preparedness need to be taken with a large amount of salt. He was completely in charge of Philippines defense and had 7 hours of warning (the Japanese couldn't attack until daylight, hence the delay) -- despite this he did NOTHING.
--- US military intelligence knew for years that the Hawaiian Islands were vulnerable to a Japanese carrier-based attack coming from the north with the carriers about 300 miles offshore - -for which the basic intelligence procedure of daily surveillance by aircraft and submarine patrols had been proposed by higher ranking officers, but dismissed as impossible due to lack of men & materials for such surveillance. The type of attack the Empire carried out had been wargamed by the US more than once. That's the only point where the reality matches the basic metaphor of the article.
-- The USA would be better off electing an American as President.
#4
Ron Paul will tell you that it was the sanctions FDR put on Japan b/c the Japanese were slaughtering the Chinese. The Japanese had been modernizing and expansionist since before WWI where they won a major navy battle against Germany. So to an extent maybe so, because all of those things required for the modern war equipment: oil, rubber, wood, food, etc. and FDR thought contributing to the slaughter of the Chinese was bad. They did send covert operators to China. With a large sea and strong navy the USA could feel isolationist.
OK, skipping a lot of what can be argued. I propose that Pearl Harbor was attacked because the USA was strong navy-wise. Japan would not have gone through so much effort if the potential US fleet would not be a problem. In fact, even after Pearl Harbor, the US/Allied fleet went toe-to-toe with the Japanese on won the Guadalcanal campaign despite Pearl Harbor losses.
Something obscure about Guadalcanal. Survivors were toured around the USA to increase war material production. Why, because of the socialist union movement many factory workers did not work on account of the solidarity movement, and it took not only a massive pay off from FDR to get them to work it also took public opinion such as the story of The Fighting Sullivans, so those PR stories did a bit more than sell War Bonds, even then there were a fair number of strikes which FDR had to deal with.
#5
The Japanese had been modernizing and expansionist since before WWI where they won a major navy battle against Germany.
While the Japanese did fight against Germany in WWI, there was hardly any major naval action. Maybe the defeat of the Russian navy at Tsushima in the Russo-Japanese War (1904-1905) is the point?
Well before the Japanese expansion in China, both their navy and the American navy had eyed each other as future adversaries and had made plans to address the possibility.
#6
because of the socialist union movement many factory workers did not work on account of the solidarity movement
I very much doubt that in view of the fact that Japan did indeed attack US territory without declaring war. Competent sources need to be cited to back that up.
#7
Japan would not have gone through so much effort if the potential US fleet would not be a problem
Exactly. Many other contemporary sources back that up.
#8
Ron Paul will tell you that it was the sanctions FDR put on Japan b/c the Japanese were slaughtering the Chinese.
Ron Paul is no authority on US foreign affairs, and indeed seems to know less on that topic than the average Rantburger. At that time imperial Japan was waging a war of aggression on China. IMHO imposing severe economic sanctions on the Empire by the USA was fully warranted even if that brought on a war between Japan & the USA. FDR's problem in the 30's was that the US was not able to conduct such, and public opinion after our WWI expedition was very much against another war unless US territory was threatened.
And by the way, this little story is almost relevant: my uncle Cas of the 78th Pursuit Squadron at Wheeler Field near Pearl Harbor wound up sitting in a foxhole with a buddy around that field for several days after the 78th lost all their aircraft on 7 Dec 1941. They were supposed to defend their field against the expected air assault from Jap paratroopers, which fortunately never happened.
For a while the Hawaiian Islands were utterly vulnerable to Japanese troop landings.
Uncle Cas & his buddy were quite aware of that. They were also quite aware that imperial Japan did not treat POWs very well. The two GI's agreed to save their last bullets for each other, so that they would not be taken alive.
What does Ron Paul tell about that?
#9
The US was refusing to sell Japan oil because of her actions in China. Japan was down to about three month supply of fuel. Their only option was to take the oil in the Dutch East Indies (Indonesia, today). In order to do that, they had to take out allied naval power in the region. They almost succeeded.
Japan had planned for three attack waves but only carried out two because they got cold feet when they didn't find our carriers. Feeling vulnerable, they left. That missing wave was to take out all the fuel storage on Hawaii. That would have made missions out of Pearl Harbor impossible and the fleet would have had to retreat to San Francisco.
Because the oil on Pearl Harbor was spared, operations with what ships could be mustered and our carriers could continue and repair work could be done on what could be salvaged.
The war was started because of oil and they lost it because of oil. Had they gone ahead with the third attack wave, the war would have lasted much longer and we likely would have lost Hawaii to the Japanese.
#10
P2K is absolutely right, Japanese expansion went back even further than WWI; could be argued that they started looking a Korea not long after the unification. It was no secret Japan was feeling big, and was just a matter of time before a scrap was at hand, whatever the excuse may be.
I think Ron Paul is at best an isolationist. That sanctions cause wars just baffles me. IMHO the sanctions placed upon Japan forced their hand earlier than they may have wanted to.
AH9418, I bring that out of the book Neptune's Inferno, James Hornfischer, had much about survivors of the USS Juneau specifically, as well as other veterans of the Solomon Campaign as a way to show workers what they were working for. IIRC he even mentioned the (threat of?) National Guard being called into action. His previous works, Ship of Ghosts and Last Stand of the Tin Can Soldiers stand on their own.
#11
Indeed crosspatch...suppose the second to last thing to go through Yamamoto's mind was would it have been worth some of his carriers and experienced pilots to finish the job at Pearl?
[Dawn] IS America in decline? Commentaries about American power trajectory often focus on the larger size of its military and economic muscles compared with other countries.
However, death is not the end. There remains the litigation over the estate... the superpower contest is unlike a bodybuilding contest where the participant with the most oversized muscles wins without having to demonstrate their practical utility.
No, in body building the most perfectly proportioned muscles win. But y'know, you can try and see whether the body builder is or isn't also a black belt...
Power is the ability to influence the external environment in line with one's goals. Thus, a superpower must be able to shape the global order primarily in its own favour while keeping others content with their smaller shares of the pie. It must also effectively resolve emerging global problems so that other countries do not look for alternative leadership or order. Hence, a superpower's success lies in having not large but effective muscles, consisting of military, economic, political and moral (soft) power.
Militarily, America's defence arsenal dwarfs that of all other countries combined. This military might is certainly effective in keeping Iran and North Korea in check; keeping global trading sea lanes open; and occasionally in further reducing the fast-shrinking ranks of troublesome dictators. However, there's more than one way to skin a cat... with the demise of the USSR and China's focus on economics, conventional military threats, which the American military is best geared to tackle, are fast disappearing. The main threats today are unconventional insurgencies and as America's experiences in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan reveal, American might is less effective in eliminating them.
Economically, despite its recent decline, America still overwhelmingly dominates global finance, R&D and high-tech industries. However, there is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened... an effective superpower must be able to devise a global economic system which generally runs smoothly. It must also have the resources to provide fiscal and monetary stimuli, generous foreign aid and access to its own market to jumpstart the global economy when it occasionally runs into trouble. The free-market system imposed by America globally causes frequent global economic crises. Worse still, America does not have the money to rescue its own or the global economy in the current crisis, which it caused itself due to its earlier financial over-deregulation.
Politically, its domination in key global institutions is increasingly under challenge. In the UN, it has failed to win approval for actions against several countries, most humiliatingly when even its close European allies refused to sanction Iraq's invasion.
In the WTO, it has failed to further trade liberalisation as emerging countries have opposed its proposals which favour rich countries. Worse still, its national political system suffers from gridlock as the Republicans keep moving rightwards to the exasperation of increasingly centrist Democrats. Thus, urgent national and global problems requiring decisive American action fester given the lack of a 'Washington Consensus' as the oversized and hapless bodybuilder impotently flexes its cosmetic muscles.
Finally, moral power stems from the natural attraction of an entity's cultural, political and economic prowess which encourages others to voluntarily follow it without the use of the other powers. This is the arena where America's stock has depreciated the most. As the world discovers America's gridlocked and money-dominated political system, its ecologically damaging, socially unequal and crisis-prone economic system and its superficial consumerist culture, it is fast losing its appeal as the country to emulate.
Can America reclaim its lost glory? One must retrace its earlier recovery from the 1970s' stagflation crisis to answer this question. Reagan resolved this crisis with the twin policies of neo-liberalism and neo-conservatism. Neo-liberalism was an economic policy of deregulation that increased private profitability at the expense of labour while neo-conservatism was a political policy to defeat the USSR by projecting American military power globally. Both policies succeeded initially as the American economy recovered and the Soviet Union collapsed. The 1990s marked the peak of American superpower as it reigned supreme politically, economically, militarily and culturally, master of all it surveyed.
However, there's no worse danger than telling a mother her baby is ugly... within a decade, new problems started emerging to undermine American hegemony -- the dot.com bust, 9/11, the Afghanistan and Iraq quagmires and finally the 2008 global recession. Ironically, the economic problems above were a direct outcome of neo-liberalism while the political debacles were a result of neo-conservatism. Thus, the current decline is actually the direct outcome of the twin policies adopted by Reagan to stem the earlier decline. Reagan is often called the vanquisher of a superpower. This title underestimates his accomplishments by 50 per cent. In reality, he was the vanquisher of two superpowers.
What solutions is America contemplating to deal with the current crisis? Republicans aim to strengthen Reaganism, i.e. the ideas which caused the crisis. Democrats have a few good half-ideas but lack the courage to champion them vociferously and the vision to develop them into a coherent strategy. Thus, one finds little intellectual strength within mainstream American society to even re-establish American hegemony let alone tackle the emerging global problems like climate change, economic volatility, social breakdown and growing inequality.
These problems require building blocks very different from those which propelled American pre-eminence till recently, i.e. global dominance, materialism and self-interest. These problems require global democracy, increased economic equality and post-materialism, ideas alien to dominant American thought. Consequently, not only is mainstream America ill-suited to provide leadership for such a global transformation, it is the main hurdle in the way of its emergence. The main problem with American power is not its inadequacy but its irrelevance for dealing with today's problems. While it still is the most powerful country globally, the title of superpower seems an over-exaggeration.
Who will replace America as the next superpower then? Many eyes instinctively turn towards China in this regard. However, Switzerland makes more than cheese... despite its impressive progress, China is decades away from attaining that status, and may not even necessarily attain it. More importantly, given the lack of even domestic democracy there, a world dominated by China will be much worse than one dominated by America. The world does not need a new superpower but a new global order where global issues are dealt by democratic nations democratically. The king is dead; long live democracy.
The writer is a political economist at the University of Caliphornia, Berkeley.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/07/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The world does not need a new superpower but a new global order where global issues are dealt by democratic nations democratically.
"Needs" are imaginary. "Reality" is not. "New global order" implies "dictatorship."
#2
A Fortress-America policy is inevitable. None of the current class of clowns (wannabe White House residents) could be educated as to the absolute necessity of said policy. Within 4 years, Pakistan and Iran will lead an islamic-nato, and plant nuclear tipped ICBMs on the edges of Western Civilization. The status quo practise of treating the mortal muslim enemy as if they are mere human variants would seal America's doom, unless common sense prevails. If stupidity was a crime, every Federal representative would be in jail.
[Dawn] MALALA Yousafzai did not win the International Children's Peace Prize, the initiative of a Dutch group, on Universal Children's Day but she was among the top five favourites selected from almost 100 children hailing from 42 countries.
A couple of years ago, in 2009, she told me, "I curse my name Malala -- mournful -- which keeps happiness away from me."
She had said this as she sat beside her father who ran a school. She cried as she talked about her wretched life during the rule
of the Swat ...a valley and an administrative district in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province of Pakistain, located 99 mi from Islamabad. It is inhabited mostly by Pashto speakers. The place has gone steadily downhill since the days when Babe Ruth was the Sultan of Swat... Taliban.
A day before the Taliban's deadline for shutting down girls' schools, I reached the valley on Feb 14, 2009, a little before dawn.
Various muezzins were calling the faithful to prayer, their voices resonating almost in unison. But despite the peace that enveloped the traveller, the menacing shadows of the surrounding mountains held Mingora city in thrall.
Almost everything in the dark valley belonged to the Taliban, who had reduced Swat to a ghost of its glorious past. Grabbing those who opposed them or did not conform to their diktat at night, they would drag their captives to the 'Khooni Chowk' to carry out their macabre ritual of early-morning slaughter.
Not too far from Malala's house, it had become routine for passersby to view, until midday, the mutilated bodies lying in a pool of blood in the middle of the square.
The knock on the door at the pre-dawn hour, then, was alarming for Malala's father Ziauddin. I had interviewed Malala previously on the subject of education, but today I reminded him of an earlier commitment for a documentary, which a foreign media outlet had agreed to finance.
The next 48 hours were spent in documenting the last days of girls' education under Taliban rule in Swat. Class dismissed in Swat valley was released some time later, and the gifted Malala, a lead character, became an instant hit with foreign audiences.
It was difficult to celebrate this success; the fear of having exposed the thoughts of the young girl haunted me for long.
Meanwhile, ...back at the pound, Zebulon finally found just the friend he'd been looking for... Adam Ellick, co-producer of the documentary, kept forwarding me emails of foreign NGOs that now appeared interested in girls' education.
This may have had much to do with Malala's own confidence and desire to become a doctor. Ellick narrated one incident in which the reluctant sons of a US doctor were persuaded to go to school after their parent showed them the documentary filming the plight of girls' education in Swat.
Over the last three years, media exposure has projected young Malala and her father Ziauddin, whose school was the main feature of the documentary, as the liberal face of Swat. They have struggled -- along with many others -- to stop the tide of obscurantism in the plagued valley.
"How can I leave the valley in bad times, when the valley has given me so much during good times?" Ziauddin would reply to his friends' requests for him and his family to leave Swat after the Taliban included his name on their death list.At that time, the 11-year-old Malala had something else on her mind. "I have got a cupboard where I can hide my father if the Taliban come after him," she told me, pointing a figure towards a huge wooden box in her room.
The tragic story of Swat, which saw the slaughter of so many innocents and the suffering of scores of family, ended on a happier note after the forces of Evil were driven out of the valley in mid-2009. The sacrifices rendered by the Swati people had paid off.
Malala, meanwhile, emerged as a symbol of resistance against the Taliban, which was due, in no small part, to her 'anti-Taliban' diary that she wrote for the BBC. Since then, she has been celebrated within the country by many, the prime minister among them, and has received cash and other awards.
Recently, I called Malala from Beautiful Downtown Peshawar to ask her if she still disliked her name. She laughed in reply. Her situation reminded me of her namesake Malalai of Maiwand, who rallied Afghan forces against the British troops in the battle of Maiwand on July 27, 1880. When the tribal lashkar was on the retreat, the extraordinary bravery of Malalai -- the daughter of a Pakhtun tribal chief -- led to the defeat of British troops in the second Anglo Afghan war.
When asked if Malala of Swat would follow the Afghan Malalai the young girl adamantly said "yes", but added that, "my strength does not lie in the sword. It lies in the pen". Hopefully, this is a discovery that other girl students hailing from areas where schools have been bombed will also make.
Writing about his own life, Nietzsche once observed that his weakest moments were his greatest moments because they made him stronger. The people of Swat faced their toughest moments in a war that continues in the country and in which the enemy, when it occupied their land, was considered too strong to be knocked down easily.
Fortunately, there are many stories about strong-willed individuals in Swat who survived these tough times. They stood up against a powerful enemy. Many died a hero's death; many still wait to be honoured. Their courage and individual and collective effort against the forces of darkness must be recognised and honoured by both the government and society as an essential step towards turning the tide of violence in the country.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/07/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under: TTP
#2
We now have an adequate number of Arabic speaking personnel, as well as many that speak Pushtu. This opens the door to both the southwest and the southeast and East of Iran. And Israel has been very cozy with the Kurds, so probably has a lot of men who speak Kurdish well. So that is the northwest.
Persian Jews, Baha'i and Iranian immigrant communities all over the place, Anonymoose, both in the U.S. and Israel. Even here in Cincinnati there's a Farsi language Sunday school for the children -- formerly temporary daughter and her sister took classes there for several years.
Following the storming of the British Embassy in Tehran, the desire to move decisively against Iran is growing across Europe. Support for sanctions has increased -- and next time they may strike where it really hurts: oil sales, which is responsible for nearly half of government revenues.
#1
Europe doesn't have the collective man bits to do it. Said man bits are stored in a jar in the Kremlin on Putin's desk right near the pen set he uses to sign off on natgas sales to Europe.
#5
Russia is unlikely to participate in the embargo so it will not end up having much effect. As soon as Western Europe moves in that direction, all their corporations will immediately seek to exploit the sanctions for profit in some fashion. I'm sure the UN will then suggest that an Oil For Food Program be implemented under their direction.
The final result of the entire pantomine will be that the US and Israel will be blamed.
The entire embargo suggestion is just another flaming lunch bag of doggie excrement left on our doorstep. Let's just ignore the the whole embargo idea and keep funding whomever is blowing up their nuke program.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
12/07/2011 20:39 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
The UN 1973 Resolution was to create a now fly zone in Libya that established within weeks of the start of the 
[Dawn] IS America in decline? Commentaries about American power trajectory often focus on the larger size of its military and economic muscles compared with other countries.
...a valley and an administrative district in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province of Pakistain, located 99 mi from Islamabad. It is inhabited mostly by Pashto speakers. The place has gone steadily downhill since the days when Babe Ruth was the Sultan of Swat...
