Svi postovi sa bloga: S@LE





“The Israelis launched their attack shortly after the US elections and shortly before the US was about to swear in a president at the inauguration in January and just before Israeli elections were scheduled as well. So there is no question that it has everything to do with Israeli politics.” /Phyllis Bennis, director of the Institute for Policy Studies
If you just look at the casualties’ figures of that horrific three weeks of the Israeli assault on Gaza in 2008 – there were more than 1,400 Palestinians killed, the majority of them civilians. And there were 13 Israelis, of whom seven were civilians and five of them were killed in friendly fire. So the disparity of casualties, and we’re seeing it again now is enormous.It’s going to result first of all in enormous human cost to the people of Gaza, who since 2008-09 Operation Cast Lead have been able to rebuild very, very little of what was destroyed in that operation, in those three weeks of assaults. Gazans still don’t have electricity 24 hours a day. It’s still on only for a few hours. If bombing this time goes at the electrical generators again, as it did four years ago, it will be another period of years before that could be rebuild. So there is a devastating human impact. The purpose behind this is clear: as Interior Minister Eli Yishai said, “The goal of the operation is to send Gaza back to the Middle Ages."


Hypocrisy of slaughter
Israel’s assault on Gaza raises doubts that it has any interest in finding the lasting peace settlement it proclaims to want. Does the campaign have an alternative objective as part of a strategy to engineer a strike on Iran? It’s probably the world’s most tragic never-ending story. For almost 65 years now, Israel has been bombing, maiming and humiliating the Palestinians, bulldozing their homes and placing Gaza in lock-down mode turning it into the world’s largest concentration camp. On Wednesday 14th, an Israeli helicopter attack killed Hamas military wing leader Ahmed Jabari, triggering a violent reaction from Hamas which rained little rockets over southern Israeli towns, which in turn brought in more Israeli air attacks killing 19, injuring 100 and leaving six children dead.Dejá-vù: it’s January 2009’s “Operation Cast Lead” revisited; this time they’re dubbing it “Operation Pillar of Defense.”(In response to a sharp increase in the number and frequency of rocket attacks into Israel prior to and following the expiration of Hamas' agreed period of "calm" on December 19, 2008, the Israeli Air Force launched Operation Cast Lead, consisting initially of airstrikes on December 27 against Hamas security installations, personnel, and other facilities in the Gaza Strip, followed on January 3 by ground operations. Hostilities between Israeli forces and Hamas fighters continued through January 18, and the Israeli withdrawal of troops was completed on 21 January 2009.)

Clearly, Israel’s right-wing leaders do not want a peaceful agreement with the Palestinians.That’s why they’ve systematically sabotaged all possibility of reaching a two-state solution. The last honest Israeli who tried to bring peace was Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, until he was gunned down in the streets of Tel-Aviv in November 1995; not by an Islamic fanatic, not by some mad Neo-Nazi, but by one Ygal Amir: an ultra-right-wing Zionist fanatic linked to both the fundamentalist Settlers’ Movement and Israel’s security agency Shin-Beth.





Bodies for Ballots
by Yousef Munayyer, an Executive Director of The Jerusalem Fund and its educational program, The Palestine Center.

Israeli forces have launched dozens of airstrikes on Gaza City, targeting governmental and civilian facilities and other objects mostly located in densely-populated areas. The targets have included the building of the Council of Ministers in the west of the City, which was completely destroyed and a number of nearby houses damaged; the building of the police command in the center of the City, which was completely destroyed and a number of nearby houses damaged; the building of the Civil Department of the Ministry of Interior in the south of the City, which was attacked for the second time, causing damage to al-Quds Hospital and a number of public and UNRWA school; and Palestine Stadium in al-Remal neighborhood in the center of the City, which was extensively damaged...
They say when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. But when you are a politician and all you have is a hammer, you must convince voters every problem looks like a nail. This is the only thinking that can explain Israel’s behavior in escalating bombardment of Gaza. The Israeli spin machines are out in full force in the hopes of convincing Israelis and the rest of the world that the attacks on Gaza are in self-defense. But anyone following the situation closely and over time will tell you that cannot be the case. For context, consider this: more Palestinians were killed in Gaza yesterday than Israelis have been killed by projectile fire from Gaza in the past three years. The problem Gaza presents for Israel is that it won’t go away—though Israel would love it if it would. It is a constant reminder of the depopulation of Palestine in 1948, the folly of the 1967 occupation, and the many massacres which have happened since then. With Israeli elections around the corner, the right-wing Israeli government chose the counter-productive path of escalation even though civilians would pay the price and their domestic opposition rallied behind them.
Trading bodies for ballots is an equation Israeli leaders are happy to be engaged in, especially since all the ballots are Israeli and the bodies are almost always Palestinian.


‘Don’t worry about America…’
Former Israeli PM Ariel Sharon is infamously quoted as yelling to his colleagues during a heated debate in Israel’s Knesset in October 2001, that they need not worry about American reaction to Israel’s Palestine-bashing because “we the Jewish people control America!"Watching how US politicians file through powerful Pro-Israel lobbies, think tanks and organizations like AIPAC – American Israeli Public Affairs Committee -, the ADL and others, competing to give their most impassioned and dramatic pro-Israel speeches, one is tempted to believe Mr. Sharon’s candid words.During the recent US presidential campaign both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney each tried to give their most convincing Joe Biden-like “I-am-a-Zionist” speeches, to win over not just the Jewish vote and money in America, but also the Zionist vote which is represented by many non-Jewish born-again Christians.So, when earlier this week US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice openly supported Israel and condemned Hamas’ retaliatory attacks describing them as “violence that Hamas and other terrorist organizations are employing against the people of Israel", one can hardly be surprised.It doesn’t really matter who sits in the Oval office; whether Democrat or Republican, the US will always unthinkingly and unreservedly support Israel every time it decides to play a new round of Palestine-bashing. (read more)



Gaza Blockade

"The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger," Dov Weisglass said in 2006.
The Israeli military meticulously and callously calculated the number of calories Gaza residents would need to consume in order not to starve, and used those calculations to inform how to impose a harsh economic blockade on the Palestinians, according to newly released documents. The overwhelming blockade Israel imposed on Gaza, tightening restrictions on the movement of people and goods, was supposedly punishment for having Hamas in power. “The official goal of the policy was to wage ‘economic warfare’ which would paralyze Gaza’s economy and, according to the Defense Ministry, create pressure on the Hamas government,” the Israeli human rights group Gisha, which fought the legal battle that led to the document’s release, said in a statement. Israel’s general policy towards Gazans was summed up by Dov Weisglass, an adviser to former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, years before the document was written. 
Israel imposed a naval blockade on Gaza in 2009, saying it was needed to prevent the smuggling of arms to the Islamic militant group Hamas, which governs the Palestinian enclave, and to jihadist groups operating there. More than a dozen ships had tried to break the blockade since 2010, when Israeli commandos killed nine pro-Palestinian activists after encountering resistance during a raid on a six-ship flotilla led by the Turkish vessel the Mavi Marmara. The episode led some of the restrictions on imports to Gaza to be relaxed, but also caused a deep rift in relations between Israel and Turkey, which has indicted four Israelis for their roles.
Land blockade: The Israel and Egypt–Gaza Strip barrier, built by Israel between 1994 and 2005 when it had full control of the Gaza Strip, separates the Gaza Strip from both Egypt and Israel; the Israeli Defense Forces maintain a presence at all border crossings and regularly patrol along the fence. All humanitarian aid bound for Gaza via Israel is transferred through four border crossings: The Kerem Shalom, Karni, Erez, and Sufa crossings. All aid first undergoes security inspection before being transferred by truck into Gaza. Additionally, the Egypt-Gaza barrier was built underground by Egypt starting in 2009. The stated aim was to block smuggling tunnels. According to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs at various times, Israel has blocked goods including wheelchairs, dry food items, and crayons, Stationery, soccer balls, and musical instruments. International aid group Mercy Corps said it was blocked from sending 90 tons of macaroni and other foodstuffs. Israel was also reported to have prevented aid groups from sending in other items, such as paper, crayons, tomato paste and lentils. Because of an Israeli ban on the importation of construction materials (such as cement and steel) for fear of Hamas using them to build bunkers and fortified positions from which to shell villages in Israel, the UN Relief and Works Agency built at least one mud brick home, and planned to build up to 120. Food waits on trucks and in warehouses, and many basic items are rejected by Israel as "luxuries" or are turned down for unexplained reasons. Tin cans are banned because "the tin might be melted down and used to build weaponry or structures by Hamas", making it hard for Gazan farmers to preserve their vegetables. Cement, glass, steel, bitumen, wood, paint, doors, plastic pipes, metal pipes, metal reinforcement rods, aggregate, generators, high voltage cables and wooden telegraph poles are "high priority reconstruction materials currently with no or highly limited entry into Gaza through official crossings.


Subscribe in a reader


An appeals court on Friday overturned the conviction of the most senior Croatian military officer charged with crimes during the Balkan wars of the 1990s. The court ordered the immediate release of Ante Gotovina, who was commander in the Split district of the Croatian army, who had been sentenced to 24 years in prison, and of Mladen Markač, a Croatian police commander, overturning his 18-year sentence.

Two Croatian military leaders have been convicted at The Hague of atrocities against Serbs during a 1995 campaign of ethnic cleansing. Many Croats denounced the verdict.Judges at the International War Crimes Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia sentenced Ante Gotovina and Mladen Markač who were found guilty of crimes including murder, persecution and plunder. The rulings came after a three year trial investigating Operation Storm, a Croatian offensive carried out in 1995 to reclaim the republic of Krajina from Serb control. The defendants were accused of having failed to prevent their forces from killing hundreds of people and forcing thousands from their home. What’s more, the judges ruled that Croatia’s political leadership, including the late president, were also guilty by association. What is the most sensitive aspect of the verdict is this joint criminal enterprise point, implying that it was not just Gotovina himself, but what happened during the Operation Storm happened in collusion and in a way in collaboration with the highest ranks of Croatia's political and military leadership.The prosecution claims the trio (Gotovina, along with Ivan Čermak, the Knin garrison commander, and Mladen Markač) implemented a calculated policy of expulsion ordered by the Tudjman regime aimed at permanently ridding Croatia of the large Serbian minority community that had been resident there for centuries. After the "victory", Croatian forces went on the rampage, torching the homes of elderly Serbs who had not fled.Croats consider Gotovina and Markac national heroes. The influential Roman Catholic church has been calling for prayers and fasting in the hope of an acquittal. The decisive political leaders such as president Franjo Tudjman, defence minister Gojko Šušak, and army chief Janko Bobetko all died before they could face trial. The Gotovina case has served as a substitute. For many Croats, the generals symbolize the country's independence and the beginning of the operation is celebrated as a public holiday called Victory Day. The Hague-based International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia said Gen Ante Gotovina and Gen Mladen Markac should be released immediately after ruling in favour of their appeal. The case closed as the former Yugoslav republic prepares to join the European Union next July and struggles to recover after three years of recession or stagnation. The verdict will be a judgment not only on the generals, but on all the veterans and also on the Croatian state - the future EU member.

The Hague Tribunal farce


Not many eyebrows will be raised at the revelation that there is a prison, in a small foreign country, where you can be indefinitely incarcerated without trial, or where you can be delivered on the orders of an ad-hoc "court" which sets its own rules as it goes along, and sometimes issues warrants only after politically motivated arrests had been performed.Some may be surprised, however, that this "far-away country" is not North Korea, Bourkina Fasso or Syria, but the civilized tittle Holland. The prison is in the North Sea resort of Scheveningen, a wind-swept melange of belle epoque hotels and 1960s concrete tower blocks. The court in question is ten miles away, in The Hague, and it goes by the name ofThe International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia Since 1 January 1991. The Hague Tribunal (ICTFY) was established by the Security Council of the United Nations in 1993 on the basis of Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter (Resolution 827), with the "jurisdiction" for crimes committed after January 1,1991. The U.N. Genocide Convention could not, in any case, provide the basis for the Tribunal. It is an international treaty, approved by the General Assembly and ratified by member-states, which does not endow the U.N. with radical new powers. In fact, the Security Council acted illegally in setting up the Tribunal; it had no authority to do so. Boutros-Ghali himself declared that, "in asking the Secretary- General to consider this project, the Security Council has given itself an entirely new mandate." It is noteworthy that the Tribunal has not been established by convention in the General Assembly, which would have then required accession by treaty ratification of each member. Invocation of Article 29 in the resolution establishing the Tribunal gives the game away: The Security Council may establish such subsidiary organs as it deems necessary for the performance of its functions. This amounts to an admission that the Tribunal is not an "independent court of law," but a "subsidiary organ" of its political masters. The obvious question is why only "the former Yugoslavia," and why only the past five years? A cynic might say that one possible reason was that the United States did not want to put its generals on trial for killing Vietnaimese civilians. As Noam Chomsky put it, "I think, legally speaking, there's a very solid case for impeaching every American president since the Second World War. They've aIl been either outright war criminals or involved in serious war crimes ".(wanna know more?)
"The tribunal is a sick and very expensive joke, along with its clones the Rwandan tribunal and the International Criminal Court set up by the Rome Treaty of 1998 and wisely boycotted by the United States." - Gerald Warner explains (Gerald Warner is an author, broadcaster, columnist and polemical commentator at The Telegraph). "International tribunals are Trojan horses for tyrannical world government. They have no legitimacy. Only sovereignty confers the right to put people on trial and there is no international sovereignty. This tribunal is a convenient cop-out for states like Serbia. If Serbia tried and convicted Karadzic that would testify to its fitness to take its place among the nations. The tribunal is a charade."
Millions of words can be spoken about the mistakes of leaders of the Balkan state, but external forces played the major role in the collapse of Yugoslavia. It was preventing the creation of a more malleable Europe in which NATO and Brussels movers and shakers could dominate. Serbs constituted the pivot of the Yugoslav nation and it was precisely they who tried vainly to keep the country’s unity, and it has now transpired that they, more than any other nationality, are guilty for the calamities that befell Yugoslavia. At any rate, it is being demonstrated by the Hague Tribunal’s activity, a Tribunal set up putatively to objectively look into the whys and causes of the bloody Balkan tragedy. Alas, objectivity can’t be found in the Tribunal’s dictionary. The few Bosnian and Croat criminals brought before the Tribunal have all but been allowed to go scot-free; laughable prison terms have either been slapped on them or sentenced to prison term conditionally. Three quarters of those who got real prison terms have been Serbs, reducing the Tribunal to an instrument of pressure by the West on Belgrade. Moscow has minced no words in vowing that it will never again vote for an extension of the mandate of the International Tribunal for former Yugoslavia, since its work is characterized more by farce than substance. It’s time to move from ad hoc judicial bodies to working on a universal basis, on the basis of judicial procedure, thrashed out via international conventions.

Other Croatian atrocities that went unpunished

After Germany and its Axis allies invaded Yugoslavia in April 1941, the Nazis permitted the fascist and terrorist Ustaša organization to found the Independent State of Croatia. The new regime was highly dependent upon German support for survival. The territory of the Independent State of Croatia included two constituent units of former Yugoslavia, Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, with a total population of about 6.3 million. More than half of the population, or 3.3 million, were ethnic Croats, most of them Catholic. The 1.9 million Serbs were the largest ethnic minority. Most of them were Serbian Orthodox and some were of the Uniate faith. Other minorities included approximately 700,000 Muslims, 40,000 Jews, and 30,000 Roma (Gypsies). During the spring and summer of 1941, the Ustaša regime enacted racial laws aimed at Jews and Roma and launched a brutal campaign to dispossess, persecute, and murder large numbers of Serbs. Ustaša units, often encouraged by Catholic clergy, carried out a program of compulsory conversion of Orthodox Serbs to Catholicism; resistance often resulted in murder. Some Serbs, particularly members of the elite, were not even offered the option of conversion to avoid being killed. The Ustaša authorities established numerous concentration camps in Croatia between 1941 and 1945. These camps were used to isolate and murder Serbs, Jews, Roma, Muslims, and other non-Catholic minorities, as well as Croatian political and religious opponents of the regime. The largest of these centers was the Jasenovac complex, a string of five camps on the bank of the Sava River, about 60 miles (97 kilometers) south of Zagreb. Between 1941 and 1945, Germans and Ustaša killed approximately 32,000 Jews from Croatia. The precise number of Jews murdered in Jasenovac is not known, but estimates range between 8,000 and 20,000 victims. These numbers do not include Jews whom the Ustaša authorities turned over to the Germans for deportation to Auschwitz and other camps. Due to differing views and lack of documentation, estimates for the number of Serbian victims in Croatia range widely, from 25,000 to more than one million. The estimated number of Serbs killed in Jasenovac ranges from 25,000 to 700,000. The most reliable figures place the number of Serbs killed by the Ustaša between 330,000 and 390,000, with 45,000 to 52,000 Serbs murdered in Jasenovac.Subscribe in a reader



"Bahrain is forgotten now, and it was forgotten when the Arab Spring started, because what is happening in Bahrain is not the result of the regime's rule only. It is the result of the joint collaboration, interests and political unity of more than one country. Bahrain's allies (Great Britain and the United States) do not want to interfere in what is taking place because Bahrain has been a good ally for them in the region. The Gulf Cooperation Council countries (which besides Bahrain include Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates) also cannot allow Bahrain to have more democracy and freedom because it will pressure other countries to do the same, and they do not want that. So, basically Bahrain has not been forgotten ... but, in fact, it had been deliberately wiped out from the media coverage for political reasons." / Lamees Dhaif
Al Khalifa ascendancy to Bahrain and their treaties with the British
Inhabited since ancient times, Bahrain occupies a strategic location in the Persian Gulf. The Al Khalifa family moved to Bahrain in 1797. Originally, they lived in Umm Qasr where they preyed on the caravans of Basra and pirated ships. In 1820, the Al Khalifa tribe were recognized by Great Britain as the rulers of Bahrain after signing a treaty relationship. Eventually the Government of British India overpowered Bahrain when the Persians refused to protect it. Colonel Pelly signed a new treaty with Al Khalifas placing Bahrain under British rule and protection. Following the Qatari–Bahraini War in 1868, British representatives signed another agreement with the Al Khalifas. It specified that the ruler could not dispose of any of his territory except to the United Kingdom and could not enter into relationships with any foreign government without British consent. The British promised to support the rule of the Al Khalifa in Bahrain, securing its unstable position as rulers of the country. Other agreements in 1880 and 1892 sealed the protectorate status of Bahrain to the British. Unrest amongst the people of Bahrain began when Britain officially established complete dominance over the territory in 1892. The first revolt and widespread uprising took place in March 1895. In 1926, Charles Belgrave a British operating as an "adviser" to the ruler became the de facto ruler. At the same time, the pearl diving industry developed at a rapid pace. In 1927, Rezā Shāh, then Shah of Iran, demanded the return of Bahrain in a letter to the League of Nations. A move that prompted Belgrave to undertake harsh measures including encouraging conflicts between Shia and Sunni Muslims in order to bring down the uprisings and limit the Iranian influence.The discovery of oil in 1932 by the Bahrain Petroleum Company brought rapid modernisation to Bahrain. Relations with the United Kingdom became closer, as evidenced by the British Royal Navy moving its entire Middle Eastern command from Bushehr in Iran to Bahrain in 1935. After World War II, increasing anti-British sentiment spread throughout the Arab World and led to riots in Bahrain. The riots focused on the Jewish community. On 15 August 1971, Bahrain declared independence and signed a new treaty of friendship with the United Kingdom.  Hamad ibn Isa Al Khalifa became the Emir of Bahrain in 1999. On 14 February 2002, Bahrain changed its formal name from the State of Bahrain to the Kingdom of Bahrain. Human rights state deteriorated in the period between 1975 and 2001 which saw wide range repression. The country participated in military action against the Taliban in October 2001.  As a result, in November of that year, US president George W. Bush's administration designated Bahrain as a "major non-NATO ally".
Bahraini uprising
Inspired by the regional Arab Spring, large protests started in Bahrain in early 2011. The government initially allowed protests following a pre-dawn raid on protesters camped in Pearl Roundabout. A month later it requested security assistance from Saudi Arabia and other GCC countries and declared a three month state of emergency. Thousands of protesters marched to the Saudi embassy in Manama denouncing the GCC intervention, while clashes between security officers using shotgun and demonstrators took place in various locations. The government then launched a crackdown on opposition that included conducting thousands of arrests. Almost daily clashes between protesters and security forces led to dozens of deaths. More than 60 people have died including protesters and police, 3,000 arrested, 4,500 people sacked in almost 20 months of political turmoil in the strategic island nation. Protests, sometimes staged by opposition parties, are ongoing. Bahrain is relatively poor when compared to its oil-rich Gulf neighbors; its oil has "virtually dried up" and it depends on banking and the tourism sector. Bahrain hosts the United States Naval Support Activity Bahrain, the home of the US Fifth Fleet; the US Department of Defense considers the location critical to its attempts to counter Iranian military power in the region. Subscribe in a reader


source: guardian.co.ukThe French president, François Hollande, has acknowledged that Algerians were massacred during an independence rally in Paris in 1961, ending decades of official silence over one of the darkest chapters of postwar French history. The massacre has been widely recorded by historians, who say more than 200 people may have been killed. The statement, which came as Hollande tries to improve relations with Algiers before a visit there in December, was the first time a French president had publicly accepted the killings took place. As Algeria's battle for independence spilled into France, The Nazi collaborator and Paris Police chief in 1961, Maurice Papon  ordered police to crack down on thousands of Algerian protesters who had defied a curfew. "On 17 October 1961, Algerians who were protesting for independence were killed in a bloody repression. The Republic recognises these facts with lucidity," Hollande said in a statement on Wednesday. "I pay homage to victims 51 years later." Any suggestion that the French authorities were to blame remains a highly sensitive issue, particularly among Hollande's rightwing opponents. The head of the conservative UMP party in parliament, Christian Jacob, accused the Socialist leader of stirring up divisions by appearing to implicate the state in the massacre. "While denying the events of 17 October 1961 and forgetting the victims is out of the question, it is unacceptable to blame the state police and with them the whole Republic," Jacob said in a statement. Many historians say the massacre was the deadliest use of force by French authorities on home soil since police helped to round up thousands of Jews and other minorities during the 1940-45 Nazi occupation. In the months and years after the massacre, the government banned publication of a book about the killings and suppressed the few photographs taken by journalists that night. Historians have compiled witness reports of protesters being chased through the streets of Paris and bludgeoned to death in the courtyards of police stations. Bodies were thrown into the Seine river, witnesses said. Research was hampered by the fact that police documents from the time were never opened to the public. As a result, there is still no consensus on the number of deaths. Algeria celebrated 50 years of independence from France in July. Paris was its colonial master for 132 years and only let it go after the trauma of the 1954-1962 Algerian war.

In 1998, the Algerian newspaper Liberté was seized by police to prevent distribution of this article in France. According to Reporters Sans Frontières, on 19 October 1998, French police seized the 17 October edition of the Algerian daily Liberté at Lyon airport. No official reason was given for the move. However, Reporters Sans Frontières believed it to be connected with an article by Hakim Sadek entitled "When the Seine was full of bodies". Liberté was publishing this article to mark the 35th anniversary of a demonstration by Algerians in Paris that led to an estimated 200 Algerians being killed by police. Most of the world paid little attention to the thin news coverage that the massacre did receive. Even now, the events of that time are not widely known and many people had never heard of them at all. It seems astonishing today, from this perspective, that such a thing could happen in the middle of a major Western capital closely covered by the international media. This was not Kabul, Beijing, Hebron or some Bosnian backwater, after all, but the City of Light - Paris. The full horror of this inglorious 1961 episode in French history was largely covered up at the time. Though harrowing personal accounts did eventually percolate to the surface in the French press, the newspapers -enfeebled by years of government censorship and control - for the most part stuck with official figures that only two and, later, five people had died in the demonstration. Government-owned French TV showed Algerians being shipped out of France after the demonstration, but showed none of the police violence.
"The police waited for the Algerians to come up out of the metro stations, made them stand still with their hands above their heads, then hit them with truncheons.... Corpses were found hanging in the Bois de Boulogne, and others, disfigured and mutilated, in the Seine... Ten thousand Algerians had been herded into the Vel' d'Hiv' [stadium], like the Jews in Drancy once before. Again I loathed it all -- this country, myself, the whole world" / one of the leading French opponents of the 1954-62 Algerian War, the feminist philosopher Simone de Beauvoir
In October 1999, the former Vichy official Maurice Papon, went into hiding in Switzerland rather than face ten years in prison for helping in the wartime murder of over a thousand French Jews. He was soon found by the Swiss authorities (amid allegations that he had once been a spy for MI6) and sent back to France to serve his ten year sentence. In 1998, he was found guilty of crimes against humanity in connection with the wartime deportation of 1,690 Jews (including 223 children) to Nazi Germany in 1943. He was the Vichy official responsible for Jewish affairs in Bordeaux between 1942 and 1944.
Here's what happened:
The vicious war in Algeria, marked by bloody atrocities committed on all sides, had been grinding on for nearly seven years. Terrorist attacks in Paris and other French cities had claimed dozens of lives of police, provoking what Interior Minister Roger Frey called "la juste colère" - the just anger - of the police. They vented that anger on the evening of Oct. 17. About 30,000 Muslims - from among some 20,000 Algerians, ostensibly French citizens, living in and around Paris - descended upon the boulevards of central Paris from three different directions. The demonstration of men, women and children was called by the FLN (Algerian National Liberation Front) to protest an 8:30 p.m. curfew imposed only on Muslims. The demonstrators were met by about 7,000 police and members of special Republican Security companies, armed with heavy truncheons or guns. They let loose on the demonstrators in, among other places, Saint Germain-des-Prés, the Opéra, the Place de la Concorde, the Champs Elysée, around the Place de l'Étoile and, on the edges of the city, at the Rond Point de la Defense beyond Neuilly.Washington Report news agency correspondent counted at least 30 corpses of demonstrators in several piles outside his office near the city center, into which he had pulled some Algerians to get them away from rampaging police. Another correspondent reported seeing police backing unarmed Algerians into corners on sidestreets and clubbing them at will. Later eyewitness reports recounted stranglings by police and the drowning of Algerians in the Seine, from which bodies would be recovered downstream for weeks to come.Thousands of Algerians were rounded up and brought to detention centers, where the violence against them continued. Scores of Algerians were murdered in full view of police brass in the courtyard of the central police headquarters. In the Palais des Sports, then in the "Palais des Expositions" of Porte de Versailles", detained Algerians, many by now already injured, [became] systematic victims of a 'welcoming committee'. In these places, considerable violence took place and prisoners were tortured. Men would be dying there until the end of the week. Similar scenes took place in the Coubertin stadium... The raids, violence and drownings would be continued over the following days. For several weeks, unidentified corpses were discovered along the banks of the river...

Subscribe in a reader

On 25 September, Libya’s parliament of foreign mercenaries, the "General National Congress" (GNC) authorized the "Ministries of Interior and Defence" to use force if necessary to arrest suspects including those responsible for the alleged torture and killing of Omran Shaaban, traitor credited with capturing Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi on 20 October 2011. Following the decision, members of the "Libyan army", "Libya Shield" forces and armed militias from various parts of the country, including Misrata, surrounded Bani Walid, about 140 kilometres south-east of Tripoli. “It is worrying that what essentially should be a law-enforcement operation to arrest suspects looks increasingly like a siege of a city and a military operation,” said Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui, Deputy Director for the Middle East and North Africa at Amnesty International.




Omran Shaaban (22), died at the American hospital in France, 57 days after being kidnapped, shot and tortured by supporters of the late Colonel Gaddafi in city of Bani Walid, south west of Libya.Omran was freed on September 11 along with two others and flown by aero-ambulance to Misrata where he was found to have torture marks on his body and a bullet wound close to his spinal cord. When Amnesty International visited him in hospital in Misrata on September 12, he was paralyzed and in a coma. He was then flown to Paris where he died. He came to prominence on October 20 last year when he found and captured Gaddafi who was hiding in a sewer tube in Sirte. It was Omran who dragged him out of his hiding place, the drainage pipe. It was in July this year that Omran was kidnapped. He was on his way back from a "military task" with his friend Mohamed Alawiab (members of the "Libya Shield 2" forces) in one of the roads outside of Bani Walid that leads to city of Misrata, when the car he was in came under fire. Since then family and friends lost contact with him, until a month later when he phoned his family to tell them that he had been detained in Bin Waleed and had been paralysed due torture.


Bani Walid was among the last cities to fall under the control of anti-Gaddafi forces during Libya’s internal conflict last year. Everyone probably remembers the way proud towns like Sirte, Sabha and Bani Walid resisted the take-over by NATO and its collaborators in 2011. After long and fierce clashes the gangs were able to enter the city and even install an American Libyan mayor. But that didn't last long: the people in Bani Walid remained opposed to the Armed Collaborators of the Western imperialistic powers who ruined a once lovely country with tens of thousands of missiles. The entrance of anti-Gaddafi forces into Bani Walid in October 2011 was accompanied by widespread looting and other abuses. Hundreds of residents from Bani Walid have been arrested by armed militias. Many continue to be detained without charge or trial across Libyan prisons and detention centres, including in Misrata. Many have been tortured or other-wise ill-treated. At an open session of the United Nations Security Council, the UN special Envoy for Libya Ian Martin said he has “credible information” on several episodes where people have been tortured to death in the country’s secret detention centers. As of November 2011, there were an estimated 7,000 detainees in prisons around the country without any hope for a fair trial. In March, a shocking video emerged on the Internet, showing Libyan rebels torturing a group of black Africans. People with their hands bound were shown locked in zoo-like cages and allegedly being forced to eat the old Libyan flag.



Chemical WarfareOct 12, 2012

Gangs from Misrata stationed outside Bani Walid have fired chemical weapons on the city causing numerous casualties and injuries of types that cannot be explained by any "legal" weaponry. Although last year the city was also subjected to such chemical weapons during a siege that cut the population off from water, medicine and food for months, these appear to be new types. Over one hundred citizens are confirmed hospitalised over the past week, at least a quarter of whom are verified as suffering from horrific injuries and effects including hallucinations, muscle spasms, foaming at the mouth, coughing, eye irritations, dizziness, breathing difficulties and loss of consciousness, indicating that the inhalation of toxic gases is a strong possibility. The Tripoli-based occupation regime which has failed to form a government for the past year, with tens of thousands of political prisoners languishing under illegal detention and torture, has denied responsibility. Some pro-regime forces withdrew from their positions outside Bani Walid after the mass protests at the GNC in Tripoli, with commanders saying that they wished to play no further part in the siege. They allowed some supplies to trickle in to the city from Tarhuna after their withdrawal, but these are inadequate after the latest 2 week long siege. The siege of Bani Walid, Libya’s ongoing political instability, and the alleged torture of Gaddafi loyalists has left the country a far cry from the vision that western powers had when they supported last year's NATO bombing. The residents of Bani Walid have been left without food and other supplies – and are appealing to the UN for help. A petition circulating around the city on Friday night asked the UN Security Council to convene an emergency meeting and “to immediately intervene to protect the civilians in the town.” The situation is very bad. No fuel, no food, no drugs, no communication. Everything is in a very bad situation. But there is little hope for help from UN. The United Nations hasn’t done anything of value in the last decade or two. It’s a complete failure led by the United States and its ‘Mini me’ Britain.



Libyan militias turning on each otherglobal affairs researcher Benjamin Schett.
US military adventurism, and the war crimes committed by the country's forces, impoverish the entire region and ultimately lead to a rise in the number of Islamic militant groups. The United States supported militant extremist Islamic groups in order to topple the government of Muammar Gaddafi last year. And one example is the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. It is, according to the Washington Post, a terrorist organization with links to al-Qaeda. Nevertheless, in 1996, they received support from British Secret Service MI6 to kill Gaddafi, which did not work out, as we know. After 9/11, in 2001, they still got support from Western powers during the so-called uprising in Libya last year and the NATO bombing campaign. They got support from the US and Saudi allies, so obviously the US never stopped supporting militant Islamist groups as long as it’s in their geopolitical interests. We saw what happened in Afghanistan and Iraq after the US invasion – the clashes between Sunnis and Shias. We see what’s happening now in Syria, where the sectarian violence is being supported from the outside – from the Gulf states, from the US, and from France. And it’s what’s happening in Libya – all these different militias that received support in order to fight against Gaddafi are now turning against each other and are pushing for a tribalization of Libya. 
The whole story of the clash of civilizations and Christianity versus Islam – all these stories, they don’t show the real picture. The real picture is that the majority of Muslims are as peaceful as the majority of Christians or Jews or whoever. The policy of supporting militant extremist Islamist groups as long as it serves geopolitical interests and fighting secular independent governments in the Middle East, or direct military intervention and war crimes, impoverishing of the whole region – certainly this leads to an increase of Islamic militant movements, which can turn out to be a threat to US citizens, as we’ve just seen.



Subscribe in a reader

Source: Global Research
Dutch islands Aruba and Curazao are situated less than 50 miles off Venezuela’s northwest coast. Both small islands host US air force bases as a result of a 1999 contract between Washington and Holland establishing US Forward Operating Locations (FOLs) in the Caribbean colonies. Originally, the contract stipulated US military presence in Aruba and Curazao soley for counternarcotics missions. However, since September 2001, Washington uses all its military installations to combat perceived terrorist threats around the world. The military bases in Aruba and Curazao have been used for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaisance missions against Venezuela during the past several years.In 2006, Washington began conducting a series of high level military exercises using Curazao as the principal zone of operations. Hundreds of US aircraft carriers, warships, combat planes, Black Hawk helicopters, nuclear submarines and thousands of US military troops have been engaging in different military exercises and missions in the Caribbean region during the past  years, causing substantial alarm and concern to nations in the region, particularly Venezuela, which has also been subject to hostile and agressive diplomatic actions from Washington.In 2008, the Pentagon reactivated the Navy’s Fourth Fleet, charged with defending US interests in the Latin American region. The Fourth Fleet was deactivated in 1950, after accomplishing its original defense mission during World War II. The fleet’s reactivation nearly 60 years later was perceived by a majority of nations in Latin America as a direct threat to regional sovereignty and provoked South American countries to establish a Defense Council to deal with external threats. The Pentagon responded by proudly admitting the Fourth Fleet’s reactivation was a “showing of US force and power in the region” and a demonstration that the US “will defend its regional allies”. This was perceived as direct support to Colombia, and an attempt to intimidate Venezuela. Colombia and the US have signed a military cooperation agreement authorizing US occupation of seven military bases in Colombian territory and all other installations as required. The agreement is seen as the largest US military expansion in Latin American history. Although the two governments publicly justified the agreement as an increased effort to fight drug trafficking and terrorism, official US Air Force documents revealed that the US would conduct “full spectrum military operations” throughout South America from the Colombian bases. The Air Force documents also justified the disproportional military expansion as necessary to combat “the constant threat…from anti-US governments in the region”.In the case of the latest U.S.-Colombia base deal, many Latin American leaders spoke out against such a move as a dangerous development that can lead to war in the region and act against Colombia’s neighboring countries – Ecuador and Venezuela. Excluding huge presence of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, there are about 900 U.S. military facilities in 46 countries and territories, accommodating 190,000 U.S. troops and 115,000 civilian employees, according to official figures. However, some analysts say the real figures may be far greater. All together, the Pentagon owns or rents 322,000 hectares of land overseas, with an inventory of weapons worth trillions of U.S. dollars according to some estimate.
Since 2006, Washington has classified Venezuela as a nation “not fully collaborating with the war against terror”. In 2005, Venezuela was labeled by the State Department as a nation “not cooperating with counter-narcotics operations”. Despite no substantive evidence to prove such dangerous accusations, the US has utilized these classifications to justify an increase in aggression towards the Venezuelan government. In 2008, the Bush Administration attempted to place Venezuela on the list of State Sponsors of terrorism. The initiative was unsuccessful primarily because Venezuela is still a principal supplier of oil to the US. Should Washington consider Venezuela a terrorist state, all relations would be cut off, including oil supply.

Nevertheless, Washington still views Venezuela as a major threat to US interests in the region. The US is particularly concerned about Latin American nations engaging in commercial relations with countries such as China, Russia and Iran, perceived as economic threats to US control and domination in the region. Let's see why: 

THEIR OWN NEW WORLD ORDER
"We are creating a new world, a balanced world. A new world order, a multipolar world," / Hugo Chavez .
"The unipolar world has collapsed. The power of the US empire has collapsed," he said. "Everyday, the new poles of world power are becoming stronger. Beijing, Tokyo, Tehran ... It's moving toward the East and toward the South."
It was the year 2000. Standing at attention, a relatively unknown Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, only 18 months after taking office, was positioned right next to one of the world's "most-controversial dictators." Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi, then seeking alternative alliances with leaders in other parts of the world, was receiving Chavez with military honors on August 13 of that year. Chavez appeared proud, standing next to his new and powerful friend in North Africa. The friendship between Chavez and Gaddafi solidified in 2004, when the Libyan leader awarded Chavez the Al-Gaddafi International Prize for Human Rights, an honor he had already given to another Latin American leader, Cuba's Fidel Castro in 1998. By 2009, the friendship had become very close. On September 1 of that year, Gaddafi welcomed Chavez to Libya with a warm embrace. Chavez was one of various world leaders attending festivities there, held to commemorate Gaddafi's 40 years in power. Chavez would return the compliment later that month when Gaddafi visited Venezuela, presenting the Libyan leader with a replica of the sword that belonged to South American independence hero Simon Bolivar, one of the greatest honors in Venezuela. It was Gaddafi's first visit to Latin America in his 40-year rule. And just in case there was any doubt about their closeness, Gaddafi named a stadium just outside Benghazi the "Hugo Chavez Stadium." The stadium was renamed in 2011 "Martyrs of February" by Libyan rebels, who would eventually form the National Transitional Council and put an end to Gaddafi's regime.  Libya was Venezuela's partner under OPEC -- a relationship that has to be rebuilt as well. In March, after the conflict in Libya had started, Chavez proposed an international goodwill commission to mediate the crisis while accusing the United States and other Western powers of blowing the situation out of proportion to justify an invasion...

"I was talking with (Cuban leader) Raul Castro. He was telling me Gaddafi is going to get killed for sure," / Hugo Chavez 
While China's communist leaders have been low-key in response to Chavez's political rhetoric, Beijing's state-run industries have been eager to use Venezuela as a jumping-off point for their entry into South America. Chinese companies in the mining and petroleum sector have been especially keen on securing South American mineral resources.During his visit to China in 2009, Chavez said he planned to review with Chinese leaders a goal of boosting exports of Venezuelan oil to China from 380,000 barrels last year to 1 million barrels by 2013 - part of Venezuela's strategy of diversifying oil sales away from the United States, which buys about half the South American nation's heavy crude despite political tensions. Included in that strategy are plans for China and Venezuela to build four oil tankers and three refineries in China capable of processing Venezuela's heavy, sulfur-laden crude.China and Venezuela have also invested in a $12 billion fund to finance joint development projects in areas including oil production, infrastructure and agriculture.


Moscow and Caracas stand for forming a fair new world order that would not depend on the wishes and prosperity of just one country, President Medvedev said, following talks with Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez in 2010. According to Medvedev, Russia and Venezuela share a similar stance on many international problems, including combating terrorism, crime, drug-trafficking, addressing ecological challenges, and global economic development.The two countries firmly stand for “forming a modern and fair world,” Medvedev told a joint media conference with Chavez after their talks at the Kremlin. The Russian President added, there should be “a world order where our future would not depend on the will, desire or mood of some country, but on joint efforts of the international community, and, indeed, internal development.” Medvedev believes that is the only kind of world order that would provide for steady development of humanity in the 21st Century. As a result of the talks, a whole bunch of important agreements have been signed in areas such as energy, defense, finance ventures and construction. One of the most crucial agreements is on Russia building a nuclear power plant in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Venezuela became one of the few nations that have so far joined Russia in recognizing South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent states.

“We live in the sea of oil. Nevertheless, the population lives in poverty,” adding that imperialism should be blamed for that, Chavez went on to say that his country is at the very beginning of the path to “complete emancipation”
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and his Iranian counterpart have also declared  they are united in efforts to establish a "new world order" and warned their enemies would be relegated to the "graveyard." The rhetoric wrapped up Chavez's visit to Iran in 2010 meant to boost cooperation between the allies in their oil, gas and petrochemical industries. Iran and Venezuela are united to establish a new world order based on humanity and justice," Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said. Chavez has staunchly defended Iran's nuclear energy program, siding with Tehran by insisting it is for peaceful uses and not for nuclear bombs.


So, his flerting with the "Axis of Evil" and his friendship with the "Evil dictators" around the globe, makes him a clear and present danger to the original New World Order designers and their next target. Socialism, nationalization of oil-industry, economic independence, bipolar or multi-polar world... these are all very bad and dangerous ideas. What can be done? Let's see...

CIA infects South American leaders with cancer?

Recent years have seen a series of leftwing Latin America leaders diagnosed with cancer including Brazil's current president, Dilma Rousseff, Paraguay's Fernando Lugo, and the former Brazilian leader Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. In late June Chávez admitted he was also being treated for cancer, telling Venezuelans that doctors had removed "cancerous cells" from his body.

"It is very hard to explain, even with the law of probabilities, what has been happening to some leaders in Latin America. It's at the very least strange, very strange,"  / Hugo Chavez 

"Evo take care of yourself. Correa, be careful. We just don't know," Chavez said, referring to Bolivia's first indigenous president, Evo Morales, and Rafael Correa, the president of Ecuador.Chávez said he had received words of warning from Cuba's former leader Fidel Castro, reputedly the target of dozens of failed and often bizarre assassination plots including a fungus-infected diving suit and an exploding cigar.
"Fidel always told me, 'Chávez take care. These people have developed technology. You are very careless. Take care what you eat, what they give you to eat … a little needle and they inject you with I don't know what," he said.
Chavez has warned that the disease may be a "new weapon of the empire to eliminate unwanted leaders." Maybe, but oddly enough, the result was the opposite. All politicians not only did not stop their political life and moved away from responsibilities, but on the contrary, dramatically increased their rating and rallied around the supporters.
First, in August of 2010 60-year-old Paraguayan President Fernando Lugo was diagnosed with a tumor of lymphatic system. After six sessions of chemotherapy in Sao Paulo and Asuncion, doctors reported that the tumor was gone. He was elected in 2008 with a mandate for five years. He resigned his ecclesiastical rank and became the second leftist president in the history of the country.
66-year-old former Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva was diagnosed with larynx cancer in October of 2011, nine months after the transfer of power to Dilma Russef. The doctors did not operate on Lulu, saying that as a result he may lose his voice forever - an extremely important tool for policy and communication. Lula, who was in power from 2003 to 2010, reduced poverty in the country, united Latin America and made Brazil one of the world's largest economies.
57-year-old Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez began treatment for cancer at the end of June of 2011. There is still no official data on what type of cancer he has. He was operated in Havana on July 20. After four rounds of chemotherapy, a series of medical tests confirmed a positive trend.
Finally, in late December, the media reported that 58-year-old Argentine President Cristina Kirchner will undergo surgery in early January of 2012 for cancer of the thyroid gland and the prognosis for recovery is quite favorable. Kirchner was re-elected for the second term in December of 2011 and takes a firm anti-American stance.


Oct 2012
President Hugo Chavez has yet again been democratically elected by the people of Venezuela with 54.42 per cent of the vote. Democratically elected as he has been numerous times since 1998, and why?Maybe because he has implemented social justice, has curbed the power of the elites which ruled the country for decades, because he created jobs and wealth by injecting money into the economy, because he distributed wealth instead of harnessing it, because all Venezuelans are stakeholders in their society and not just a few born with a silver spoon in their mouths, because he is reducing levels of poverty, because he paid off the country's debts to the leeches in the IMF, because he has invested in education, he has invested in the creation of jobs, he has invested in housing programmes and he has invested in healthcare.Let us examine a few shining examples of the Bolivarian Revolution: reduction of extreme poverty from nearly 50% to under 10%. In 14 years. The Human development Index of Venezuela rose from medium to high development, Venezuela is officially free of illiteracy. Unemployment has decreased by 50 per cent, the minimum wage has risen to around 400 USD, workers receive a monthly food subsidy, pensions are indexed to the minimum wage, basic food products are distributed directly to the people for low prices without the hand of intermediaries and as a result, agricultural produce was increased substantially, creating jobs in rural areas, and for those who accuse Chavez of squandering money, Venezuela's international reserve fund has quadrupled. Now if one state needs a coup d'état, it certainly isn't Venezuela. However, watch your back, Comandante Hugo!Subscribe in a reader

Faith is under attack all around the globe. New World Order puppets are trying to provoke a holy war on all fronts and ultimately the clash of civilizations. The clash of civilizations will dominate global politics. The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future. It is the next pattern of conflict. Samuel Huntington was one of "America’s greatest political scientists". In 1993, he published a sensational essay in Foreign Affairs called “The Clash of Civilizations?” The essay, which became a book, argued that the post-cold war would be marked by civilizational conflict. Human beings, Huntington wrote, are divided along cultural lines — Western, Islamic, Hindu and so on. There is no universal civilization. Instead, there are these cultural blocks, each within its own distinct set of values. The Islamic civilization, he wrote, is the most troublesome. "People in the Arab world do not share the general suppositions of the Western world. Their primary attachment is to their religion, not to their nation-state. Their culture is inhospitable to certain liberal ideals, like pluralism, individualism and democracy."If your goal is one world government, one currency, one central bank and one army, then you must also have one world religion or none at all.

Anti-church hysteria spreads across Russia and Ukraine


Four Orthodox Christian crosses have been chopped down in different parts of Russia. The incidents come after the Femen movement attacked a cross in Kiev to protest the sentence of the punk band Pussy Riot, who received two years in prison. Three crosses have been taken down in the Urals’ Chelyabinsk Region, and one in the Archangelsk Region, northern Russia. In a statement Femen declared that the cross was taken down in solidarity with the members of punk band Pussy Riot, who were sentenced to two years in jail for hooliganism motivated by religious hatred. A topless activist from confrontational group Femen has attacked Russian Patriarch Kirill during his visit to Ukraine. Yana Zhdanova ran up to Patriarch Kirill screaming "Get out" and tried to block his way as he was reportedly walking towards the press at Kiev Airport. The Femen member had “Kill Kirill” painted on her back and was protesting against “anti-state activities of the patriarch” and the arrest of anti-Putin activists, the Femen’s online Livejournal blog explains. The activist has been sentenced to 15 days behind bars for the assault. The Femen movement of female Ukrainian protestors has a flair for topless stunts. Some of their recent activities included a topless protest in the Vatican’s St. Peter’s Square.





Behold The Gay Jesus

Ecce Homo is the most publicised Swedish photography exhibition of the century. It consists of 12 pictures of Jesus in the company of homosexuals, and is inspired by biblical themes by artists such as Michelangelo, Doré and Caravaggio.Ecce Homo was shown in Stockholm for the first time, in 1998. Immediately, it gave rise to very strong reactions in both the Church and the media. Many felt that Ecce Homo was sacrilegious, but thousands waited patiently to see the exhibition and experience "a different picture of Jesus". Shortly after the first opening, Elisabeth Ohlson (the "artist" behind the exhibition) was also invited to show her pictures in Uppsala Cathedral, the foremost cathedral in the country. This decision created a great deal of opposition within the Church, and led to the cancellation by the Pope of a planned audience with Swedish Archbishop K-G Hammar. On several occasions, Elisabeth Ohlson has needed police protection during exhibitions in churches, following repeated bomb threats. Ecce Homo has travelled around Sweden and the rest of Scandinavia and Europe. However, the European Parliament in Strasbourg cancelled the exhibition, after some hesitation. Originally, only one photograph, which depicting Jesus naked, was to be censured. However, after a comprehensive debate, the entire exhibition was cancelled. As of May 1999, the exhibition was viewed by 160,000 visitors, and later it was shown in Rome in July 1999. It has broken several attendance records, and Elisabeth has won a number of prizes for her work. This autumn, a book will be published by Albert Bonnier, the largest publishing house in Sweden, compiling all the reactions and public discussion, and examining the impact of the exhibition on Sweden.  Ecce Homo exhibition opened on 3 October 2012 in Belgrade as a part of the "Pride Parade" week, Serbia. Belgrade is the only city in this part of Europe in which he held an exhibition Ecce Homo. It too, gave rise to very strong reactions by the Orthodox Christian believers in Serbia. "Pride Parade" (one of the preconditions for joining European Union) has been cancelled because of the security risks. Amid a heavy police presence, about two dozen flag-waving activists briefly appeared outside an office building in central Belgrade and sat down on the sidewalk for what they described as a "small, silent, non-violent and motionless protest." Police have banned the parade for the last two years, saying they fear a repeat of the violence from 2010 when more than 100 people were injured in day-long clashes with the extremists. The Ecce Homo Gay Jesus campaign was not helping "their cause" at all.





 Innocence of the Muslims

"Innocence of Muslims" is the title given for an anti-islam video reported to have been written and produced by Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, using the pseudonym of "Sam Bacile". While he initially denied being the controversial figure, records uncovered by the Associated Press and confirmed by American federal authorities established Nakoula as the same person as Sam Bacile. Nakoula (reportedly a Coptic Christian, who initially claimed to be an Israeli property magnate, using funds from "Jewish donors") a convicted fraudster, claimed that he was creating an epic, two hour film, however no such film has been located. The 14 minute video clips were initially uploaded to YouTube in July 2012, under the titles The Real Life of Mohammed and Mohammed Movie Trailer.  YouTube said the video fell within its guidelines as the video is against Islam, but not against Muslim people, and thus not considered "hate speech". According to a consultant on the project, the videos are "trailers" from a full-length film which was shown only once, to an audience of fewer than ten people, at a rented theater in Hollywood. Posters advertising the film used the title Innocence of Bin Laden. The video production, "Innocence of Bin Laden" was advertised in the Anaheim-based newspaper Arab World during the months of both May and June. The advertisement cost $300 to run three times in the paper and was paid by an individual identified only as "Joseph".  The film's original working title was Desert Warrior, and it told the story of "tribal battles prompted by the arrival of a comet on Earth." Though the story had no religious references, anti-Islamic content was added in post production by overdubbing, over the original spoken lines, reportedly without the actors' knowledge. The film was supported and promoted by pastor Terry Jones, known for a Quran-burning controversy which also led to riots around the world. It's a case of "freedom of speech vs blasphemy" yet again.Nakoula Basseley Nakoula's non-movie is a bigoted piece of poison calculated to inflame the Muslim world. It ought to be treated with the contempt it deserves. A Moscow court has ruled that the controversial 'Innocence of Muslims' film contains extremist material, banning it nationwide. The short film, satirizing the prophet Mohammed, has also been banned by Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Sudan. YouTube access in these countries has been blocked -until, according to official statements, the film is removed.
Such measures were deemed necessary after the movie sparked international outrage and led to mass violence around the world, raging for more than a week not only in Arab countries, but throughout Europe, Australia and Canada. Over the days of the protests, which turned violent at times, over 80 people were killed and hundreds were injured.




A French magazine has published nude cartoons of the prophet Mohammed, a move that could further inflame tensions after violent global protests over an anti-Islam film.

The cover of Charlie Hebdo shows a Muslim in a wheelchair being pushed by an Orthodox Jew under the title ''Intouchables 2'', referring to an award-winning French film about a poor black man who helps an aristocratic quadriplegic. Another cartoon on the back page of the magazine shows a naked turbaned Mohammed exposing his posterior to a film director, a scene inspired by a 1963 film starring Brigitte Bardot. Charlie Hebdo's website crashed after being bombarded with angry comments. The Prime Minister, Jean-Marc Ayrault, said anyone offended by cartoons could take the matter to the courts after expressing his ''disapproval of all excesses''. But he emphasised France's tradition of free speech. ''We are in a country where freedom of expression is guaranteed, including the freedom to caricature,'' he said. He also said a request to hold a demonstration in Paris against the controversial US-made anti-Islam film Innocence of Muslims would be refused. The magazine's editor, originally a cartoonist who uses the name Charb, denied he was being deliberately provocative at a delicate time. An Afghan cleric has offered rewards totaling $400,000 for anyone killing the producer of a U.S.-made anti-Islam film and a French cartoonist who drew caricatures of the Muslim prophet Mohammed.The “Innocence of Muslims”, a crudely made film that mocks Islam, triggered violent protests in at least 20 countries including Afghanistan after excerpts were posted online last month.Immediately after the film gained notoriety, French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo published cartoons caricaturing the Muslim prophet. A Pakistani government minister last month placed a $100,000 bounty on the head of the maker of the film. Railways Minister Ghulam Ahmed Bilour also called on the Taliban and al-Qaeda to join the hunt and help accomplish the “noble deed”.
The Vatican's official daily Osservatore Romano condemned the decision to publish cartoons of a naked Prophet Mohammed as "fuel on the fire".


Anti-Christian persecution
A report by two U.S.-based religious freedom groups says anti-Christian persecution is on the rise in America. The report says government agencies around the U.S. are trying to push Christian expression out the door. There are children being prohibited from writing Merry Christmas to the soldiers, senior citizens being banned from praying over their meals in the Senior Center, the VA banning the mention of God in military funerals, numerous attempts to have veterans memorials torn down if they have any religious symbols such as a cross etc. An effort by the U.S. government is underway to whitewash God from American history.The Arab Spring started in Tunisia. On 19 December 2010 when Mohamed Bouazizi, set fire to himself in protest after police confiscated the fruit and vegetables he was selling from a street stall. It was touted as a spontaneous, grass-roots groundswell of democratic ideals and liberty. The people of the Middle East were at last to have self-determination. The movement quickly spread across North Africa. Protestors hit the streets from Tunis to Benghazzi. But, the main attraction was Egypt. The US supported the movement even committing American military power through NATO to oust Gaddafi from Libya. But, this Arab Spring has a darker side. With the rise of Islamization comes the rise of oppression and violence against Christians across the Middle East. Now, emboldened by the Muslim Brotherhood rising to power in Egypt, Muslim jihadist organizations are openly calling for genocide against the Egyptian Christian population. After their churches were repeatedly attacked and burned in October 2011, Egypt's Coptic Christians took to the streets of Alexandria in protest. The response from the Egyptian military was swift and brutal. The army opened fire into the crowd and then charged in with armored personnel carriers, running over the Christians. At least 25 Christians were killed and many more injured. Egypt’s so-called Arab Spring quickly turned into a Christian fall following the political rise of Islamists and increased assaults on Christians and churches. As a result, an estimated 100,000 Christians have fled or are preparing to flee the country. Sadly, the Obama administration and most of the American news media ignore these latest examples of brutality and oppression in order to avoid criticism for buying into the whole Arab Spring nonsense. The Christian church in eastern Libya, which traces its roots back two millennia to the era of Christ, is fighting for survival because war has forced nearly all its worshippers to flee. 

Subscribe in a reader



"He risked his life to stop a tyrant and gave his life trying to build a better Libya,"
 / Hillary Clinton 

US Ambassador Christopher Stevens was killed when about 20 gun-wielding attackers fired automatic weapons and rocket-propelled grenades on US consulate. Stevens was not seen by his colleagues until his body was brought later that evening to the Benghazi airport, where all U.S. personnel taken for a flight to Tripoli. The U.S. official said that all U.S. staff had now been sent to Europe and the wounded are being treated in Germany. The two other Americans also died during the incident. New intelligence suggests the attack was tied to al-Qaeda, and particularly an associate of Osama bin Laden. the finger is being pointed at 53-year-old Sufyan Ben Qumu, a veteran of the Libyan Army who has previously been interned at America’s military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba over accusations that he was linked with al-Qaeda. Qumu was released from Gitmo in 2007 despite being considered a threat by American authorities, and sent back to Libya.


The following is a part of the transcript of President Obama's address to the U.N. General Assembly.


OBAMA: " Mr. President, Mr. Secretary General, fellow delegates, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin today by telling you about an American named Chris Stevens. Chris was born in a town called Grass Valley, California, the son of a lawyer and a musician. As a young man, Chris joined the Peace Corps and taught English in Morocco, and he came to love and respect the people of North Africa and the Middle East. He would carry that commitment throughout his life. As a diplomat, he worked from Egypt to Syria, from Saudi Arabia to Libya. He was known for walking the streets of the cities where he worked, tasting the local food, meeting as many people as he could, speaking Arabic, listening with a broad smile.

Chris went to Benghazi in the early days of the Libyan revolution, arriving on a cargo ship. As America's representative, he helped the Libyan people as they coped with violent conflict, cared for the wounded, and crafted a vision for the future in which the rights of all Libyans would be respected. And after the revolution, he supported the birth of a new democracy, as Libyans held elections, and built new institutions, and began to move forward after decades of dictatorship. Chris Stevens loved his work. He took pride in the country he served, and he saw dignity in the people that he met.

Two weeks ago, he travelled to Benghazi to review plans to establish a new cultural center and modernize a hospital. That's when America's compound came under attack. Along with three of his colleagues, Chris was killed in the city that he helped to save. He was 52 years old. I tell you this story because Chris Stevens embodied the best of America. Like his fellow Foreign Service officers, he built bridges across oceans and cultures, and was deeply invested in the international cooperation that the United Nations represents. He acted with humility, but he also stood up for a set of principles: a belief that individuals should be free to determine their own destiny, and live with liberty, dignity, justice and opportunity."



The Obama’s portrayal of Stevens seems odd as more information about him emerges. He is said to have a huge love for the Libyan people, which is odd considering several leaders of the Libyan revolt against Gaddafi have stated they fought against the United States, and the rebel leader claimed that many al-Qaeda members were working with him on the front lines. Stevens snuck into the war torn country on a cargo ship, and he travelled to Morocco, Germany and Sweden. It's a bit suspicious that he did not travel in the more protected, but more obvious, armored vehicles. That sounds a little more like CIA to me. Stevens was in fact the CIA operative who was the CIA weapons dealer in the region, and Stevens was the one who brokered the deal to give Libyan rebels weapons to fight against Gaddafi. They were rounding up weapons supplied by the United States to Libyan rebels during the uprising last year and al-Qaeda didn't like that. So, according to Obama, smuggling weapons and helping terrorists to overthrow foreign governments is the best of America. UN General Assembly is nothing more than a chat room where anyone can babble senselessly. Obama's fairytale can't be further than the truth. Stevens wasn't just an US Ambassador, he was more like a governor in Benghazi. His murder was a statement. This could never happened in Gaddafi's Libya.
OBAMA: "So let us remember that this is a season of progress. For the first time in decades, Tunisians, Egyptians and Libyans voted for new leaders in elections that were credible, competitive and fair." 
...And the new leaders are al-Qaeda terrorists and islamist militias.



" We came, we saw, he died, ha, ha, ha!"  / Hillary Clinton
Stevens was the first U.S. ambassador to die in office since the 1988 aircrash in Pakistan. Early news coverage said that the attack was a spontaneous response to an online preview of a movie considered offensive to Muslims, but the attackers use of military-grade weapons (including RPGs) and apparent knowledge of the locations of the secret safe house sites led to speculation that the raid was pre-planned. There was no demonstration. They came with machine guns, with rockets. Upon his arrival in April last year, Stevens became the highest-ranking US representative to travel to Libya since the uprising began. Prior to joining the foreign service, Stevens was an international trade lawyer in Washington, DC. From 1983 to 1985 he taught English as a Peace Corps volunteer in Morocco. “I had the honor to serve as the US envoy to the Libyan opposition during the revolution, was thrilled to watch the Libyan people demand their rights. Now I am excited to return to Libya to continue the great work we started.” / Christopher Stevens. Three separate U.S. intelligence officials knew within 24 hours of the attack that it was "planned and the work of al Qaeda affiliates operating in Eastern Libya." The attack was pre-planed, and that the anti-Islam film had nothing to do with the attack. Sensitive documents were missing after the attack, including documents listing the names of Libyans working with the Americans, and documents relating to oil contracts. Libyans held demonstrations in Benghazi and Tripoli on September 12, condemning the violence and holding signs such as, "Chris Stevens was a friend to all Libyans", and apologizing to Americans for the actions in their name and in the name of Muslims. On September 16, Libyan authorities arrested some 50 people in connection with the attack, and Mohamed Magarief said that the attack was pre-planned. He said that suspects were connected to al-Qaeda, or its "affiliates and maybe sympathisers" and said that it was "planned by foreigners" that has entered the country from "Mali and Algeria" a few months before the attacks. On September 21, about 30,000 Libyans marched through Benghazi calling for the support of the "rule of law" and for an end to armed militias. Carrying signs with slogans such as "We Want Justice For Chris" and "Libya Lost a Friend," the protestors stormed several militia headquarters. At least 10 people were killed and dozens more wounded as militiamen fired on demonstrators at the headquarters of Sahaty Brigade, a pro-government militia "operating under the authority of the ministry of defence.". By early the next morning, the protestors had forced militia members to flee and seized control of a number of compounds, releasing four prisoners found inside. Protesters burnt a car and a building of at least one facility, and looted weapons. The militia compounds and many weapons were handed over to Libya's national army in what "appeared to be part of a coordinated sweep of militia bases by police, weak national army under direct control of the Tripoli occupation government and activists" following the earlier demonstrations. Some militia members accused the protestors of being Gaddafi loyalists, looking to disarm the militias in the wake of the revolution. Tunisian Salafis are now calling for an attack on their country's US embassy, Tunisian media outlets said. Salafis militants had previously attempted to attack the embassy, but were repelled by security forces. Many in the region believe another attack is imminent. President Obama has ordered increased security for US diplomatic personnel around the world, and a Marine fleet anti-terrorist security team has been dispatched to Libya to "boost security".

More than a year after being swept to power by U.S.-led neo-colonialist forces the occupation regime head-quartered in Tripoli is now even unable to defend itself against attack. At least 200 militia forces from Zawia entered the so-called General National Congress to deliver a clear warning to the regime that it has no legitimacy and should give up its power attempts. The Libyan people want to activate the popular congresses system which had become corrupted in recent years due to the imposition of returned stray dogs into seats of power. Stray dogs were those Libyans who had been stripped of citizenship and forced to live a low life of indignity as hostile traitors in the care of Britain, the USA and other imperialist powers. After the unpopular compromise reached without the Authority of the People to install stray dogs into key positions over the heads of the masses, the Jamahiriya became weakened from within. Benghazi where the support for the Libyan Jamahiriya was in some places below 90 percent and thus the lowest support level due to a small minority of heretics which conspired with foreign forces to occupy Libya last year, remains out of control to the Tripoli regime since over 3 weeks...The attempts to form an illegitimate regime without the People's Authority (the so called democracy), remain doomed for failure, with only the Jamahiriya being the lawful governing system in Libya. This is underscored by Libya still being in flames and with the popular resistance forces gaining strength each week.

United States invaded Afghanistan to eradicate al-Qaeda after 9/11. Yet today, we read of al-Qaeda in the Maghreb, al-Qaeda in Iraq, al-Qaeda in Pakistan, al-Qaeida in the Arabian Peninsula and al-Qaeda in Syria. And Ansar Dine, an al-Qaeda affiliate, has taken over northern Mali, a slice of land the size of France. So those are all countries on the war on terror hit list. The U.S. retaliation attack is imminent.Subscribe in a reader

Joe Quinn | Sott.net
September 28, 2012
For all those who may, despite Netanyahu’s compelling argument at the UN yesterday, feel themselves teetering on the brink of falling for the foul-smelling propaganda about Iran and its “nuclear threat” to the world, there are a few things I’d like you to consider.
In the last 6 years or so, there have been literally dozens of official reports and comments about Iran’s nuclear program, and virtually all of them have stated that there is no evidence that Iran is planning to develop a nuclear weapon. The International Atomic Energy Agency has repeatedly stated that there is no evidence that Iran has diverted uranium to a weapons program. In addition, the true power in Iran, the Ayatollah Khamenei, issued a Fatwa against nuclear weapons in 2005.
What Iran is doing is attempting to achieve a ‘nuclear capability’ like nuclear power plants and Medical reactors etc. The problem for Israel (or so Netanyahu claims on behalf of all Israelis), is that once Iran achieves this ‘nuclear capability’ there is little to stop them from using that capability to ultimately produce a nuclear weapon, if they choose to do so.



One Nuke
The first thing to note is that all of the furor around Iran having a ‘nuclear capability’ refers to its ability to potentially build ONE nuclear bomb. But what would Iran do with that ONE nuke, if it were even to decide to make it? Would Iran then be in a position to threaten the entire world?
Just to put this in perspective, the following table shows the nuclear-equipped countries and the number of nukes they possess: America10656Russia10000China400France350Israel200Britain185India60Pakistan24-48
You may have heard of the alleged nuclear safeguard of ‘mutually assured destruction’. It is the theory that no nuclear-equipped country will ever use nuclear weapons against another nuclear-equipped country because of the obvious threat of retaliation and therefore the mutual destruction of both countries. That’s all well and good, but what, you may ask, is to stop a nuclear-equipped country from nuking a non-nuclear-equipped country?
There are many reasons why certain countries have nukes and others do not. One factor would seem to be the resources and relative wealth of a country, which in turn seems to be a function of the size of the population of a country. This is evidenced by the fact that, of the 8 nuclear-equipped nations, 5 appear in the top 8 most populous countries in the world. France and Britain holding positions 20 and 21 respectively.
The idea seems to be that any country that does not possess nukes is, by definition, not much of a threat to anyone, or, at least not much of a threat to the nuclear-equipped countries. In the case that such a country was nevertheless deemed to be in need of a good invading by a nuclear-equipped country, there would probably be no requirement to use nukes. See Iraq and Afghanistan for two recent examples of this.
There is one exception to this rule however – Israel – and this exception reveals one of the other factors that can lead to a country acquiring nuclear capability. Israel, defined by a former French politician as “a shitty little country”, has a mere 5 million people. Despite this, Israel possesses more nukes than India and Pakistan combined, two countries which together have close to 1.25 billion people, or about 250 times the population of Israel. I know, sounds kinda crazy, but we are dealing with a very particular type of human being here, with a rather deviant world-view, so sanity is not really a factor.



So let’s say Iran gets to make its one nuke at some point in the future. What would it do? Threaten the entire planet? Hardly. The best it could do would be to threaten one country. Who would it threaten? Israel? France? Britain? Pakistan? India? Possibly. If Iran lobbed its ONE nuke at Israel for example, Israel could respond with 100 or 200 nukes, or as many as were needed to turn Iran into a 1,648 million square kilometer glass parking lot for U.S. military Humvees.
Yet we are supposed to believe that none of the Iranian elite are aware of this fact, or, that they would be willing to sacrifice the very existence of Iran, and their own positions of power, to destroy Israel (and most of the Palestinians too, not to mention the fall-out effects on the population of Lebanon). This is the kind of nonsense that was at the core of Netanyahu’s speech at the UN on September 27th 2012. To those with an operating bullshit meter however, it is clear that if some present or future Iranian leader(s) were to possess a nuclear weapon and tried to directly threaten anyone with it, the only real threat would be to the Iranian elite and the Iranian people.
At the UN yesterday, Netanyahu tried to address this point with more nonsense:
“[...] the Ayatollahs of Iran, mutually assured destruction is not a deterrent, it’s an inducement.Iran’s apocalyptic leaders believe that a medieval holy man will reappear in the wake of a devastating Holy War, thereby ensuring that their brand of radical Islam will rule the earth.That’s not just what they believe. That’s what is actually guiding their policies and their actions.”
Netanyahu is, of course, just spouting more nonsense. There is nothing specific in Shia prophecy about a “devastating Holy war”.
In Judaic ‘end times’ belief however:
The war of Gog and Magog envisioned in Ezekiel 38 is expected to occur in the end of days. This is described to be a climatic war that is said to occur at the end of the Jewish exile. Persia and other powers from the north are said to attack Israel, where the God of Israel reveals himself and ends the war. Radak comments on Zechariah 14, that in the end of days Jerusalem will be the battle ground of Gog and Magog.
The Real Problem and Threat
In the last few years, Brazil has been following a very similar course as Iran, but no one has batted an eyelid. Why? We can only presume that it is because the state of Israel was not illegally established in South America.
While it has always suited Western powers for the Israelis to act as a sort of colonial (read ‘oil resource’) policeman in the area, countries like the UK and the US (who actively facilitated the creation of the Israeli state) always had the option to back out of any eventual unsavory political or military quagmires that might have arisen between Israel and its Arab neighbors. The Israelis, on the other hand, have always been much more heavily invested in the project to ‘reshape the Middle East’ because they chose to establish a state on Palestinian land.
The real source of the “Middle East conflict” then is the establishment of the state of Israel on Palestinian land in 1948 and the way in which successive Israeli governments have treated their Arab neighbors since then. You don’t have to be a genius to realise that if you decide to force your way in to, and on to the land of another people and then proceed ethnically cleanse the inhabitants and hold the land by force, you should expect to live in a more or less constant state of actual or potential conflict.
Such a choice would also tend to make you a little paranoid, justifiably or not, about the neighbors for whom your very existence is a reminder of the injustice done to them. In case you haven’t noticed, the Israeli government is paranoid to the point of mental illness. Such paranoia begets the well-known Israeli aggression that has cost thousands of Palestinian and Lebanese civilians their lives.
To deal with the problem of being surrounded by Arab neighbors, a problem created by the Israelis themselves, successive Israeli governments have opted for a policy of attempting to weaken Middle Eastern Arab states by meddling in their political and economic affairs. In this way, Israeli governments have been able to minimize any real threat to Israel posed by angry Arab neighbors.
The Israelis have also been very successful in demonizing any legitimate attempts by Arab groups to physically attack Israel by associating such attacks with ‘Islamic terrorism’ and presenting Israel as the West’s civilized vanguard against the Muslim barbarians. The extent to which the ‘reality’ of ‘Islamic terrorism’ has been promoted, and often manufactured by the Israelis should also be noted here.
The truth of the matter is that the Israeli, (and to a slightly lesser extent, American), exhortations that the world must prevent Iran from making a nuclear bomb because it would pose a threat to “the modern world” is a cover for the real threat to Israel from an economically and politically independent Iran that can do much to curtail Israeli political and economic hegemony in the Middle East, and thereby ultimately relegate Israel to its proper place as a rather small and insignificant Middle Eastern nation. That would be the best, ‘worst case’ scenario for the Israelis. The worst, ‘worst case’ scenario would be where, having been politically ‘down-sized’ in this way, the question of the legitimacy (or rather illegitimacy) of an Israeli state on Palestinian land would be considered seriously.
This, in effect, is what scares the bejesus (or Jehovah) out of Netanyahu and his ilk. The ‘Iranian nuclear threat’ is patently a cover story designed to garner public opinion for an attack on Iran that, Netanyahu hopes, will destroy a modern and flourishing Middle Eastern Muslim nation, and ensure Israeli dominance, and unaccountability for its crimes in the region for a few more years.


Subscribe in a reader
blogodak blog

Blogodak?

Blogodak je vaš pogled na domaću blogosferu. Prijavite se i napravite sopstvenu listu blogova koje pratite.

O projektu

Podrška

MyCity.rs

DevProTalk

Duhovi iz Palmotićeve 37