EGIPTO: LA APUESTA AL GATOPARDISMO
Atilio A. Boron, Página 12 , (enero 31-2011)
http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=121416
En noches oscuras (o con apagon mediatico como hoy en Egypt) todos los gatos son pardos, es un adagio popular que en nuestro caso solo sirve para indicar que hoy es dificil saber quien es quien, o que se cocina al interior del sistema. Un sistema que Juan Cole bien definio como pretoriano, donde el ejercito tiene el sarten por el mango. En la teoria de sistemas de Luhmann eso abre multiples posibilidades, incluso realidades nuevas que escapan al analisis de patrones historicos establecidos. Por esto fracaso el intento de "transicion ordenada" que pretendio la Casa Blanca. Las manifestaciones externas de un fenomeno social dicen poco de lo que ocurre a su interior. Pero hay que observar detenidamente el contexto externo. Mas alla de lo dicho hasta ahora, quiero detenerme en la ultima parte del articulo de A Boron, un paragrafo que merece discusion. Leamos a Atilio Boron:
“En la tradición del socialismo marxista se dice que una situación revolucionaria se constituye cuando los de arriba no pueden dominar como antes y los de abajo ya no quieren a ser dominados como antes. Los de arriba no pueden porque la policía fue derrotada en las luchas callejeras y los oficiales y soldados del ejército confraternizan con los manifestantes en lugar de reprimirlos. No sería de extrañar que alguna otra filtración tipo Wikileaks devele las intensas presiones de la Casa Blanca para que el anciano déspota abandone Egipto cuanto antes para evitar una re-edición de la tragedia de Teherán. Las alternativas que se abren para los Estados Unidos son pocas y malas: (a) sostener el régimen actual, pagando un fenomenal costo político no sólo en el mundo árabe para defender sus posiciones y privilegios en esa crucial región del planeta; (b) una toma del poder por una alianza cívico-militar en donde los opositores de Mubarak estarán destinados a ejercer una gravitación cada vez mayor o, (c) la peor de las pesadillas, si se produce el temido vacío del poder que sean los islamistas de la Hermandad Musulmana quienes tomen el gobierno por asalto. Bajo cualquiera de estas hipótesis las cosas ya no serán como antes, pues aún en la variante más moderada la probabilidad de que un nuevo régimen en Egipto continúe siendo un fiel e incondicional peón de Washington es sumamente baja y, en el mejor de los casos, altamente inestable. Y si el desenlace es el radicalismo islamista la situación de Estados Unidos e Israel en la región se tornará en extremo vulnerable, habida cuenta de que el efecto dominó de la crisis que comenzó en Túnez y siguió en Egipto ya se está dejando sentir en otros importantes aliados de Estados Unidos, como Jordania y Yemen, todo lo cual puede profundizar la derrota militar estadounidense en Irak y precipitar una debacle en Afganistán. De cumplirse estos pronósticos, el conflicto palestino-israelí adquiriría inéditas resonancias cuyos ecos llegarían hasta los suntuosos palacios de los emiratos del Golfo y la propia Arabia Saudí, cambiando dramáticamente y para siempre el tablero de la política y la economía mundiales.” Atilio Boron.
Mi observacion critica:
Siempre admire la claridad en los analisis de Atilio Boron, pero me temo que esta vez el apagon mediatico lo afecto. (Al Jazeera has sido cerrado, ademas de otros medios de prensa libre y se teme que esta noche ocurra lo que ocurrio en Tianamin square, en China). No hay base para suS opciones a y c. Todo depende de si hay o no repression esta noche, eso decidira la suerte y contenido de la opcion b. Me explico: la repression sangrienta al movimiento popular debitlitaria la unica opcion que tiene EU, la de negociar con el “independiente” Mohamed ElBaradei, el lider de oposicion con mas chances de llegar al poder por via democratica.
En cuanto a Mubarak, debemos recordar que el imperio no tiene amigos, tiene aliados; esto es puppets, y estos son descartables como el papel higienico. Ademas hay evidencias de que el imperio aun tiene bajo su mando y “proteccion” al cadaver politico Mubarak y tambien evidencias de que estan en vias de descartarlo. Por tanto ElBaradei es su unica opcion. ElBaradei mantuvo cierta autnomia en su colaboracion con la diplomacia de Guerra USA en Irak, cuando fue Jefe de la Agencia Internacionl sobre Energia Atomica y se dice que habria sido ElBaradei quien descarto que Irak estaba construyendo su bomba atomica y otras WMD, lo que no fue muy grato a los neo-nazis de los tiempos de Bush (entonces la ley era “o estas con nosotros o contra nosotros”).
El imperio ya hizo lo possible por reconstruir el poder de Mubarak, pero perdio tiempo. El movimiento popular avanzo mas rapido. De forma que en el contexto actual no caben las opciones (a) y (c) que menciona Boron. Los EU solo tienen una opcion y esa es ElBaradei como aliado USA o ElBaradei como regimen independiente de los EU. Si ocurre la repression tipo Tianamin esta noche, eso empujaria a ElBaradei a su total autonomia frente a la Casa Blanca.
Lo que falta saber es quienes estan detras del ingreso de ElBaradei a Egypt. Si estan el Freedom House y/o el National Endowment for Democracy NED, dos aparatos politicos de la CIA, entonces la hypothesis de Michel Chossudovsky es correcta e igual lo es la opcion (b) de Atilio Boron: lo que viene seria un nuevo puppet del imperio con ElBaradei en el poder, un regreso al sistema pretoriano, pero esto solo si fue la CIA quien lo trajo o ya contacto y puso a este gato pardo en su saco (podrian ser los rusos, con quienes la vieja guardia egipcia mantuvo buenas realaciones). Es cuestion de esperar y ver cuando se oficializa la transicion a la democracia y quienes tomarian control de los cuatro cargos del gabinete, economia, interior, prensa-comunicacion y relaciones extgeriores.
Los hechos hablaran por si solos: por lo pronto si esta noche no hay repression fue la CIA quien contacto o trajo al substituto de Mubarak, y si ocurre una massacre tipo Tianamin (con apagon mediatico total) eso puede significar que ElBaradei no dependera de la CIA, como la Casa Blanca habria querido. Lo sabremos maniana. Si no ocurre la repression esta noche, maniana estaremos celebrando la caida official del regimen de Mubarak. No aun el triunfo de la democracia. Si se da la repression (que es possible porque han ordenado la evacuacion de mas de 25 mil Americanos) entonces tendremos una radicalizacion del movimiento popular y la apertura a la insurgencia armada de miembros de la hermandad musulmana y otros grupos. Y esto no favorece a nadie, menos aun al imperio.
lunes, 31 de enero de 2011
US BLACKMAIL DIPLOMACY on EGYPT AND ITS CONSEQUENCES
US BLACKMAIL DIPLOMACY on EGYPT AND ITS CONSEQUENCES
HAZ, Monday January 2011
DOES THE POWER OF COUNTER-REVOLUTION RESIDES ON THE WMD AMERICA SOLD TO EGYPT?
The American F16 flying over the heads of peaceful demonstrators in Tahrir Square will not intimidate people nor prevent tomorrow’ s meeting to celebrate the falling down of the dictator, they are intended to intimidate the military if they take a nationalist stand under the new regime (possibly Elbaradei). This display of F16 is blackmail diplomacy on the Egyptian military with the intention to divide them if they take an independent position regarding the US policy in the middle east. It is the usual way in which “democracy of big corporation” behaves. If the planes bomb people in the streets, America will be under spot light and again for being involved in crimes against humanity. This time however the international context will not silence this crime, many American will sign the petition to indict Obama & the profiteers of genocide in international courts. The immediate effect on Egypt will be to push the new regimen against US policies in the middle east, instead of getting from them a possible neutral partner.
WHO ARM DICTATORS? AND WHO ARE THE VICTIMS OF THE SO CALLED COLLATERAL DAMAGE?
Made in the U.S.A.: Tear Gas, Tanks, Helicopters, Rifles and Fighter Planes in Egypt Funded and Built Largely by U.S. Defense Department and American Corporations
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/1/31/made_in_the_usa_tear_gas
The United States has given billion dollars of military aid to Egypt over the last decades. Lockheed Martin, Boeing and General Electric have provided tanks, missiles, engines and more to the Hosni Mubarak regime. Following the massive popular uprising, U.S. foreign aid continues to flow to Egypt, although the Obama administration has placed the program under review. We speak with William Hartung, author of Prophets of War: Lockheed Martin and the Making of the Military-Industrial Complex, and Samer Shehata, assistant professor of Arab politics at Georgetown University.
AMY GOODMAN: We’re talking about the uprising in Egypt that continues to swell, with more than a million people expected out tomorrow. Joining us here in New York, Bill Hartung. He is director of the Arms and Security Initiative at the New America Foundation, has closely examined how the United States has propped up the flagging Mubarak regime, largely with military aid. William Hartung is author of Prophets of War: Lockheed Martin and the Making of the Military-Industrial Complex.
Can you lay out for us—when we say tens of billions of dollars has been given to the regime, one of the highest recipients of foreign aid in the world, behind Israel, actually that money doesn’t necessarily go to Egypt, right? It goes to U.S. military contractors.
WILLIAM HARTUNG: It’s a form of corporate welfare for companies like Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics, because it goes to Egypt, then it comes back for F-16 aircraft, for M1 tanks, for aircraft engines, for all kinds of missiles, for guns, for tear gas canisters, as was discussed, a company called Combined Systems International, which actually has its name on the side of the canisters that have been found on the streets there. So these companies—for example, Lockheed Martin has been the leader in deals worth $3.8 billion over that period of the last 10 years; General Dynamics, $2.5 billion for tanks; Boeing, $1.7 billion for missiles, for helicopters; Raytheon for all manner of missiles for the armed forces. So, basically, this is a key element in propping up the regime, but a lot of the money, as you said and Juan Cole mentioned on this program, is basically recycled. Taxpayers could just as easily be giving it directly to Lockheed Martin or General Dynamics.
AMY GOODMAN: So, the U.S. has tremendous power, wields tremendous power here, right? And I want to also put this question to Professor Shehata, and that is the issue of U.S. law. I mean, I remember well, in covering the Indonesian occupation of East Timor, that the issue for Indonesia, when they invaded—this, one of the worst genocides of the 20th century—was to get the approval of the United States, because otherwise the U.S. would cut off aid. You can’t use U.S. weapons for offensive acts—at least, that’s the law. And they illegally invaded East Timor. What about the Mubarak regime using these weapons on the people who are rebelling?
SAMER SHEHATA: Right. I mean, it’s a very important and timely question. I should just add that those planes that were flying over Tahrir Square, flying low over the thousands of peaceful protesters in the center of Cairo yesterday, appeared to be F-16s made in the United States of America. And the tanks on the streets in Egypt, in Cairo, in Alexandria and other cities, are either Abrams tanks or tanks that are American tanks but made in Egypt. There’s an agreement that that can take place. And so, this is very much a serious issue, and the United States does have tremendous influence over President Mubarak.
It doesn’t seem like he’s listening to the calibrated change in statements coming out of Washington, because it seems now, in the diplomatic language that’s been used, that the United States is saying it wants a peaceful transition. They haven’t said explicitly—and governments don’t say this—"Mubarak has to leave right now," but I think that’s the implication. I certainly don’t think it’s gone far enough, but right now it doesn’t seem like Mr. Mubarak is really listening or understands the severity of the situation or is just incredibly stubborn and wants to hold on until the last minute.
AMY GOODMAN: So, the military weapons that are going, Bill Hartung, the support that goes to U.S. corporations, they won’t be pleased with cutting off aid to Egypt, because it’s actually going to them.
WILLIAM HARTUNG: Exactly, because they don’t know what a new regime will want to do. Will they want to maintain that huge armed forces that was made in the U.S.A.? How might they use those in defense of the country? So it’s unlikely, if you had a new regime, that they would come in for big multi-billion-dollar deals for a bloated military when there’s needs for their own people.
AMY GOODMAN: According to lists of arms sales notifications compiled by the Pentagon’s Defense Security Assistance Agency, in the last decade alone, the Department of Defense has brokered over $11 billion in U.S. arms offers to the Egyptian regime on behalf of weapons manufacturers Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Boeing, Raytheon and General Electric.
WILLIAM HARTUNG: And that’s just the last little while. In fact, Mubarak has been getting $1.3 billion per year, like clockwork, since the beginning of his regime. So that’s about $40 billion, that a lot of which has gone to these companies. So they, of course—you know, they’ve met with lobbyists. They’ve met with Egypt over the years. They’ve tried to keep the United States on good terms with Egypt, because they profit from this relationship.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, I want to thank you very much, Bill Hartung, for joining us, Bill Hartung, director of the Arms and Security Initiative at the New America Foundation, and Samer Shehata, who is assistant professor of Arab politics at Georgetown University.
HAZ, Monday January 2011
DOES THE POWER OF COUNTER-REVOLUTION RESIDES ON THE WMD AMERICA SOLD TO EGYPT?
The American F16 flying over the heads of peaceful demonstrators in Tahrir Square will not intimidate people nor prevent tomorrow’ s meeting to celebrate the falling down of the dictator, they are intended to intimidate the military if they take a nationalist stand under the new regime (possibly Elbaradei). This display of F16 is blackmail diplomacy on the Egyptian military with the intention to divide them if they take an independent position regarding the US policy in the middle east. It is the usual way in which “democracy of big corporation” behaves. If the planes bomb people in the streets, America will be under spot light and again for being involved in crimes against humanity. This time however the international context will not silence this crime, many American will sign the petition to indict Obama & the profiteers of genocide in international courts. The immediate effect on Egypt will be to push the new regimen against US policies in the middle east, instead of getting from them a possible neutral partner.
WHO ARM DICTATORS? AND WHO ARE THE VICTIMS OF THE SO CALLED COLLATERAL DAMAGE?
Made in the U.S.A.: Tear Gas, Tanks, Helicopters, Rifles and Fighter Planes in Egypt Funded and Built Largely by U.S. Defense Department and American Corporations
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/1/31/made_in_the_usa_tear_gas
The United States has given billion dollars of military aid to Egypt over the last decades. Lockheed Martin, Boeing and General Electric have provided tanks, missiles, engines and more to the Hosni Mubarak regime. Following the massive popular uprising, U.S. foreign aid continues to flow to Egypt, although the Obama administration has placed the program under review. We speak with William Hartung, author of Prophets of War: Lockheed Martin and the Making of the Military-Industrial Complex, and Samer Shehata, assistant professor of Arab politics at Georgetown University.
AMY GOODMAN: We’re talking about the uprising in Egypt that continues to swell, with more than a million people expected out tomorrow. Joining us here in New York, Bill Hartung. He is director of the Arms and Security Initiative at the New America Foundation, has closely examined how the United States has propped up the flagging Mubarak regime, largely with military aid. William Hartung is author of Prophets of War: Lockheed Martin and the Making of the Military-Industrial Complex.
Can you lay out for us—when we say tens of billions of dollars has been given to the regime, one of the highest recipients of foreign aid in the world, behind Israel, actually that money doesn’t necessarily go to Egypt, right? It goes to U.S. military contractors.
WILLIAM HARTUNG: It’s a form of corporate welfare for companies like Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics, because it goes to Egypt, then it comes back for F-16 aircraft, for M1 tanks, for aircraft engines, for all kinds of missiles, for guns, for tear gas canisters, as was discussed, a company called Combined Systems International, which actually has its name on the side of the canisters that have been found on the streets there. So these companies—for example, Lockheed Martin has been the leader in deals worth $3.8 billion over that period of the last 10 years; General Dynamics, $2.5 billion for tanks; Boeing, $1.7 billion for missiles, for helicopters; Raytheon for all manner of missiles for the armed forces. So, basically, this is a key element in propping up the regime, but a lot of the money, as you said and Juan Cole mentioned on this program, is basically recycled. Taxpayers could just as easily be giving it directly to Lockheed Martin or General Dynamics.
AMY GOODMAN: So, the U.S. has tremendous power, wields tremendous power here, right? And I want to also put this question to Professor Shehata, and that is the issue of U.S. law. I mean, I remember well, in covering the Indonesian occupation of East Timor, that the issue for Indonesia, when they invaded—this, one of the worst genocides of the 20th century—was to get the approval of the United States, because otherwise the U.S. would cut off aid. You can’t use U.S. weapons for offensive acts—at least, that’s the law. And they illegally invaded East Timor. What about the Mubarak regime using these weapons on the people who are rebelling?
SAMER SHEHATA: Right. I mean, it’s a very important and timely question. I should just add that those planes that were flying over Tahrir Square, flying low over the thousands of peaceful protesters in the center of Cairo yesterday, appeared to be F-16s made in the United States of America. And the tanks on the streets in Egypt, in Cairo, in Alexandria and other cities, are either Abrams tanks or tanks that are American tanks but made in Egypt. There’s an agreement that that can take place. And so, this is very much a serious issue, and the United States does have tremendous influence over President Mubarak.
It doesn’t seem like he’s listening to the calibrated change in statements coming out of Washington, because it seems now, in the diplomatic language that’s been used, that the United States is saying it wants a peaceful transition. They haven’t said explicitly—and governments don’t say this—"Mubarak has to leave right now," but I think that’s the implication. I certainly don’t think it’s gone far enough, but right now it doesn’t seem like Mr. Mubarak is really listening or understands the severity of the situation or is just incredibly stubborn and wants to hold on until the last minute.
AMY GOODMAN: So, the military weapons that are going, Bill Hartung, the support that goes to U.S. corporations, they won’t be pleased with cutting off aid to Egypt, because it’s actually going to them.
WILLIAM HARTUNG: Exactly, because they don’t know what a new regime will want to do. Will they want to maintain that huge armed forces that was made in the U.S.A.? How might they use those in defense of the country? So it’s unlikely, if you had a new regime, that they would come in for big multi-billion-dollar deals for a bloated military when there’s needs for their own people.
AMY GOODMAN: According to lists of arms sales notifications compiled by the Pentagon’s Defense Security Assistance Agency, in the last decade alone, the Department of Defense has brokered over $11 billion in U.S. arms offers to the Egyptian regime on behalf of weapons manufacturers Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Boeing, Raytheon and General Electric.
WILLIAM HARTUNG: And that’s just the last little while. In fact, Mubarak has been getting $1.3 billion per year, like clockwork, since the beginning of his regime. So that’s about $40 billion, that a lot of which has gone to these companies. So they, of course—you know, they’ve met with lobbyists. They’ve met with Egypt over the years. They’ve tried to keep the United States on good terms with Egypt, because they profit from this relationship.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, I want to thank you very much, Bill Hartung, for joining us, Bill Hartung, director of the Arms and Security Initiative at the New America Foundation, and Samer Shehata, who is assistant professor of Arab politics at Georgetown University.
HOSNI IS OUT. IT IS THE END of PUPPET PRAETORIAN REGIMENS
HOSNI IS OUT. It is the end of a disguised military dictator (praetorian regimes)
HAZ, January 31, 2011
Hosni is a political cadaver. Only for the US corporate media Mubarak was a democratic regimen. For American people Mubarak never represented the political and ethical values of democracy. The corporate media said that we should support Mubarak because he is an ally to the White House policies. Ally in real politics means puppet, no democracy. To keep this military regimen in power in Egypt –a regimen disguised as civil, said Juan Cole- cost to American people more than $2 billion (according to Democracy Now, though officially is recognized only $1.5 billion, see Biden statement in my previous report). The fact is that international power of this empire was built up not on democratic values nor on democratic regimes but on dictators like Mubarak and criminals like Pinochet, Fujimori and the previous regimen in Colombia and the current one -Alan Garcia- in Peru.
Now that that empire is falling down (5 years of austerity is a recognition that we are going down, austerity for most Americans -said Obama in his last speech to the nation- while those who profit from their misery, especially the profiteers of the health system, the financial elites of Wall Street n the tax evaders who get more than 250 thnd a year, 1% de the population - remain untouched), and the fact that the international empire network is being dissemble not only in the middle east but at world level including Europe (riots erupted n coming ones) is time to check the effects of these policies that american big corporations imposed all over the world, and the consequences (more strikes and social riots inside)if we do not move to change politics and policies inside and abroad.
We should start from the hypothesis that neoliberal policies designed in the Washignton Consensus of 1985 and the suppression of the Glass Stegle Act have caused serious damage at national and international level. Place in a scale the positive vs negative factual effects of the neoliberal policies at domestic an international level, and you will conclude, as many scholards did, that “neoliberal policies have generate –first- an unequal and explosive income distribution inside and abroad. These policies have ruin middle and small industries all over the world (with the exception of China, India, and other in the BRIC emerging countries where they constitutes the real engine of prosperity). In its turn this means that middle and working classes have being shattered all over the world. Those are the major factor explaining current major rebellions abroad.
It is not that China, the Arabs, the Muslims, or whoever we depict as enemy the ones who do not like democracy or are not ready for democracy as the mass media said. The fact is that most americans dilike our corrupted democracy. The fact is that other countries cannot afford the effects of this democracy, the shocking bailouts to those who cause the current world crisis. Americans can afford to survive in this crisis while the dollar is still the dominant currency of trade and reserve at the international banking system. But there are signs that the world is moving out of the dollar. Soon the world will have a new international world currency. Then we will lost the privilege of just printing dollar to provide some comfort to the most.
Meanwhile we can still finance more Mubaraks abroad and make americans pay for it. We can even finance a third world war and create the greatest holocaust in human history and have the hope that some American cities won’t be wiped out by the nuclear exchange. The fact is that American middle and working classes are very upset with the politics and policies supporting the rich. The fact is that social riots related to such misery are already shown up (succesfully cracked down.. yes, but they will come back). The austerity plan drafted by Obama in his last speech to the nation could create inside the same situation that flame the forest elsewhere (young people without job market will go to the streets).
It is time to see ourselves in the mirrow we have sold or create abroad. It is time to replace the Glass Stegle Act or a better one to control the big evil corporations, to implement the tobin tax on any financial business transaction and get out from the political structural trap (democrats or republicans). Then we will have basis for a real market oriented democracy in the US. There won’t Mubaraks all over the world. If we american won’t do it, the world will move in such direction without our devaluated dollars.
===============
Juan Cole: Egypt is a Praetorian Regimehttp://www.democracynow.org/2011/1/28/juan_cole_egypt_is_a_praetorian
January 28, 2011
Hundreds of thousands have taken to the streets across Egypt today in the fourth day of unprecedented protests against the 30-year rule of President Hosni Mubarak. We speak with University of Michigan professor of history Juan Cole. "The Arab world has seen, in the last three decades, a series of Arab nationalist regimes, relatively secular, which have become increasingly sclerotic," Cole says.
SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: We’re talking today about Egypt, the unprecedented protests in the streets right now. We just got a report from Egypt from Ahmad Shokr in Cairo. We’re going to turn right now to Juan Cole, to Ann Arbor, Michigan. He’s a professor of history at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. He blogs at the very popular blog "Informed Comment." It’s online at juancole.com. His most recent book is Engaging the Muslim World.
Thank you very much for joining us, Juan Cole. We just had this breaking news from the Al Jazeera reporter on Twitter. He’s saying that the prominent Egyptian opposition politician Ayman Nour was struck in the head by a rock. He’s been hospitalized, and he’s semi-conscious. And also, the son of Ayman Nour was struck in the back of the head by a rock and is also now in the hospital. Can you talk about what is happening right now in Egypt? And put it in context of the greater Arab world, of what’s happening in Tunisia.
JUAN COLE: The Arab world has seen, in the last three decades, a series of Arab nationalist regimes, relatively secular, which have become increasingly sclerotic. These were postcolonial societies, societies that had been under Western dominance often, which—and that dominance was opposed by nationalist movements, led by legends like Habib Bourguiba in Tunisia or Gamal Abdel Nasser in Egypt. And they were wildly popular in their day, because they were throwing off the West. But as time went on, the regimes that were set up became dominated by a kind of state elite, a relatively small group of people that benefited from state power, from the large public sector, from the throwing of contracts to particular individuals in the private sector. And they proved themselves unable to adapt over time to a globalizing world.
SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: One correction, it’s just Ayman Nour who was struck in the back of the head. His son reported to Al Jazeera what happened. His son has not been injured. But, Juan Cole, can you talk about the Mubarak regime, who is Hosni Mubarak, how did he come to power, and his reign for—well, this year marks the 30th anniversary of his coming to power?
JUAN COLE: Hosni Mubarak is a former air force chief of staff and general. He was trained in Moscow. He speaks good Russian. And he is the third in the series of military leaders of Egypt since 1952, or you could say the fourth, in some ways. In any case, they’ve all been military men. They’ve all come out of the military. They’re backed by the existing military. And that’s—so Egypt is a Praetorian regime, and this is sometimes forgotten now because Mubarak wears business suits and there’s an elected parliament, although the elections are widely believed not to be on the up and up.
AMY GOODMAN: Juan Cole, I wanted to ask you about the U.S. role in the shoring up of Mubarak over these 30 years, the same question that I put to Ahmad Shokr, the more than $2 billion, second-largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid next to Israel, and what that means—President Obama’s speech there, what the U.S. relationship is, and if the U.S. said to Mubarak that they would withdraw aid, what you think he would do.
JUAN COLE: Well, I think the U.S. aid is nice for the Egyptian elite to have. I don’t think it’s essential to them. It should be remembered that the U.S. aid is a little bit of a shell game, because Congress typically directs that all of the matériel come from the United States. So it’s actually aid to U.S. corporations, and then the Egyptians get some of it in the form of goods and so forth, military weaponry, which they mostly don’t need.
I think the U.S. aid was initiated because Egypt made a peace treaty with Israel. It’s Congress’s way of more or less bribing Egypt to remain on good terms with Israel. A lot of it is military aid, so that the Egyptian military remains relatively strong. But that military has taken itself out of the game of Middle East politics. In some ways, it’s been absent from the great struggles—the Gaza war, the Lebanon war. Egypt kind of stands off and says, "Well, that’s really too bad. They shouldn’t be fighting like that."
So, in contrast to the kind of muscular nationalism of the 1960s, when Gamal Abdel Nasser made Egypt the center of the Arab world and in some ways also of Africa, now Egypt is—you know, its regime really has been taking a quiet bribe to turn inward, to concentrate on building up its tourist industry. And it has had some success in fostering economic growth in the past 10 years, although it’s the kind of growth such that a lot of the increased revenue is going to the elites, in any case.
SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: Juan Cole, I want to play what President Obama had to say yesterday about the situation in Egypt. He made his first comments in response to a question about Egypt during a live YouTube interview. Take a listen.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: It’s my main hope right now is, is that violence is not the answer in solving these problems in Egypt. So the government has to be careful about not resorting to violence, and the people on the streets have to be careful about not resorting to violence. And I think that it is very important that people have mechanisms in order to express legitimate grievances. As I said in my State of the Union speech, there are certain core values that we believe in as Americans that we believe are universal—freedom of speech, freedom of expression, people being able to use social networking or any other mechanisms to communicate with each other and express their concerns. And that, I think, is no less true in the Arab world than it is here in the United States.
SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: That was President Obama speaking yesterday. Vice President Joe Biden also yesterday said that President Hosni Mubarak, who has ruled Egypt for 30 years, since 1981, was not a dictator. He made the comment in an interview on the PBS NewsHour.
VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: Look, Mubarak has been an ally of ours in a number of things that he’s been very responsible on relative to geopolitical interests in the region, Middle East peace efforts, the actions Egypt has taken relative to normalizing relationship with Israel. And I think that it would be—I would not refer to him as a dictator.
SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: That was Vice President Joe Biden. Juan Cole, your response?
JUAN COLE: Well, Vice President Biden seems to be wanting to define a dictator not with regard to domestic policy, but with regard to the responsible role the regime plays in the international world system, you know, from Washington’s point of view. But certainly, from the point of view of human rights activists in Egypt, there are strong dictatorial tendencies in the Egyptian government. It’s seen a lot of phony elections. It’s used repressive techniques.
In some instances, those repressive techniques have been directed against radical movements. The Egyptian Islamic Jihad of Ayman al-Zawahiri was active in Egypt in the 1980s and ’90s, blowing up things, shooting down tourists and others. And these same secret police were deployed at that time to track them down, arrest them, and really to eradicate them from the scene in Egypt.
And this is one of the things that drives this regime’s repressiveness, is that it is afraid of Muslim fundamentalist movements. Whether they are radical—and there have been a number of important radical movements in Egypt that have resorted to violence—or whether they are social and political, as with the large and important Muslim Brotherhood movement, the regime is very afraid—and this comes out from U.S. cables that have been released by WikiLeaks—that the Muslim Brotherhood will find a way to take over. And, you know, when Khomeini overthrew the Shah in Iran in 1979, the first thing they did was execute a lot of the generals. And the generals in Egypt are bound and determined that a similar fate does not await them.
AMY GOODMAN: Professor Cole, a confidential diplomatic cable, that was released by WikiLeaks in the latest release, was signed by the American ambassador to Egypt, Margaret Scobey, advising Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to avoid mentioning the name of the opposition leader Ayman Nour during her 2009 meeting with Mubarak, even though Nour’s imprisonment in 2005 had been condemned worldwide, not least by the Bush administration. Sharif just reported that Al Jazeera is saying that Ayman Nour was just attacked, hit in the head with a rock and now in hospital. Can you talk about the significance of this leaked memo and the significance of Ayman Nour himself?
JUAN COLE: Well, Nour, at that time that the memo was written, had just been released from prison by Mubarak, and he leads a relatively small middle-class reform movement. And he did dare to challenge Mubarak in the 2005 presidential elections. And as you say, the Bush administration put pressure on Hosni Mubarak to open up those elections. The elections for president in Egypt prior to that had been largely symbolic. They had been a kind of referendum. And of course, in a referendum, you can’t really lose. So, Mubarak responded to this pressure by having the constitution changed so that a number of people could run for president, not just him. And Ayman Nour was one of the ones who ran, but he had been in prison. And Mubarak let him out of prison, let him run. He got seven percent of the vote. And then Mubarak promptly jailed him again after he lost the election. So, Mubarak’s response to American pressure at that time really made a mockery of it. And so, when he let Ayman Nour out of prison shortly before Hillary Clinton’s visit, he was concerned that the Americans not draw attention to this opposition figure, and he requested that no mention be made.
And the Americans, you know, are in a difficult position in some ways in Egypt. On the one hand, you know, the State Department does do human rights reports. It does support a widening of civil liberties in these countries. On the other hand, Egypt is a central ally of the United States, and the U.S. would certainly be very unhappy to see it replaced by a Muslim Brotherhood regime that would abrogate the Camp David Accords, would adopt a hostile posture towards Israel possibly, would cease military cooperation with the United States. So, the U.S. is trying to navigate between the shoals of these various dilemmas.
SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: Professor Juan Cole, thank you very much for joining us. Professor Juan Cole is a history—a professor of history at the University of Michigan. He blogs at "Informed Comment." It’s online at juancole.com. His most recent book is Engaging the Muslim World.
HAZ, January 31, 2011
Hosni is a political cadaver. Only for the US corporate media Mubarak was a democratic regimen. For American people Mubarak never represented the political and ethical values of democracy. The corporate media said that we should support Mubarak because he is an ally to the White House policies. Ally in real politics means puppet, no democracy. To keep this military regimen in power in Egypt –a regimen disguised as civil, said Juan Cole- cost to American people more than $2 billion (according to Democracy Now, though officially is recognized only $1.5 billion, see Biden statement in my previous report). The fact is that international power of this empire was built up not on democratic values nor on democratic regimes but on dictators like Mubarak and criminals like Pinochet, Fujimori and the previous regimen in Colombia and the current one -Alan Garcia- in Peru.
Now that that empire is falling down (5 years of austerity is a recognition that we are going down, austerity for most Americans -said Obama in his last speech to the nation- while those who profit from their misery, especially the profiteers of the health system, the financial elites of Wall Street n the tax evaders who get more than 250 thnd a year, 1% de the population - remain untouched), and the fact that the international empire network is being dissemble not only in the middle east but at world level including Europe (riots erupted n coming ones) is time to check the effects of these policies that american big corporations imposed all over the world, and the consequences (more strikes and social riots inside)if we do not move to change politics and policies inside and abroad.
We should start from the hypothesis that neoliberal policies designed in the Washignton Consensus of 1985 and the suppression of the Glass Stegle Act have caused serious damage at national and international level. Place in a scale the positive vs negative factual effects of the neoliberal policies at domestic an international level, and you will conclude, as many scholards did, that “neoliberal policies have generate –first- an unequal and explosive income distribution inside and abroad. These policies have ruin middle and small industries all over the world (with the exception of China, India, and other in the BRIC emerging countries where they constitutes the real engine of prosperity). In its turn this means that middle and working classes have being shattered all over the world. Those are the major factor explaining current major rebellions abroad.
It is not that China, the Arabs, the Muslims, or whoever we depict as enemy the ones who do not like democracy or are not ready for democracy as the mass media said. The fact is that most americans dilike our corrupted democracy. The fact is that other countries cannot afford the effects of this democracy, the shocking bailouts to those who cause the current world crisis. Americans can afford to survive in this crisis while the dollar is still the dominant currency of trade and reserve at the international banking system. But there are signs that the world is moving out of the dollar. Soon the world will have a new international world currency. Then we will lost the privilege of just printing dollar to provide some comfort to the most.
Meanwhile we can still finance more Mubaraks abroad and make americans pay for it. We can even finance a third world war and create the greatest holocaust in human history and have the hope that some American cities won’t be wiped out by the nuclear exchange. The fact is that American middle and working classes are very upset with the politics and policies supporting the rich. The fact is that social riots related to such misery are already shown up (succesfully cracked down.. yes, but they will come back). The austerity plan drafted by Obama in his last speech to the nation could create inside the same situation that flame the forest elsewhere (young people without job market will go to the streets).
It is time to see ourselves in the mirrow we have sold or create abroad. It is time to replace the Glass Stegle Act or a better one to control the big evil corporations, to implement the tobin tax on any financial business transaction and get out from the political structural trap (democrats or republicans). Then we will have basis for a real market oriented democracy in the US. There won’t Mubaraks all over the world. If we american won’t do it, the world will move in such direction without our devaluated dollars.
===============
Juan Cole: Egypt is a Praetorian Regimehttp://www.democracynow.org/2011/1/28/juan_cole_egypt_is_a_praetorian
January 28, 2011
Hundreds of thousands have taken to the streets across Egypt today in the fourth day of unprecedented protests against the 30-year rule of President Hosni Mubarak. We speak with University of Michigan professor of history Juan Cole. "The Arab world has seen, in the last three decades, a series of Arab nationalist regimes, relatively secular, which have become increasingly sclerotic," Cole says.
SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: We’re talking today about Egypt, the unprecedented protests in the streets right now. We just got a report from Egypt from Ahmad Shokr in Cairo. We’re going to turn right now to Juan Cole, to Ann Arbor, Michigan. He’s a professor of history at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. He blogs at the very popular blog "Informed Comment." It’s online at juancole.com. His most recent book is Engaging the Muslim World.
Thank you very much for joining us, Juan Cole. We just had this breaking news from the Al Jazeera reporter on Twitter. He’s saying that the prominent Egyptian opposition politician Ayman Nour was struck in the head by a rock. He’s been hospitalized, and he’s semi-conscious. And also, the son of Ayman Nour was struck in the back of the head by a rock and is also now in the hospital. Can you talk about what is happening right now in Egypt? And put it in context of the greater Arab world, of what’s happening in Tunisia.
JUAN COLE: The Arab world has seen, in the last three decades, a series of Arab nationalist regimes, relatively secular, which have become increasingly sclerotic. These were postcolonial societies, societies that had been under Western dominance often, which—and that dominance was opposed by nationalist movements, led by legends like Habib Bourguiba in Tunisia or Gamal Abdel Nasser in Egypt. And they were wildly popular in their day, because they were throwing off the West. But as time went on, the regimes that were set up became dominated by a kind of state elite, a relatively small group of people that benefited from state power, from the large public sector, from the throwing of contracts to particular individuals in the private sector. And they proved themselves unable to adapt over time to a globalizing world.
SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: One correction, it’s just Ayman Nour who was struck in the back of the head. His son reported to Al Jazeera what happened. His son has not been injured. But, Juan Cole, can you talk about the Mubarak regime, who is Hosni Mubarak, how did he come to power, and his reign for—well, this year marks the 30th anniversary of his coming to power?
JUAN COLE: Hosni Mubarak is a former air force chief of staff and general. He was trained in Moscow. He speaks good Russian. And he is the third in the series of military leaders of Egypt since 1952, or you could say the fourth, in some ways. In any case, they’ve all been military men. They’ve all come out of the military. They’re backed by the existing military. And that’s—so Egypt is a Praetorian regime, and this is sometimes forgotten now because Mubarak wears business suits and there’s an elected parliament, although the elections are widely believed not to be on the up and up.
AMY GOODMAN: Juan Cole, I wanted to ask you about the U.S. role in the shoring up of Mubarak over these 30 years, the same question that I put to Ahmad Shokr, the more than $2 billion, second-largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid next to Israel, and what that means—President Obama’s speech there, what the U.S. relationship is, and if the U.S. said to Mubarak that they would withdraw aid, what you think he would do.
JUAN COLE: Well, I think the U.S. aid is nice for the Egyptian elite to have. I don’t think it’s essential to them. It should be remembered that the U.S. aid is a little bit of a shell game, because Congress typically directs that all of the matériel come from the United States. So it’s actually aid to U.S. corporations, and then the Egyptians get some of it in the form of goods and so forth, military weaponry, which they mostly don’t need.
I think the U.S. aid was initiated because Egypt made a peace treaty with Israel. It’s Congress’s way of more or less bribing Egypt to remain on good terms with Israel. A lot of it is military aid, so that the Egyptian military remains relatively strong. But that military has taken itself out of the game of Middle East politics. In some ways, it’s been absent from the great struggles—the Gaza war, the Lebanon war. Egypt kind of stands off and says, "Well, that’s really too bad. They shouldn’t be fighting like that."
So, in contrast to the kind of muscular nationalism of the 1960s, when Gamal Abdel Nasser made Egypt the center of the Arab world and in some ways also of Africa, now Egypt is—you know, its regime really has been taking a quiet bribe to turn inward, to concentrate on building up its tourist industry. And it has had some success in fostering economic growth in the past 10 years, although it’s the kind of growth such that a lot of the increased revenue is going to the elites, in any case.
SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: Juan Cole, I want to play what President Obama had to say yesterday about the situation in Egypt. He made his first comments in response to a question about Egypt during a live YouTube interview. Take a listen.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: It’s my main hope right now is, is that violence is not the answer in solving these problems in Egypt. So the government has to be careful about not resorting to violence, and the people on the streets have to be careful about not resorting to violence. And I think that it is very important that people have mechanisms in order to express legitimate grievances. As I said in my State of the Union speech, there are certain core values that we believe in as Americans that we believe are universal—freedom of speech, freedom of expression, people being able to use social networking or any other mechanisms to communicate with each other and express their concerns. And that, I think, is no less true in the Arab world than it is here in the United States.
SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: That was President Obama speaking yesterday. Vice President Joe Biden also yesterday said that President Hosni Mubarak, who has ruled Egypt for 30 years, since 1981, was not a dictator. He made the comment in an interview on the PBS NewsHour.
VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: Look, Mubarak has been an ally of ours in a number of things that he’s been very responsible on relative to geopolitical interests in the region, Middle East peace efforts, the actions Egypt has taken relative to normalizing relationship with Israel. And I think that it would be—I would not refer to him as a dictator.
SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: That was Vice President Joe Biden. Juan Cole, your response?
JUAN COLE: Well, Vice President Biden seems to be wanting to define a dictator not with regard to domestic policy, but with regard to the responsible role the regime plays in the international world system, you know, from Washington’s point of view. But certainly, from the point of view of human rights activists in Egypt, there are strong dictatorial tendencies in the Egyptian government. It’s seen a lot of phony elections. It’s used repressive techniques.
In some instances, those repressive techniques have been directed against radical movements. The Egyptian Islamic Jihad of Ayman al-Zawahiri was active in Egypt in the 1980s and ’90s, blowing up things, shooting down tourists and others. And these same secret police were deployed at that time to track them down, arrest them, and really to eradicate them from the scene in Egypt.
And this is one of the things that drives this regime’s repressiveness, is that it is afraid of Muslim fundamentalist movements. Whether they are radical—and there have been a number of important radical movements in Egypt that have resorted to violence—or whether they are social and political, as with the large and important Muslim Brotherhood movement, the regime is very afraid—and this comes out from U.S. cables that have been released by WikiLeaks—that the Muslim Brotherhood will find a way to take over. And, you know, when Khomeini overthrew the Shah in Iran in 1979, the first thing they did was execute a lot of the generals. And the generals in Egypt are bound and determined that a similar fate does not await them.
AMY GOODMAN: Professor Cole, a confidential diplomatic cable, that was released by WikiLeaks in the latest release, was signed by the American ambassador to Egypt, Margaret Scobey, advising Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to avoid mentioning the name of the opposition leader Ayman Nour during her 2009 meeting with Mubarak, even though Nour’s imprisonment in 2005 had been condemned worldwide, not least by the Bush administration. Sharif just reported that Al Jazeera is saying that Ayman Nour was just attacked, hit in the head with a rock and now in hospital. Can you talk about the significance of this leaked memo and the significance of Ayman Nour himself?
JUAN COLE: Well, Nour, at that time that the memo was written, had just been released from prison by Mubarak, and he leads a relatively small middle-class reform movement. And he did dare to challenge Mubarak in the 2005 presidential elections. And as you say, the Bush administration put pressure on Hosni Mubarak to open up those elections. The elections for president in Egypt prior to that had been largely symbolic. They had been a kind of referendum. And of course, in a referendum, you can’t really lose. So, Mubarak responded to this pressure by having the constitution changed so that a number of people could run for president, not just him. And Ayman Nour was one of the ones who ran, but he had been in prison. And Mubarak let him out of prison, let him run. He got seven percent of the vote. And then Mubarak promptly jailed him again after he lost the election. So, Mubarak’s response to American pressure at that time really made a mockery of it. And so, when he let Ayman Nour out of prison shortly before Hillary Clinton’s visit, he was concerned that the Americans not draw attention to this opposition figure, and he requested that no mention be made.
And the Americans, you know, are in a difficult position in some ways in Egypt. On the one hand, you know, the State Department does do human rights reports. It does support a widening of civil liberties in these countries. On the other hand, Egypt is a central ally of the United States, and the U.S. would certainly be very unhappy to see it replaced by a Muslim Brotherhood regime that would abrogate the Camp David Accords, would adopt a hostile posture towards Israel possibly, would cease military cooperation with the United States. So, the U.S. is trying to navigate between the shoals of these various dilemmas.
SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: Professor Juan Cole, thank you very much for joining us. Professor Juan Cole is a history—a professor of history at the University of Michigan. He blogs at "Informed Comment." It’s online at juancole.com. His most recent book is Engaging the Muslim World.
MEGA PROTEST PLANNED IN EGYPT FOR TUESDAY, said AL JAZEERA
Mega protest planned in Egypt for Tuesday
Opposition movement calls for "a million people demonstration" on Tuesday in a bid to topple president Hosni Mubarak.
Last Modified: 31 Jan 2011
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/01/20111316148317175.html
Egyptian protesters have called for a massive demonstration on Tuesday in a bid to force out president Hosni Mubarak from power.
The so-called April 6 Movement said it plans to have more than a million people on the streets of the capital Cairo, as anti-government sentiment reaches a fever pitch.
Several hundred demonstrators remained camped out in Tahrir square in central Cairo early on Monday morning, defying a curfew that has been extended by the army.
"It seems as if they are saying: 'We are here to stay. We are re-invigorating our movement and we are not going anywhere'," one of Al Jazeera's correspondents in Cairo said.
Protesters seem unfazed by Mubarak's pledge to institute economic and political reforms. Our correspondent said that people feel that such pledges "are too little, too late".
Early on Monday morning, unconfirmed reports said the police had been ordered back on the streets.
"We are expecting a statement by the minister of interior about whether the police are going to return or not," our correspondent said.
"The absence of police has given looters a free rein, forcing ordinary citizens to set up neighbourhood patrols. Many people are wondering where the police disappeared to.
There are two schools of thought as far as the police are concerned: One is that many of them decided to join the protesters. The other is that the regime was saying to the people, 'You want to protest. We'll pull back the police and you feel what anarchy feels like'," our correspondent said.
A day earlier, Mohamed ElBaradei, a leading opposition figure, joined thousands of protesters in Tahrir Square.
The former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency told the crowd on Sunday night that "what we have begun cannot go back" referring to days of anti-government protests.
The National Coalition for Change, which groups several opposition movements including the Muslim Brotherhood, wants ElBaradei to negotiate with the Mubarak government.
"The people want the regime to fall," protesters chanted as ElBaradei walked to the centre of the square, holding hands with some demonstrators.
Jail breaks
The show of continued defiance by the people came on a day when air force fighter planes flew low over Cairo along with helicopters and extra troop lorries appeared in the central square.
As the protests continue, security is said to be deteriorating and reports have emerged of several prisons across the country being attacked and of fresh protests being staged in cities like Alexandria and Suez.
Thirty-four leaders from the Muslim Brotherhood were freed from the Wadi Natroun jail after guards abandoned their posts.
The protesters in Cairo, joined by hundreds of judges, had gathered earlier in Tahrir Square in the afternoon to demand the resignation of Mubarak.
Al Jazeera's correspondent, reporting from the scene, said that demonstrators confronted a fire truck, at which point army troops fired into the air in a bid to disperse them.
He said the protesters did not move back, and a tank commander then ordered the fire truck to leave. When the truck moved away from the square, the thousands of protesters erupted into applause and climbed onto the tank in celebration, hugging soldiers.
Main roads in Cairo have been blocked by military tanks and armoured personnel carriers, and large numbers of army personnel have been seen in other cities as well.
Our correspondent said that extra military roadblocks had been set up in an apparent attempt to divert traffic away from Tahrir Square, which has become a focal point for demonstrators.
"It's still a very tense scene to have so much military in the capital city of the country."
==================
Al Jazeera Net VOICES FROM THE BOTTOM
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/01/201112920129971160.html
Power To The People!• It doesn't have to be the "Animal Farm: scenario. It is true that just because one dictator is thrown out doesn't mean that another won't emerge. History has many examples of popular revolutions being hijacked,
Be positive. A revolution in Egypt is an earth shattering development and if other people in other countries are inspired to revolt this is a good thing. It is not ignorance to be excited for people in other parts of the world struggling for freedom. What is happening in the Middle East right now is something special and rare. A mass awakening of populations in multiple countries all at the same time is a once in a lifetime event. The implications of what this could spark is profound. It is foolish doom and gloom nonsense to ignore that.
Naive? Probably. It is probably naive to believe that a few weeks of protests and removal of a couple of dictators is going to bring peace and happiness to everyone. A Middle East that is actually democratic and truly representative of the wishes of its people poses a serious problem to Israeli and American interests. Therefore they will expend unlimited resources to ensure that nothing impedes Americas ability to plunder oil and impose our economic doctrines (because they seem to work so well!) on unwilling populations. And it is absolutely unacceptable in every form of the word from the perspective of the American establishment to allow anything that attempts to thwart Israel's brutal colonization of the Palestinians. Even a democratic conclusion in Egypt won't stop constant efforts from the west to undermine that success.
That is why as we speak I'm sure many phone calls and millions of dollars are being spent to try to manipulate the revolutions (primarily Egypt) to ensure that somebody suitable to the US is in transition. The Egyptian people must beware of the forces that are trying to manipulate them and their revolution and steering their triumphant moment into an opportunity to establish a new tyranny. It would be seriously disappointing, especially after they have come this far. If they can resist that then real democracy has potential to emerge.
The world is ran by bad people in just about every country and it is important to let them know that we can kick them out from time. If we just accepted this self defeating attitude that getting rid of this dictator or that dictator is pointless just because he will be replaced by someone just as bad then we would just allow every dictator to treat all their people like animals with no recourse. Humanity would progress much slower that way.
So even if you are right Progman 23 and we are all permanently screwed because the whole world is so entrenched in the global economic system that is controlled by a bunch of wealthy bankers that no one votes for so it really doesn't matter who runs what country because in the end they can only act generously in a way pleases global capital, don't be so disgruntled. While we are all excited at the implications of revolution, you should at least be happy that the hard working people in those countries are taking a well deserved break from their oppression.
FreedomLover4Ever .. reply to Power To The People!
• "A Middle East that is actually democratic and truly representative of the wishes of its people poses a serious problem to Israeli and American interests."
That is such BS. It is the hatred of the US/Israel these dictators & extremists/terrorists impose on the good people in these regions that has kept them enslaved. It's the oldest trick in the book throughout history. Unfortunately, people like you keep screaming it. There isn't an American that I know of that doesn't stand behind the Egyptians. We are all for their freedoms and individual rights. Yes, of course, the entire world is afraid they will end up with a Muslim extremists/terrorists as their leaders, going from bad to worse, but hopefully the Egyptians are smart enough not to fall for the propaganda of people like you.
All people of the free world are for everyone in the world having their freedoms. The people who are scared to death of these people getting their freedoms and rights are the extremists/terrorists, not the free world. I think these people are finally figuring this out with all of the communications of the world we have today. Too bad for extremists like yourself.
Hopefully, all can get along, including Israel, the US, the west, and all Muslim countries and we can all fight the extremists/terrorists together.
Power To The People! reply to FreedomLover4Ever
• It is not BS to suggest that the US and Israeli establishment is completely terrified of a democratic awakening in the Middle East. Egypt's military relationship with the US and commitment to perpetuating an unacceptable status quo with Israel would potentially be under threat if real democracy was to emerge in Egypt. The interests of ordinary people in the Middle East are in direct conflict with those of the US and Israeli national security apparatus. That is not BS it is a fact. The only distinction maybe being that it is the US government and military establishment that are fearful of democracy in Egypt, not the American people. Regular Americans like you and me all want a free democratic Egypt and are inspired by the courage of the protesters.
I agree with you that not only do most of us in the US strongly support democratic revolution in Egypt, but most of the world is rooting for the demonstrators. You are correct in asserting that no one wants to be enslaved and that everyone everywhere would prefer to live in a free and democratic society. We are in agreement. However I think it is also true that this Muslim extremist nonsense has been played up way too much by the western media as a way to scare all the national security "War on Terror" fascists in America into a frenzy. But where you are dead wrong is where you lay the blame on "extremists" for trying to propagate anti-American/anti-Israeli hatred to control their populations or whatever ridiculous point you were trying to make. The extremists are the American politicians who aim to control as much oil as possible in order feed their disgusting war machine that is creating "extremists". "Extremists" that control Israel right now use illegal phosphorus bombs on innocent civilians and, deny food, water, and medicine to an impoverished people who have been brutalized under over a half century of colonization. We don't have to get into all the political instability created by both the US and Israel with all their wars and political meddling because that would require writing a book longer than the Bible. It is a fact that all of the tear gas canisters used to brutalize the Egyptian people were made in the US. There is a reason for strong anti-American and anti-Israeli in the region and it is not just the creation of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speech writers. It is US/Israel that makes their jobs easy.
It is the US/Israel who whip up the Islamic extremism hysteria to pursue their own interests. The extremists are created by their policies. By alienating whole segments of society in the form of high unemployment, lack of opportunity, and lack of access to basic services then people will start to wonder why they are having such a hard time enjoying a respectable quality of life. When those same people see their corrupt leaders whose policies create misery being backed by American money which comes with the catch of forcing these countries to "liberalize" their economies and allowing the IMF and western multi nationals to hallow out Arab economies which has the effect of creating massive wealth alongside unimaginable poverty. That money also comes in because these same tyrants support the disgusting "War on Terror" which serves the purpose of allowing these dictators to repress the anger of these unemployed people with no opportunity. Now many of these citizens are educated and understand how all of this works, therefore they hold a lot of resentment towards the US. And rightfully so.
Thankfully what is happening in Egypt right now has nothing to do with the US or Israel and neither of them have any power to stop what is happening. The people are waking up and are beginning to shake off the old order of brutal puppets and US domination of their internal affairs. There is real genuine grassroots democracy emerging and it has to do with wanting a better life, not any particular ideology religious or political. So in that regard it is too simplistic to reduce the argument to the US or Israel policy because that gives both of them too much credit.
I just say what I say because when you say, "Hopefully,we all can get along, including Israel, the US, the west, and all Muslim countries and we can all fight the extremists/terrorists together." you sound idiotic and naive. Leaders of the US and Israel are going to have to accept some new realities that they won't like and that will cause them to try to undermine peace as they always do. That is all I was trying to say in the original post that seemed to offend you. If you support US foreign policy and Israeli colonization and don't understand their role in destabilizing the region that I guess there is little more I can say to you.
====================================
SEE ALSO: The 'bin Laden' of marginalisation
The real terror eating away at the Arab world is socio-economic marginalization for the millions of educated youth who make up a large portion of the region's population.
Whose terror?
The gurus of so-called 'radicalisation' who have turned Islam into a security issue have fixed the debate, making bin Laden a timeless, single and permanent pathology of all things Muslim….
[It continues]
GO TO http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/01/201111413424337867.html
Opposition movement calls for "a million people demonstration" on Tuesday in a bid to topple president Hosni Mubarak.
Last Modified: 31 Jan 2011
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/01/20111316148317175.html
Egyptian protesters have called for a massive demonstration on Tuesday in a bid to force out president Hosni Mubarak from power.
The so-called April 6 Movement said it plans to have more than a million people on the streets of the capital Cairo, as anti-government sentiment reaches a fever pitch.
Several hundred demonstrators remained camped out in Tahrir square in central Cairo early on Monday morning, defying a curfew that has been extended by the army.
"It seems as if they are saying: 'We are here to stay. We are re-invigorating our movement and we are not going anywhere'," one of Al Jazeera's correspondents in Cairo said.
Protesters seem unfazed by Mubarak's pledge to institute economic and political reforms. Our correspondent said that people feel that such pledges "are too little, too late".
Early on Monday morning, unconfirmed reports said the police had been ordered back on the streets.
"We are expecting a statement by the minister of interior about whether the police are going to return or not," our correspondent said.
"The absence of police has given looters a free rein, forcing ordinary citizens to set up neighbourhood patrols. Many people are wondering where the police disappeared to.
There are two schools of thought as far as the police are concerned: One is that many of them decided to join the protesters. The other is that the regime was saying to the people, 'You want to protest. We'll pull back the police and you feel what anarchy feels like'," our correspondent said.
A day earlier, Mohamed ElBaradei, a leading opposition figure, joined thousands of protesters in Tahrir Square.
The former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency told the crowd on Sunday night that "what we have begun cannot go back" referring to days of anti-government protests.
The National Coalition for Change, which groups several opposition movements including the Muslim Brotherhood, wants ElBaradei to negotiate with the Mubarak government.
"The people want the regime to fall," protesters chanted as ElBaradei walked to the centre of the square, holding hands with some demonstrators.
Jail breaks
The show of continued defiance by the people came on a day when air force fighter planes flew low over Cairo along with helicopters and extra troop lorries appeared in the central square.
As the protests continue, security is said to be deteriorating and reports have emerged of several prisons across the country being attacked and of fresh protests being staged in cities like Alexandria and Suez.
Thirty-four leaders from the Muslim Brotherhood were freed from the Wadi Natroun jail after guards abandoned their posts.
The protesters in Cairo, joined by hundreds of judges, had gathered earlier in Tahrir Square in the afternoon to demand the resignation of Mubarak.
Al Jazeera's correspondent, reporting from the scene, said that demonstrators confronted a fire truck, at which point army troops fired into the air in a bid to disperse them.
He said the protesters did not move back, and a tank commander then ordered the fire truck to leave. When the truck moved away from the square, the thousands of protesters erupted into applause and climbed onto the tank in celebration, hugging soldiers.
Main roads in Cairo have been blocked by military tanks and armoured personnel carriers, and large numbers of army personnel have been seen in other cities as well.
Our correspondent said that extra military roadblocks had been set up in an apparent attempt to divert traffic away from Tahrir Square, which has become a focal point for demonstrators.
"It's still a very tense scene to have so much military in the capital city of the country."
==================
Al Jazeera Net VOICES FROM THE BOTTOM
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/01/201112920129971160.html
Power To The People!• It doesn't have to be the "Animal Farm: scenario. It is true that just because one dictator is thrown out doesn't mean that another won't emerge. History has many examples of popular revolutions being hijacked,
Be positive. A revolution in Egypt is an earth shattering development and if other people in other countries are inspired to revolt this is a good thing. It is not ignorance to be excited for people in other parts of the world struggling for freedom. What is happening in the Middle East right now is something special and rare. A mass awakening of populations in multiple countries all at the same time is a once in a lifetime event. The implications of what this could spark is profound. It is foolish doom and gloom nonsense to ignore that.
Naive? Probably. It is probably naive to believe that a few weeks of protests and removal of a couple of dictators is going to bring peace and happiness to everyone. A Middle East that is actually democratic and truly representative of the wishes of its people poses a serious problem to Israeli and American interests. Therefore they will expend unlimited resources to ensure that nothing impedes Americas ability to plunder oil and impose our economic doctrines (because they seem to work so well!) on unwilling populations. And it is absolutely unacceptable in every form of the word from the perspective of the American establishment to allow anything that attempts to thwart Israel's brutal colonization of the Palestinians. Even a democratic conclusion in Egypt won't stop constant efforts from the west to undermine that success.
That is why as we speak I'm sure many phone calls and millions of dollars are being spent to try to manipulate the revolutions (primarily Egypt) to ensure that somebody suitable to the US is in transition. The Egyptian people must beware of the forces that are trying to manipulate them and their revolution and steering their triumphant moment into an opportunity to establish a new tyranny. It would be seriously disappointing, especially after they have come this far. If they can resist that then real democracy has potential to emerge.
The world is ran by bad people in just about every country and it is important to let them know that we can kick them out from time. If we just accepted this self defeating attitude that getting rid of this dictator or that dictator is pointless just because he will be replaced by someone just as bad then we would just allow every dictator to treat all their people like animals with no recourse. Humanity would progress much slower that way.
So even if you are right Progman 23 and we are all permanently screwed because the whole world is so entrenched in the global economic system that is controlled by a bunch of wealthy bankers that no one votes for so it really doesn't matter who runs what country because in the end they can only act generously in a way pleases global capital, don't be so disgruntled. While we are all excited at the implications of revolution, you should at least be happy that the hard working people in those countries are taking a well deserved break from their oppression.
FreedomLover4Ever .. reply to Power To The People!
• "A Middle East that is actually democratic and truly representative of the wishes of its people poses a serious problem to Israeli and American interests."
That is such BS. It is the hatred of the US/Israel these dictators & extremists/terrorists impose on the good people in these regions that has kept them enslaved. It's the oldest trick in the book throughout history. Unfortunately, people like you keep screaming it. There isn't an American that I know of that doesn't stand behind the Egyptians. We are all for their freedoms and individual rights. Yes, of course, the entire world is afraid they will end up with a Muslim extremists/terrorists as their leaders, going from bad to worse, but hopefully the Egyptians are smart enough not to fall for the propaganda of people like you.
All people of the free world are for everyone in the world having their freedoms. The people who are scared to death of these people getting their freedoms and rights are the extremists/terrorists, not the free world. I think these people are finally figuring this out with all of the communications of the world we have today. Too bad for extremists like yourself.
Hopefully, all can get along, including Israel, the US, the west, and all Muslim countries and we can all fight the extremists/terrorists together.
Power To The People! reply to FreedomLover4Ever
• It is not BS to suggest that the US and Israeli establishment is completely terrified of a democratic awakening in the Middle East. Egypt's military relationship with the US and commitment to perpetuating an unacceptable status quo with Israel would potentially be under threat if real democracy was to emerge in Egypt. The interests of ordinary people in the Middle East are in direct conflict with those of the US and Israeli national security apparatus. That is not BS it is a fact. The only distinction maybe being that it is the US government and military establishment that are fearful of democracy in Egypt, not the American people. Regular Americans like you and me all want a free democratic Egypt and are inspired by the courage of the protesters.
I agree with you that not only do most of us in the US strongly support democratic revolution in Egypt, but most of the world is rooting for the demonstrators. You are correct in asserting that no one wants to be enslaved and that everyone everywhere would prefer to live in a free and democratic society. We are in agreement. However I think it is also true that this Muslim extremist nonsense has been played up way too much by the western media as a way to scare all the national security "War on Terror" fascists in America into a frenzy. But where you are dead wrong is where you lay the blame on "extremists" for trying to propagate anti-American/anti-Israeli hatred to control their populations or whatever ridiculous point you were trying to make. The extremists are the American politicians who aim to control as much oil as possible in order feed their disgusting war machine that is creating "extremists". "Extremists" that control Israel right now use illegal phosphorus bombs on innocent civilians and, deny food, water, and medicine to an impoverished people who have been brutalized under over a half century of colonization. We don't have to get into all the political instability created by both the US and Israel with all their wars and political meddling because that would require writing a book longer than the Bible. It is a fact that all of the tear gas canisters used to brutalize the Egyptian people were made in the US. There is a reason for strong anti-American and anti-Israeli in the region and it is not just the creation of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speech writers. It is US/Israel that makes their jobs easy.
It is the US/Israel who whip up the Islamic extremism hysteria to pursue their own interests. The extremists are created by their policies. By alienating whole segments of society in the form of high unemployment, lack of opportunity, and lack of access to basic services then people will start to wonder why they are having such a hard time enjoying a respectable quality of life. When those same people see their corrupt leaders whose policies create misery being backed by American money which comes with the catch of forcing these countries to "liberalize" their economies and allowing the IMF and western multi nationals to hallow out Arab economies which has the effect of creating massive wealth alongside unimaginable poverty. That money also comes in because these same tyrants support the disgusting "War on Terror" which serves the purpose of allowing these dictators to repress the anger of these unemployed people with no opportunity. Now many of these citizens are educated and understand how all of this works, therefore they hold a lot of resentment towards the US. And rightfully so.
Thankfully what is happening in Egypt right now has nothing to do with the US or Israel and neither of them have any power to stop what is happening. The people are waking up and are beginning to shake off the old order of brutal puppets and US domination of their internal affairs. There is real genuine grassroots democracy emerging and it has to do with wanting a better life, not any particular ideology religious or political. So in that regard it is too simplistic to reduce the argument to the US or Israel policy because that gives both of them too much credit.
I just say what I say because when you say, "Hopefully,we all can get along, including Israel, the US, the west, and all Muslim countries and we can all fight the extremists/terrorists together." you sound idiotic and naive. Leaders of the US and Israel are going to have to accept some new realities that they won't like and that will cause them to try to undermine peace as they always do. That is all I was trying to say in the original post that seemed to offend you. If you support US foreign policy and Israeli colonization and don't understand their role in destabilizing the region that I guess there is little more I can say to you.
====================================
SEE ALSO: The 'bin Laden' of marginalisation
The real terror eating away at the Arab world is socio-economic marginalization for the millions of educated youth who make up a large portion of the region's population.
Whose terror?
The gurus of so-called 'radicalisation' who have turned Islam into a security issue have fixed the debate, making bin Laden a timeless, single and permanent pathology of all things Muslim….
[It continues]
GO TO http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/01/201111413424337867.html
domingo, 30 de enero de 2011
MANIPULATED REVOLUTIONS? WHAT ABOUT SAUDI ARABIA?
FALL OF SAUDI ARABIA TO END DOLLAR RESERVE SYSTEM?
http://futurefastforward.com/images/stories/financial/FallOfSaudiArabiaToEndDollarReserveSystem.pdf
There is a social media revolution in Saudi Arabia ... Ten million Saudis are online, 3 million belong to Facebook, and Twitter feeds are up more than 400 percent. Recently, many tweets and posts have been focused on the uprising in Tunisia. In fact, Saudi's social media activists spread videos and news updates at the peak of the street protests — and the interest has stayed high ever since. And, now, Saudi bloggers have added the unrest in Cairo to the topics receiving much attention. Will the Saudi government clamp down on this free-wheeling speech after Tunisia's social media movement helped to bring down a government? It's one of the big questions ahead for Saudi Arabia. How this authoritarian regime will live with the freedom and chaos that the Internet represents. ... The Internet poses a challenge for this conservative, mostly religious society. – National Public Radio
By Staff Report – The Daily Bell
DOMINANT SOCIAL THEME: the Jasmine revolution spread unexpectedly.
FREE MARKET ANALYSIS:
The civil unrest in Egypt is growing fiercer. Electronic communications have been shut down throughout Egypt and massive demonstrations have been planned for today. A changing of the guard in Egypt would be a massive political shift indeed, but what if the disturbances don't stop there?
What if they ultimately spread to Saudi Arabia and end up bringing down the dollar reserve system?
We suggest this possibility because we believe there are larger forces at work in the Middle East. Could it be that the power elite itself is inciting these disturbances? Is the idea, eventually, to crash the dollar and set up a global currency in its place?
The dollar reserve system is propped up by Saudi Arabia's willingness to restrict the purchase of oil to dollars, a system that has been in place since US President Richard Nixon abrogated what remained of the gold standard in 1971. But the PE is notoriously unsentimental. The Saudi elite has grown enormously wealthy from
its relationship with the US and now, perhaps, for the good of a new world order, it is time for them to go.
Sure it's a tenuous hypothesis; but we are merely attempting a logical extrapolation, trying out different scenarios. We don't put anything past the power elite anymore. Not since it occurred to us that the NASA moon landings might have been faked; not since we discovered the CIA carried out operations to foment communist radicalism in Europe via Operation Gladio 40 years ago; or that through Project Mockingbird, the CIA enlisted the help of America's major media to propagate Cold War paranoia. The goal is always world domination by a tiny, Anglo-American elite. In a previous article, we wrote the following:
We've already reported suspicions that the Tunisia unrest was likely aided by CIA; we've suggested that the idea is to construct a Muslim enemy that the West can generally agitate against. One hundred Al Qaeda in Afghanistan are not doing the trick. The Pentagon's budget is in danger of being cut – and hard. A more formidable enemy is called for. And now the Middle East is ablaze.
We believed that in Tunisia, sooner or later there would be a militant Muslim outpouring even if Tunisia is generally secular. No sooner had we suggested this, then there were reports that the Tunisian Islamic leader Rachid Ghannouchi was prepared to return home from Britain where he had lived for 20 years. "He is preparing to revive his Islamic party formally, even though he denies any political ambitions himself," we wrote. You can see it here:
www.thedailybell.com/1711/As-Predicted-Tunisian-Islamists-Emerge.html
MANIPULATED REVOLUTIONS?
In this article, we'll examine the unrest and how it may aid the Western power elites in their quest for ever-closer global governance. We have already hypothesized that these manipulated revolutions (if they are fully realized) will give rise to Islamic states. Now we will further explore the idea that the West is hoping to install a variety of "democratic" regimes – many of them perhaps "national unity governments," with Islamic overtones. These overthrows might accomplish numerous purposes, including the furtherance of elite globalism.
The power elite has always had an affection for national unity governments and there is one in Britain today. In America, on and off, there is much chatter about Democratic and Republican unity. The idea is that by reasoning together, opponents can build better and more efficient governments – that do more things for more people. Thus, we can argue that the national unity governments being discussed in the Middle East (and implemented in Tunisia) may be meant to serve as a template for other countries as dictators are inevitably deposed.
As a blog dedicated to analyzing the elite's dominant social themes, we understand that almost every promotion is likely related to another. Thus the global warming fraud was supposed to kick off a food and water shortage. In fact,
these scarcity promotions are underway, but since the global warming meme has all-but-collapsed, nothing is really supporting them. This is the power of the Internet; its truth telling is wreaking havoc with elite story-telling. It is hard to build a one-world government when each of your fear-based promotions comes under intense scrutiny and exposure.
What's going on in the Middle Eastern is a mélange of elite promotions. The one that stands out the most is WikiLeaks. There was a determined effort to place WikiLeaks at the front of the Tunisian unrest by claiming that its exposure of strongman Ben Ali's corruption had pushed the Tunisians to rebel. Not only is this a patronizing perspective, it is one that has been rebutted in various places on the ‘Net. The Tunisian revolution may have been encouraged by Western intel, but Tunisians needed no outside information to explain the corruption of their country to them.
The WikiLeaks sub dominant theme seems to have been dropped. But the Jasmine revolution is spreading. The website Popdecoy sums it up for us as follows: "The protests in Tunisia that led to toppling of President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali have inspired demonstrators from Morocco to Yemen. The Tunisian who tipped events off, Bouazizi, was an unemployed university graduate who doused himself with petrol and set himself alight in the city of Sidi Bouzid on December 17. He was protesting official harassment of his street-side produce business, but his act quickly came to symbolize government abuse and the absence of economic opportunity. Thereafter, clashes broke out in Algeria [and many other countries]."
It's uncanny how Western powers first predicted the unrest; and it's surprising how they seemingly abetted it. Way back on January 12, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton finished a four-nation tour of the Middle East and then gave a "rousing speech" in Doha. The New York Post reported she told Arab leaders that they "can expect to face growing unrest, extremism and even rebellion if they fail to quickly address depleting oil and water reserves and to enact real economic and political reform."
At the Forum for the Future Conference in Doha, Qatar's capital, Clinton pointed out that many Middle East regimes were "sinking in the sand" and that change was absolutely necessary. "The new and dynamic Middle East needs firmer ground if it is to take root and grow everywhere." She also asserted, the Post noted, that economic and political space must be made for the Arab world's women, minorities and exploding youth population.
A few days later, protests struck Tunisia and Ben Ali fled to Britain. A national unity government came together suddenly and various concrete steps were taken to install "real" democracy in Tunisia. As part of the evolution of this process, the Tunisian army has kept the peace but not interfered with politics.
The police have been progressively less aggressive, to the point of taking the side of the protestors in some cases.
This would seem to suit the West; in fact Western leaders have ever-more emphatically been warning established Middle East leaders that they ought not to merely suppress protest but should tolerate them and even seek to accommodate the goals stated by protestors. This was Hillary Clinton's point, but it is not hers alone.
According to CBC news, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper discussed the protests in the Middle East with Moroccan Prime Minister Abbas el Fassi in Rabat, Morocco, on Wednesday and "offered support on Thursday for democratic protests taking place in the Middle East." Harper added, "We want to see democratic development in [Egypt] as well. We're very supportive of that ... We support the democratic development that is taking place there and obviously want to see that proceed positively," Harper said. Harper also stressed that members of the former regime of Ben Ali are not welcome in Canada.
Britain chimed in too. In an article entitled, "Britain Foreign Secretary Calls for Reform in Middle East" the BBC reported that Foreign Secretary William Hague urged the Egyptian government "to move towards political reform in order to calm growing unrest." In an interview on Thursday, British Foreign Secretary William Hague said the Egyptian government should heed demands for change. "I do think that it is important in this situation to respond positively to legitimate demands for reform, to move towards openness and transparency and greater political freedom and that would be my advice to Egyptian leaders and to many others around the Arab world."
Ah, there's that word again ... "Transparency." We've identified it as a special word that seems to have unusual Import. Julian Assange of WikiLeaks is interested in a more transparent world – and especially more transparency in government. So is William Hague. And doubtless Hillary Clinton. You can read the articles on transparency here:
http://www.thedailybell.com/1627/New-Elite-Gambit-Features-Transparency.html
http://www.thedailybell.com/1636/Transparency-Meme-Expands.html
All these revolutions coming at once are almost too good to be true.
And perhaps they are. There is some violence – especially in Egypt – but it seems like the dictator has forgotten how to be merciless. (Or at least has taken some time to work himself up to a fever pitch.) Are these regimes being pressured? Is it possible after 30 years that the West wants to make a clean sweep of its puppet states in the Middle East?
All this is speculation. We are meme watchers not mind readers and Egypt and other countries in the Middle East may or may not topple old regimes. But we do keep in mind the goals of the Western power elite and try to analyze their influences and promotions around the world. It is not merely a hypothetical exercise. The Egyptian stock market is down sharply and one may make profitable investments by betting on either the current regime's survival or its disappearance.
CONCLUSION:
If the revolution reaches all the way to Saudi Arabia – and if this is the elite's intention (to blow up the price of oil while fatally wounding the dollar) – then heaven-help the world's commodity prices. Isolate the memes of the elite within a free-market context, determine the potential for success or failure and then make corresponding, judicious bets. As always we recommend (to your attention) gold and silver.
A DAY TO REMEMBER: JANUARY 28
Egyptian evening update/January 28, 2011 ... Aljazeera reports ... Demonstrations spontaneous, ongoing: The new service Aljazeera has reportedly been attacked by Egyptian security forces, but reporters are broadcasting live nonetheless via satellite phone. Egyptian President Hosni Murbarak is scheduled to address the nation and may explain why he has attempted to suppress the protests and how he intends to address the national discontent. A curfew has been imposed but is not been fully obeyed. Egyptian security forces have temporarily ceded control of the center of Cairo to protestors. The military has been called in and tanks and troops are taking up positions in place of the police in cities. Police stations have been set ablaze. The "iconic" headquarters of the Mubarak's Ruling National Democratic Building is reportedly on fire. Very loud explosions (artillery?) are being heard in the center of Cairo near the "critical" Ministery of Interior. Fires burn brightly.
The protestors chants do not diminish. Massive black smoke. Fires under a bridge. "A frightening situation ... People have overcome their fear. The protestors are determined. They have looked down water cannons and the police. Now they face the military." Commentator and founder of two of Egypt's opposition parties: "Murbarak must step down and Egypt must have a new constitution. The regime has a thick skin and has turned to the Egyptian people into a fossil. Now credible opposition figures have joined forces with the people. We will see the regime stepping down and standing trial." Many continue to ignore the curfew. Military is out in force. A protestor has been killed. Protestors unmoved and will continue to remain until Murabak resigns and leaves the country. Another political commentator: "Much more volatile situation than expected. A rainbown coalition has formed on the streets. Unprecedented. A very, very serious coalition. We might be witnessing the beginning of the end, particular if the protests continue in the next few days." The Egyptian regime has decided to crack down but the protestors are determined and entrenched.
The barrier of fear has fallen but the military is key. They are watching carefully." Hundreds of protestors stop amidst smoke and gunfire and bow down in the last prayer of the evening. Police reappear. Tear gas fired. Protestors shout "God is great." Cannisters are tossed back at police. "Is there a risk of a vacuum?" Commentator: This is the beginning of the end and the military may be considering plans for a transitional government. An extraordinary day. A day of rage. The curfew has been rejected and ignored. Major defeat for the Mubarak security regime. With the introduction of the military, the situation has passed beyond Murabark's control."
"Where Egypt goes the rest of the Middle East will follow."
http://futurefastforward.com/images/stories/financial/FallOfSaudiArabiaToEndDollarReserveSystem.pdf
There is a social media revolution in Saudi Arabia ... Ten million Saudis are online, 3 million belong to Facebook, and Twitter feeds are up more than 400 percent. Recently, many tweets and posts have been focused on the uprising in Tunisia. In fact, Saudi's social media activists spread videos and news updates at the peak of the street protests — and the interest has stayed high ever since. And, now, Saudi bloggers have added the unrest in Cairo to the topics receiving much attention. Will the Saudi government clamp down on this free-wheeling speech after Tunisia's social media movement helped to bring down a government? It's one of the big questions ahead for Saudi Arabia. How this authoritarian regime will live with the freedom and chaos that the Internet represents. ... The Internet poses a challenge for this conservative, mostly religious society. – National Public Radio
By Staff Report – The Daily Bell
DOMINANT SOCIAL THEME: the Jasmine revolution spread unexpectedly.
FREE MARKET ANALYSIS:
The civil unrest in Egypt is growing fiercer. Electronic communications have been shut down throughout Egypt and massive demonstrations have been planned for today. A changing of the guard in Egypt would be a massive political shift indeed, but what if the disturbances don't stop there?
What if they ultimately spread to Saudi Arabia and end up bringing down the dollar reserve system?
We suggest this possibility because we believe there are larger forces at work in the Middle East. Could it be that the power elite itself is inciting these disturbances? Is the idea, eventually, to crash the dollar and set up a global currency in its place?
The dollar reserve system is propped up by Saudi Arabia's willingness to restrict the purchase of oil to dollars, a system that has been in place since US President Richard Nixon abrogated what remained of the gold standard in 1971. But the PE is notoriously unsentimental. The Saudi elite has grown enormously wealthy from
its relationship with the US and now, perhaps, for the good of a new world order, it is time for them to go.
Sure it's a tenuous hypothesis; but we are merely attempting a logical extrapolation, trying out different scenarios. We don't put anything past the power elite anymore. Not since it occurred to us that the NASA moon landings might have been faked; not since we discovered the CIA carried out operations to foment communist radicalism in Europe via Operation Gladio 40 years ago; or that through Project Mockingbird, the CIA enlisted the help of America's major media to propagate Cold War paranoia. The goal is always world domination by a tiny, Anglo-American elite. In a previous article, we wrote the following:
We've already reported suspicions that the Tunisia unrest was likely aided by CIA; we've suggested that the idea is to construct a Muslim enemy that the West can generally agitate against. One hundred Al Qaeda in Afghanistan are not doing the trick. The Pentagon's budget is in danger of being cut – and hard. A more formidable enemy is called for. And now the Middle East is ablaze.
We believed that in Tunisia, sooner or later there would be a militant Muslim outpouring even if Tunisia is generally secular. No sooner had we suggested this, then there were reports that the Tunisian Islamic leader Rachid Ghannouchi was prepared to return home from Britain where he had lived for 20 years. "He is preparing to revive his Islamic party formally, even though he denies any political ambitions himself," we wrote. You can see it here:
www.thedailybell.com/1711/As-Predicted-Tunisian-Islamists-Emerge.html
MANIPULATED REVOLUTIONS?
In this article, we'll examine the unrest and how it may aid the Western power elites in their quest for ever-closer global governance. We have already hypothesized that these manipulated revolutions (if they are fully realized) will give rise to Islamic states. Now we will further explore the idea that the West is hoping to install a variety of "democratic" regimes – many of them perhaps "national unity governments," with Islamic overtones. These overthrows might accomplish numerous purposes, including the furtherance of elite globalism.
The power elite has always had an affection for national unity governments and there is one in Britain today. In America, on and off, there is much chatter about Democratic and Republican unity. The idea is that by reasoning together, opponents can build better and more efficient governments – that do more things for more people. Thus, we can argue that the national unity governments being discussed in the Middle East (and implemented in Tunisia) may be meant to serve as a template for other countries as dictators are inevitably deposed.
As a blog dedicated to analyzing the elite's dominant social themes, we understand that almost every promotion is likely related to another. Thus the global warming fraud was supposed to kick off a food and water shortage. In fact,
these scarcity promotions are underway, but since the global warming meme has all-but-collapsed, nothing is really supporting them. This is the power of the Internet; its truth telling is wreaking havoc with elite story-telling. It is hard to build a one-world government when each of your fear-based promotions comes under intense scrutiny and exposure.
What's going on in the Middle Eastern is a mélange of elite promotions. The one that stands out the most is WikiLeaks. There was a determined effort to place WikiLeaks at the front of the Tunisian unrest by claiming that its exposure of strongman Ben Ali's corruption had pushed the Tunisians to rebel. Not only is this a patronizing perspective, it is one that has been rebutted in various places on the ‘Net. The Tunisian revolution may have been encouraged by Western intel, but Tunisians needed no outside information to explain the corruption of their country to them.
The WikiLeaks sub dominant theme seems to have been dropped. But the Jasmine revolution is spreading. The website Popdecoy sums it up for us as follows: "The protests in Tunisia that led to toppling of President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali have inspired demonstrators from Morocco to Yemen. The Tunisian who tipped events off, Bouazizi, was an unemployed university graduate who doused himself with petrol and set himself alight in the city of Sidi Bouzid on December 17. He was protesting official harassment of his street-side produce business, but his act quickly came to symbolize government abuse and the absence of economic opportunity. Thereafter, clashes broke out in Algeria [and many other countries]."
It's uncanny how Western powers first predicted the unrest; and it's surprising how they seemingly abetted it. Way back on January 12, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton finished a four-nation tour of the Middle East and then gave a "rousing speech" in Doha. The New York Post reported she told Arab leaders that they "can expect to face growing unrest, extremism and even rebellion if they fail to quickly address depleting oil and water reserves and to enact real economic and political reform."
At the Forum for the Future Conference in Doha, Qatar's capital, Clinton pointed out that many Middle East regimes were "sinking in the sand" and that change was absolutely necessary. "The new and dynamic Middle East needs firmer ground if it is to take root and grow everywhere." She also asserted, the Post noted, that economic and political space must be made for the Arab world's women, minorities and exploding youth population.
A few days later, protests struck Tunisia and Ben Ali fled to Britain. A national unity government came together suddenly and various concrete steps were taken to install "real" democracy in Tunisia. As part of the evolution of this process, the Tunisian army has kept the peace but not interfered with politics.
The police have been progressively less aggressive, to the point of taking the side of the protestors in some cases.
This would seem to suit the West; in fact Western leaders have ever-more emphatically been warning established Middle East leaders that they ought not to merely suppress protest but should tolerate them and even seek to accommodate the goals stated by protestors. This was Hillary Clinton's point, but it is not hers alone.
According to CBC news, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper discussed the protests in the Middle East with Moroccan Prime Minister Abbas el Fassi in Rabat, Morocco, on Wednesday and "offered support on Thursday for democratic protests taking place in the Middle East." Harper added, "We want to see democratic development in [Egypt] as well. We're very supportive of that ... We support the democratic development that is taking place there and obviously want to see that proceed positively," Harper said. Harper also stressed that members of the former regime of Ben Ali are not welcome in Canada.
Britain chimed in too. In an article entitled, "Britain Foreign Secretary Calls for Reform in Middle East" the BBC reported that Foreign Secretary William Hague urged the Egyptian government "to move towards political reform in order to calm growing unrest." In an interview on Thursday, British Foreign Secretary William Hague said the Egyptian government should heed demands for change. "I do think that it is important in this situation to respond positively to legitimate demands for reform, to move towards openness and transparency and greater political freedom and that would be my advice to Egyptian leaders and to many others around the Arab world."
Ah, there's that word again ... "Transparency." We've identified it as a special word that seems to have unusual Import. Julian Assange of WikiLeaks is interested in a more transparent world – and especially more transparency in government. So is William Hague. And doubtless Hillary Clinton. You can read the articles on transparency here:
http://www.thedailybell.com/1627/New-Elite-Gambit-Features-Transparency.html
http://www.thedailybell.com/1636/Transparency-Meme-Expands.html
All these revolutions coming at once are almost too good to be true.
And perhaps they are. There is some violence – especially in Egypt – but it seems like the dictator has forgotten how to be merciless. (Or at least has taken some time to work himself up to a fever pitch.) Are these regimes being pressured? Is it possible after 30 years that the West wants to make a clean sweep of its puppet states in the Middle East?
All this is speculation. We are meme watchers not mind readers and Egypt and other countries in the Middle East may or may not topple old regimes. But we do keep in mind the goals of the Western power elite and try to analyze their influences and promotions around the world. It is not merely a hypothetical exercise. The Egyptian stock market is down sharply and one may make profitable investments by betting on either the current regime's survival or its disappearance.
CONCLUSION:
If the revolution reaches all the way to Saudi Arabia – and if this is the elite's intention (to blow up the price of oil while fatally wounding the dollar) – then heaven-help the world's commodity prices. Isolate the memes of the elite within a free-market context, determine the potential for success or failure and then make corresponding, judicious bets. As always we recommend (to your attention) gold and silver.
A DAY TO REMEMBER: JANUARY 28
Egyptian evening update/January 28, 2011 ... Aljazeera reports ... Demonstrations spontaneous, ongoing: The new service Aljazeera has reportedly been attacked by Egyptian security forces, but reporters are broadcasting live nonetheless via satellite phone. Egyptian President Hosni Murbarak is scheduled to address the nation and may explain why he has attempted to suppress the protests and how he intends to address the national discontent. A curfew has been imposed but is not been fully obeyed. Egyptian security forces have temporarily ceded control of the center of Cairo to protestors. The military has been called in and tanks and troops are taking up positions in place of the police in cities. Police stations have been set ablaze. The "iconic" headquarters of the Mubarak's Ruling National Democratic Building is reportedly on fire. Very loud explosions (artillery?) are being heard in the center of Cairo near the "critical" Ministery of Interior. Fires burn brightly.
The protestors chants do not diminish. Massive black smoke. Fires under a bridge. "A frightening situation ... People have overcome their fear. The protestors are determined. They have looked down water cannons and the police. Now they face the military." Commentator and founder of two of Egypt's opposition parties: "Murbarak must step down and Egypt must have a new constitution. The regime has a thick skin and has turned to the Egyptian people into a fossil. Now credible opposition figures have joined forces with the people. We will see the regime stepping down and standing trial." Many continue to ignore the curfew. Military is out in force. A protestor has been killed. Protestors unmoved and will continue to remain until Murabak resigns and leaves the country. Another political commentator: "Much more volatile situation than expected. A rainbown coalition has formed on the streets. Unprecedented. A very, very serious coalition. We might be witnessing the beginning of the end, particular if the protests continue in the next few days." The Egyptian regime has decided to crack down but the protestors are determined and entrenched.
The barrier of fear has fallen but the military is key. They are watching carefully." Hundreds of protestors stop amidst smoke and gunfire and bow down in the last prayer of the evening. Police reappear. Tear gas fired. Protestors shout "God is great." Cannisters are tossed back at police. "Is there a risk of a vacuum?" Commentator: This is the beginning of the end and the military may be considering plans for a transitional government. An extraordinary day. A day of rage. The curfew has been rejected and ignored. Major defeat for the Mubarak security regime. With the introduction of the military, the situation has passed beyond Murabark's control."
"Where Egypt goes the rest of the Middle East will follow."
viernes, 28 de enero de 2011
Egypt: "Dictators" do not Dictate, They Obey Orders
The Protest Movement in Egypt: "Dictators" do not Dictate, They Obey Orders
by Michel Chossudovsky
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=22993
Global Research, January 29, 2011
The Mubarak regime could collapse in the a face of a nationwide protest movement... What prospects for Egypt and the Arab World?
"Dictators" do not dictate, they obey orders. This is true in Tunisia, Algeria and Egypt.
Dictators are invariably political puppets. Dictators do not decide.
President Hosni Mubarak was a faithful servant of Western economic interests and so was Ben Ali
The national government is the object of the protest movement. The objective is to unseat the puppet rather than the puppet-master. The slogans in Egypt are "Down with Mubarak, Down with the Regime". No anti-American posters... The overriding and destructive influence of the USA in Egypt and throughout the Middle East remains unheralded.
The foreign powers which operate behind the scenes are shielded from the protest movement.
No significant political change will occur unless the issue of foreign interference is meaningfully addressed by the protest movement.
The US embassy in Cairo is an important political entity, invariably overshadowing the national government, is not a target of the protest movement.
In Egypt, a devastating IMF program was imposed in 1991 at the height of the Gulf War. It was negotiated in exchange for the annulment of Egypt's multibillion dollar military debt to the US as well as its participation in war. The resulting deregulation of food prices, sweeping privatisation and massive austerity measures led to the impoverishment of the Egyptian population and the destabilization of its economy. Egypt was praised as a model "IMF pupil".
The role of Ben Ali's government in Tunisia was to enforce the IMF's deadly economic medicine, which over a period of more than twenty years served to destabilize the national economy and impoverish the Tunisian population. Over the last 23 years, economic and social policy in Tunisia has been dictated by the Washington Consensus.
Both Hosni Mubarak and Ben Ali stayed in power because their governments obeyed and effectively enforced the diktats of the IMF.
From Pinochet and Videla to Baby Doc, Ben Ali and Mubarak, dictators have been installed by Washington. Historically in Latin America, dictators were instated through a series of US sponsored military coups..
Today they are installed through "free and fair elections" under the surveillance of the international community.
Our message to the protest movement:
Actual decisions are taken in Washington DC, at the US State Department, at the Pentagon, at Langley, headquarters of the CIA. at H Street NW, the headquarters of the World Bank and the IMF.
The relationship of "the dictator" to foreign interests must be addressed. Unseat the political puppets but do not forget to target the "real dictators".
The protest movement should focus on the real seat of political authority; it should target the US embassy, the delegation of the European Union, the national missions of the IMF and the World Bank.
Meaningful political change can only be ensured if the neoliberal economic policy agenda is thrown out.
Regime Replacement
If the protest movement fails to address the role of foreign powers including pressures exerted by "investors", external creditors and international financial institutions, the objective of national sovereignty will not be achieved. In which case, what will occur is a narrow process of "regime replacement", which ensures political continuity.
"Dictators" are seated and unseated. When they are politically discredited and no longer serve the interests of their US sponsors, they are replaced by a new leader, often recruited from within the ranks of the political opposition.
In Tunisia, the Obama administration has already positioned itself. It intends to play a key role in the "democratization program" (i.e. the holding of so-called fair elections). It also intends to use the political crisis as a means to weaken the role of France and consolidate its position in North Africa:
"The United States, which was quick to size up the groundswell of protest on the streets of Tunisia, is trying to press its advantage to push for democratic reforms in the country and further afield.
The top-ranking US envoy for the Middle East, Jeffrey Feltman, was the first foreign official to arrive in the country after president Zine El Abidine Ben Ali was ousted on January 14 and swiftly called for reforms. He said on Tuesday only free and fair elections would strengthen and give credibility to the north African state's embattled leadership.
"I certainly expect that we'll be using the Tunisian example" in talks with other Arab governments, Assistant Secretary of State Feltman added.
He was dispatched to the north African country to offer US help in the turbulent transition of power, and met with Tunisian ministers and civil society figures.
Feltman travels to Paris on Wednesday to discuss the crisis with French leaders, boosting the impression that the US is leading international support for a new Tunisia, to the detriment of its former colonial power, France. ...
Western nations had long supported Tunisia's ousted leadership, seeing it as a bulwark against Islamic militants in the north Africa region.
In 2006, the then US defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld, speaking in Tunis, praised the country's evolution.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton nimbly stepped in with a speech in Doha on January 13 warning Arab leaders to allow their citizens greater freedoms or risk extremists exploiting the situation.
"There is no doubt that the United States is trying to position itself very quickly on the good side,..." " AFP: US helping shape outcome of Tunisian uprising emphasis added
Will Washington be successful in instating a new puppet regime?
This very much depends on the ability of the protest movement to address the insidious role of the US in the country's internal affairs.
The overriding powers of empire are not mentioned. In a bitter irony, president Obama has expressed his support of the protest movement.
Many people within the protest movement are led to believe that president Obama is committed to democracy and human rights, and is supportive of the opposition's resolve to unseat a dictator, which was installed by the US in the first place.
Cooptation of Opposition Leaders
The cooptation of the leaders of major opposition parties and civil society organizations in anticipation of the collapse of an authoritarian puppet government is part of Washington's design, applied in different regions of the World. The process of cooptation is implemented and financed by US based foundations including the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and Freedom House (FH). Both FH and NED have links to the US Congress. the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), and the US business establishment. Both the NED and FH are known to have ties to the CIA.
The NED is actively involved in Tunisia, Egypt and Algeria. Freedom House supports several civil society organizations in Egypt.
"The NED was established by the Reagan administration after the CIA’s role in covertly funding efforts to overthrow foreign governments was brought to light, leading to the discrediting of the parties, movements, journals, books, newspapers and individuals that received CIA funding. ... As a bipartisan endowment, with participation from the two major parties, as well as the AFL-CIO and US Chamber of Commerce, the NED took over the financing of foreign overthrow movements, but overtly and under the rubric of “democracy promotion.” (Stephen Gowans, January « 2011 "What's left"
While the US has supported the Mubarak government for the last thirty years, US foundations with ties to the US State department and the Pentagon have actively supported the political opposition including the civil society movement. According to Freedom House: "Egyptian civil society is both vibrant and constrained. There are hundreds of non-governmental organizations devoted to expanding civil and political rights in the country, operating in a highly regulated environment." (Freedom House Press Releases).
In a bitter irony, Washington supports the Mubarak dictatorship, including its atrocities, while also backing and financing its detractors, through the activities of FH, NED, among others.
Freedom House’s effort to empower a new generation of advocates has yielded tangible results and the New Generation program in Egypt has gained prominence both locally and internationally. Egyptian visiting fellows from all civil society groups received [May 2008] unprecedented attention and recognition, including meetings in Washington with US Secretary of State, the National Security Advisor, and prominent members of Congress. In the words of Condoleezza Rice, the fellows represent the "hope for the future of Egypt."
http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=66&program=84
Political Double Talk: Chatting with "Dictators", Mingling with "Dissidents"
Under the auspices of Freedom House, Egyptian dissidents and opponents of Hosni Mubarak were received in May 2008 by Condoleezza Rice at the State Department and the US Congress.
In May 2009, Hillary Clinton met a delegation of Egyptian dissidents, visiting Washington under the auspices of Freedom House. (See below). These were high level meetings. These opposition groups, which are playing an important role in the protest movement, are slated to serve US interests. America is presented as a model of Freedom and Justice. The invitation of dissidents to State Department and the US Congress purports to instil a feeling of commitment and allegiance to American democratic values.
---------------------
pictures
US Secretary of StateHillary Clinton speaks with "Egyptian activists promoting freedom and democracy, visiting
through the Freedom House organization, prior to meetings at the State Department in Washington, DC, May 28, 2009".
[Compare the two pictures 2008 delegation received by Condoleezza Rice, 2009 delegation meets Hillary Clinton in May 2009.
---------------------
The Puppet Masters Support the Protest Movement against their own Puppets
The puppet masters support dissent against their own puppets?
Its called "political leveraging", "manufacturing dissent". Support the dictator as well as the opponents of the dictator as a means of controlling the political opposition.
These actions on the part of Freedom House and the National Endowment for Democracy, on behalf of the Bush and Obama administrations, ensure that the US funded civil society opposition will not direct their energies against the puppet masters behind the Mubarak regime, namely the US government.
These US funded civil society organizations act as a "Trojan Horse" which becomes embedded within the protest movement. They protect the interests of the puppet masters. They ensure that the grassroots protest movement will not address the broader issue of foreign interference in the affairs of sovereign states.
The Facebook Twitter Bloggers Supported and Financed by Washington
In relation to the protest movement in Egypt, several civil society groups funded by US based foundations have led the protest on Twitter and Facebook:
"Activists from Egypt's Kifaya (Enough) movement - a coalition of government opponents - and the 6th of April Youth Movement organized the protests on the Facebook and Twitter social networking websites. Western news reports said Twitter appeared to be blocked in Egypt later Tuesday." (See Voice of America, ,Egypt Rocked by Deadly Anti-Government Protests
The Kifaya movement, which organized one of first actions directed against the Mubarak regime in 2004, is supported by the US based International Center for Non-Violent Conflict which is linked up with Freedom House. In turn, Freedom House has been involved in promoting and training the Middle East North Africa Facebook and Twitter blogs:
Freedom House fellows acquired skills in civic mobilization, leadership, and strategic planning, and benefit from networking opportunities through interaction with Washington-based donors, international organizations and the media. After returning to Egypt, the fellows received small grants to implement innovative initiatives such as advocating for political reform through Facebook and SMS messaging.
http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=66&program=84 (emphasis added)
From February 27 to March 13 [2010], Freedom House hosted 11 bloggers from the Middle East and North Africa [from different civil society organizations] for a two-week Advanced New Media Study Tour in Washington, D.C. The Study Tour provided the bloggers with training in digital security, digital video making, message development and digital mapping. While in D.C., the Fellows also participated in a Senate briefing, and met with high-level officials at USAID, State [Department] and Congress as well as international media including Al-Jazeera and the Washington Post.http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=115&program=84&item=87 emphasis added
One can easily apprehend the importance attached by the US administration to this bloggers' training program, which is coupled with meetings at the US Senate, the Congress, the State Department, etc.
The role of the Facebook Twitter movement as the expression of dissent, must be carefully evaluated u the light of links of several civil society organizations to Freedom House (FH), the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the US State Department.
The Muslim Brotherhood
The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt constitutes the largest segment of the opposition to president Mubarak. According to reports, The Muslim Brotherhood dominates the protest movement.
While there is a constitutional ban against religious political parties Brotherhood members elected to Egypt's parliament as "independents" constitute the largest parliamentary block.
The Brotherhood, however, does not constitute a direct threat to Washington's economic and strategic interests in the region. Western intelligence agencies have a longstanding history of collaboration with the Brotherhood. Britain's support of the Brotherhood instrumented through the British Secret Service dates back to the 1940s. Starting in the 1950s, according to former intelligence official William Baer, "The CIA [funnelled] support to the Muslim Brotherhood because of “the Brotherhood’s commendable capability to overthrow Nasser.”1954-1970: CIA and the Muslim Brotherhood Ally to Oppose Egyptian President Nasser, These covert links to the CIA were maintained in the post-Nasser era.
Concluding Remarks
The removal of Hosni Mubarak has, for several years, been on the drawing board of US foreign policy.
Regime replacement serves to ensure continuity, while providing the illusion that meaningful political change has occurred.
Washington's agenda for Egypt has been to "hijack the protest movement" and replace president Hosni Mubarak with a new compliant puppet head of state.
Washington's objective is to sustain the interests of foreign powers, to uphold the neoliberal economic agenda which has served to impoverish the Egyptian population.
From Washington's standpoint, regime replacement no longer requires the installation of an authoritarian military regime as in the heyday of US imperialism, It can be implemented by co-opting political parties, including the Left, financing civil society groups, infiltrating the protest movement and manipulating national elections.
With reference to the protest movement in Egypt, President Obama stated in a January 28 video broadcast on Youtube: "The Government Should Not Resort to Violence".
The more fundamental question is what is the source of that violence?
Egypt is the largest recipient of US military aid after Israel. The Egyptian military is considered to be the power base of the Mubarak regime.
US policies imposed on Egypt and the Arab World for more than 20 years, coupled with "free market" reforms and the militarization of the Middle East are the root cause of State violence.
America's intent is to use the protest movement to install a new regime.
The People's Movement should redirect its energies: Identify the relationship between America and "the dictator". Unseat America's political puppet but do not forget to target the "real dictators".
Dismantle the neoliberal reforms.
Close down US military bases in Egypt and the Arab World.
Establish a truly sovereign government.
Global Research Articles by Michel Chossudovsky
by Michel Chossudovsky
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=22993
Global Research, January 29, 2011
The Mubarak regime could collapse in the a face of a nationwide protest movement... What prospects for Egypt and the Arab World?
"Dictators" do not dictate, they obey orders. This is true in Tunisia, Algeria and Egypt.
Dictators are invariably political puppets. Dictators do not decide.
President Hosni Mubarak was a faithful servant of Western economic interests and so was Ben Ali
The national government is the object of the protest movement. The objective is to unseat the puppet rather than the puppet-master. The slogans in Egypt are "Down with Mubarak, Down with the Regime". No anti-American posters... The overriding and destructive influence of the USA in Egypt and throughout the Middle East remains unheralded.
The foreign powers which operate behind the scenes are shielded from the protest movement.
No significant political change will occur unless the issue of foreign interference is meaningfully addressed by the protest movement.
The US embassy in Cairo is an important political entity, invariably overshadowing the national government, is not a target of the protest movement.
In Egypt, a devastating IMF program was imposed in 1991 at the height of the Gulf War. It was negotiated in exchange for the annulment of Egypt's multibillion dollar military debt to the US as well as its participation in war. The resulting deregulation of food prices, sweeping privatisation and massive austerity measures led to the impoverishment of the Egyptian population and the destabilization of its economy. Egypt was praised as a model "IMF pupil".
The role of Ben Ali's government in Tunisia was to enforce the IMF's deadly economic medicine, which over a period of more than twenty years served to destabilize the national economy and impoverish the Tunisian population. Over the last 23 years, economic and social policy in Tunisia has been dictated by the Washington Consensus.
Both Hosni Mubarak and Ben Ali stayed in power because their governments obeyed and effectively enforced the diktats of the IMF.
From Pinochet and Videla to Baby Doc, Ben Ali and Mubarak, dictators have been installed by Washington. Historically in Latin America, dictators were instated through a series of US sponsored military coups..
Today they are installed through "free and fair elections" under the surveillance of the international community.
Our message to the protest movement:
Actual decisions are taken in Washington DC, at the US State Department, at the Pentagon, at Langley, headquarters of the CIA. at H Street NW, the headquarters of the World Bank and the IMF.
The relationship of "the dictator" to foreign interests must be addressed. Unseat the political puppets but do not forget to target the "real dictators".
The protest movement should focus on the real seat of political authority; it should target the US embassy, the delegation of the European Union, the national missions of the IMF and the World Bank.
Meaningful political change can only be ensured if the neoliberal economic policy agenda is thrown out.
Regime Replacement
If the protest movement fails to address the role of foreign powers including pressures exerted by "investors", external creditors and international financial institutions, the objective of national sovereignty will not be achieved. In which case, what will occur is a narrow process of "regime replacement", which ensures political continuity.
"Dictators" are seated and unseated. When they are politically discredited and no longer serve the interests of their US sponsors, they are replaced by a new leader, often recruited from within the ranks of the political opposition.
In Tunisia, the Obama administration has already positioned itself. It intends to play a key role in the "democratization program" (i.e. the holding of so-called fair elections). It also intends to use the political crisis as a means to weaken the role of France and consolidate its position in North Africa:
"The United States, which was quick to size up the groundswell of protest on the streets of Tunisia, is trying to press its advantage to push for democratic reforms in the country and further afield.
The top-ranking US envoy for the Middle East, Jeffrey Feltman, was the first foreign official to arrive in the country after president Zine El Abidine Ben Ali was ousted on January 14 and swiftly called for reforms. He said on Tuesday only free and fair elections would strengthen and give credibility to the north African state's embattled leadership.
"I certainly expect that we'll be using the Tunisian example" in talks with other Arab governments, Assistant Secretary of State Feltman added.
He was dispatched to the north African country to offer US help in the turbulent transition of power, and met with Tunisian ministers and civil society figures.
Feltman travels to Paris on Wednesday to discuss the crisis with French leaders, boosting the impression that the US is leading international support for a new Tunisia, to the detriment of its former colonial power, France. ...
Western nations had long supported Tunisia's ousted leadership, seeing it as a bulwark against Islamic militants in the north Africa region.
In 2006, the then US defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld, speaking in Tunis, praised the country's evolution.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton nimbly stepped in with a speech in Doha on January 13 warning Arab leaders to allow their citizens greater freedoms or risk extremists exploiting the situation.
"There is no doubt that the United States is trying to position itself very quickly on the good side,..." " AFP: US helping shape outcome of Tunisian uprising emphasis added
Will Washington be successful in instating a new puppet regime?
This very much depends on the ability of the protest movement to address the insidious role of the US in the country's internal affairs.
The overriding powers of empire are not mentioned. In a bitter irony, president Obama has expressed his support of the protest movement.
Many people within the protest movement are led to believe that president Obama is committed to democracy and human rights, and is supportive of the opposition's resolve to unseat a dictator, which was installed by the US in the first place.
Cooptation of Opposition Leaders
The cooptation of the leaders of major opposition parties and civil society organizations in anticipation of the collapse of an authoritarian puppet government is part of Washington's design, applied in different regions of the World. The process of cooptation is implemented and financed by US based foundations including the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and Freedom House (FH). Both FH and NED have links to the US Congress. the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), and the US business establishment. Both the NED and FH are known to have ties to the CIA.
The NED is actively involved in Tunisia, Egypt and Algeria. Freedom House supports several civil society organizations in Egypt.
"The NED was established by the Reagan administration after the CIA’s role in covertly funding efforts to overthrow foreign governments was brought to light, leading to the discrediting of the parties, movements, journals, books, newspapers and individuals that received CIA funding. ... As a bipartisan endowment, with participation from the two major parties, as well as the AFL-CIO and US Chamber of Commerce, the NED took over the financing of foreign overthrow movements, but overtly and under the rubric of “democracy promotion.” (Stephen Gowans, January « 2011 "What's left"
While the US has supported the Mubarak government for the last thirty years, US foundations with ties to the US State department and the Pentagon have actively supported the political opposition including the civil society movement. According to Freedom House: "Egyptian civil society is both vibrant and constrained. There are hundreds of non-governmental organizations devoted to expanding civil and political rights in the country, operating in a highly regulated environment." (Freedom House Press Releases).
In a bitter irony, Washington supports the Mubarak dictatorship, including its atrocities, while also backing and financing its detractors, through the activities of FH, NED, among others.
Freedom House’s effort to empower a new generation of advocates has yielded tangible results and the New Generation program in Egypt has gained prominence both locally and internationally. Egyptian visiting fellows from all civil society groups received [May 2008] unprecedented attention and recognition, including meetings in Washington with US Secretary of State, the National Security Advisor, and prominent members of Congress. In the words of Condoleezza Rice, the fellows represent the "hope for the future of Egypt."
http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=66&program=84
Political Double Talk: Chatting with "Dictators", Mingling with "Dissidents"
Under the auspices of Freedom House, Egyptian dissidents and opponents of Hosni Mubarak were received in May 2008 by Condoleezza Rice at the State Department and the US Congress.
In May 2009, Hillary Clinton met a delegation of Egyptian dissidents, visiting Washington under the auspices of Freedom House. (See below). These were high level meetings. These opposition groups, which are playing an important role in the protest movement, are slated to serve US interests. America is presented as a model of Freedom and Justice. The invitation of dissidents to State Department and the US Congress purports to instil a feeling of commitment and allegiance to American democratic values.
---------------------
pictures
US Secretary of StateHillary Clinton speaks with "Egyptian activists promoting freedom and democracy, visiting
through the Freedom House organization, prior to meetings at the State Department in Washington, DC, May 28, 2009".
[Compare the two pictures 2008 delegation received by Condoleezza Rice, 2009 delegation meets Hillary Clinton in May 2009.
---------------------
The Puppet Masters Support the Protest Movement against their own Puppets
The puppet masters support dissent against their own puppets?
Its called "political leveraging", "manufacturing dissent". Support the dictator as well as the opponents of the dictator as a means of controlling the political opposition.
These actions on the part of Freedom House and the National Endowment for Democracy, on behalf of the Bush and Obama administrations, ensure that the US funded civil society opposition will not direct their energies against the puppet masters behind the Mubarak regime, namely the US government.
These US funded civil society organizations act as a "Trojan Horse" which becomes embedded within the protest movement. They protect the interests of the puppet masters. They ensure that the grassroots protest movement will not address the broader issue of foreign interference in the affairs of sovereign states.
The Facebook Twitter Bloggers Supported and Financed by Washington
In relation to the protest movement in Egypt, several civil society groups funded by US based foundations have led the protest on Twitter and Facebook:
"Activists from Egypt's Kifaya (Enough) movement - a coalition of government opponents - and the 6th of April Youth Movement organized the protests on the Facebook and Twitter social networking websites. Western news reports said Twitter appeared to be blocked in Egypt later Tuesday." (See Voice of America, ,Egypt Rocked by Deadly Anti-Government Protests
The Kifaya movement, which organized one of first actions directed against the Mubarak regime in 2004, is supported by the US based International Center for Non-Violent Conflict which is linked up with Freedom House. In turn, Freedom House has been involved in promoting and training the Middle East North Africa Facebook and Twitter blogs:
Freedom House fellows acquired skills in civic mobilization, leadership, and strategic planning, and benefit from networking opportunities through interaction with Washington-based donors, international organizations and the media. After returning to Egypt, the fellows received small grants to implement innovative initiatives such as advocating for political reform through Facebook and SMS messaging.
http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=66&program=84 (emphasis added)
From February 27 to March 13 [2010], Freedom House hosted 11 bloggers from the Middle East and North Africa [from different civil society organizations] for a two-week Advanced New Media Study Tour in Washington, D.C. The Study Tour provided the bloggers with training in digital security, digital video making, message development and digital mapping. While in D.C., the Fellows also participated in a Senate briefing, and met with high-level officials at USAID, State [Department] and Congress as well as international media including Al-Jazeera and the Washington Post.http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=115&program=84&item=87 emphasis added
One can easily apprehend the importance attached by the US administration to this bloggers' training program, which is coupled with meetings at the US Senate, the Congress, the State Department, etc.
The role of the Facebook Twitter movement as the expression of dissent, must be carefully evaluated u the light of links of several civil society organizations to Freedom House (FH), the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the US State Department.
The Muslim Brotherhood
The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt constitutes the largest segment of the opposition to president Mubarak. According to reports, The Muslim Brotherhood dominates the protest movement.
While there is a constitutional ban against religious political parties Brotherhood members elected to Egypt's parliament as "independents" constitute the largest parliamentary block.
The Brotherhood, however, does not constitute a direct threat to Washington's economic and strategic interests in the region. Western intelligence agencies have a longstanding history of collaboration with the Brotherhood. Britain's support of the Brotherhood instrumented through the British Secret Service dates back to the 1940s. Starting in the 1950s, according to former intelligence official William Baer, "The CIA [funnelled] support to the Muslim Brotherhood because of “the Brotherhood’s commendable capability to overthrow Nasser.”1954-1970: CIA and the Muslim Brotherhood Ally to Oppose Egyptian President Nasser, These covert links to the CIA were maintained in the post-Nasser era.
Concluding Remarks
The removal of Hosni Mubarak has, for several years, been on the drawing board of US foreign policy.
Regime replacement serves to ensure continuity, while providing the illusion that meaningful political change has occurred.
Washington's agenda for Egypt has been to "hijack the protest movement" and replace president Hosni Mubarak with a new compliant puppet head of state.
Washington's objective is to sustain the interests of foreign powers, to uphold the neoliberal economic agenda which has served to impoverish the Egyptian population.
From Washington's standpoint, regime replacement no longer requires the installation of an authoritarian military regime as in the heyday of US imperialism, It can be implemented by co-opting political parties, including the Left, financing civil society groups, infiltrating the protest movement and manipulating national elections.
With reference to the protest movement in Egypt, President Obama stated in a January 28 video broadcast on Youtube: "The Government Should Not Resort to Violence".
The more fundamental question is what is the source of that violence?
Egypt is the largest recipient of US military aid after Israel. The Egyptian military is considered to be the power base of the Mubarak regime.
US policies imposed on Egypt and the Arab World for more than 20 years, coupled with "free market" reforms and the militarization of the Middle East are the root cause of State violence.
America's intent is to use the protest movement to install a new regime.
The People's Movement should redirect its energies: Identify the relationship between America and "the dictator". Unseat America's political puppet but do not forget to target the "real dictators".
Dismantle the neoliberal reforms.
Close down US military bases in Egypt and the Arab World.
Establish a truly sovereign government.
Global Research Articles by Michel Chossudovsky
EGIPT PUPPET DICTATOR ABOUT TO BE REMOVED
EGIPT ONE OF THE MOST EXPENSIVE ALLY DICTATOR ABOUT TO BE REMOVED HAZ, January 28 (9PM)
“Since the US provides about $1.3 billion in military aid to Egypt a year, the repressive apparatus of the state is seen by many in Egypt as hand in glove with the US.” VP Biden http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Backchannels/2011/0127/Joe-Biden-says-Egypt-s-Mubarak-no-dictator-he-shouldn-t-step-down
Before Obama statement to the nation on Egypt this evening (7pm) in which he demanded from Mubarak full respect of the right of free pacific assembly, press and expression, (without mentioning explicit support to his remaining in power, though Obama made clear that Mubarack will be removed if the media show evidence of the slaughter.) the Sec of State Mrs Clinton -since the riot start- was demanding the army to take control of the streets, shut down the internet and restore order. (MSNBC , CNN and Fox News showed these statements before 7pm in which Obama spoke). The army in fact did it, they took control of the streets but in their own way: with tanks exhibing the Egipcian flag and soldier saying "Hosni is out", so the population clapped and joing the army parade. (MSNBC showed images of this show). ANOTHER NATIONALIST COUP D ETAT IN EGIPT? Nobody knows it.
Obama concern for HR could be read in 2 ways: a) Mubarack already exeded in his uses of force against demonstrators, SO is going to be removed , the US will avoid be consider as accomplice in the massacre, and avoid the big arab-muslim forest be flamed; b) get people support for the next dictator (the media already showed images welcoming the arrival of the military to the streets and depict peoples confrontation only with the police).
What happen with Mubarak ?. He is either, kidnapped for the army following the orders of Mrs Clinton and is ready to be removed once a new puppet servant of the US is found. Or, the military is getting independent control of the government and demanding similar treat as the Israelites are receiving. The fact is that the army took control of the gvmt (not only the streets) and Mubarak was silenced (he was spected to talk to the media and it did not happens) The army may be demanding more than $1.3 billons to keep the alliance with US foreign policies otherwise they will install independent regimen supported by the military coup. Nobody can predict what will be the political outcomes of the peoples riot.
Check this news
What do Egyptians think of the US?http://www.democracyandsociety.com/blog/tag/egypt/
Here an answer via an anecdote to consider:
Egyptian riot police are firing tear gas canisters bearing the label “Made in U.S.A” against street demonstrations in Cairo, according to protesters who provided ABC News with pictures of the canisters…
According to the canister labels, the tear gas is produced by Combined Systems International of Jamestown, Pennsylvania…
Egyptians who are part of the street demonstrations told ABC News that the evidence of the U.S.-made tear gas sends a powerful signal.
“The way I see it the U.S. administration supports dictators,”
What does The US government think of Mubarak rule?
Most media agreed that he was a good servant of the US. According to the VP Biden & Sec of State Mrs Clinton, he is not a dictator and should remain in power.
Joe Biden says Egypt's Mubarak no dictator, he shouldn't step down...
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Backchannels/2011/0127/Joe-Biden-says-Egypt-s-Mubarak-no-dictator-he-shouldn-t-step-down
By Dan Murphy, Staff writer / January 27, 2011
Vice President Joe Biden spoke to the PBS NewsHour tonight with the most direct US governent comments yet about the gathering Egypt protests against President Hosni Mubarak's 29-year reign.
Mr. Biden's comments are unlikely to be well-received by regime opponents, as they fit a narrative of steadfast US support for a government they want to bring down. About eight protesters and one policeman have died this week as Egypt has sought to bring down the heavy hand of the state against opponents. Since http://www.democracyandsociety.com/blog/tag/egypt/ the repressive apparatus of the state is seen by many in Egypt as hand in glove with the US.
Egypt shuts down Internet, rounds up opposition leaders as protests start
Dan Murphy, Staff writer / January 28
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Backchannels/2011/0128/Egypt-shuts-down-Internet-rounds-up-opposition-leaders-as-protests-start
Early signs of a massacre: President Barack Obama may have called for Egypt to avoid violence and to allow freedom of speech and assembly ahead of protests scheduled against President Hosni Mubarak today, but early signs are the regime is using most means at its disposal to crush a swelling and stunning wave of dissent in the Arab world's largest country.
Overnight in Egypt, the government shut down the vast majority of Egypt's Internet service, only allowing a network used by the stock exchange and most banks to stay live. Text message services were shut down in an effort to disrupt protest organization and all cell phone service was ordered shut in select locations according to Vodafone, one of Egypt's two main cellphone companies. There were reports of hundreds of activists detained by the police.
US foreign policies or it is an independent military coup from the US and nobody can predict what will be the political outcomes of the peoples riot.
Other titles in Cristian Science Monitor:
1. Joe Biden says Egypt's Mubarak no dictator, he shouldn't step down...
2. Egypt protests: US speaks again, but no one seems to be listening
3. Egypt shuts down Internet, rounds up opposition leaders as protests start
4. Egyptians flood the streets, defying police and calling for regime change
“Since the US provides about $1.3 billion in military aid to Egypt a year, the repressive apparatus of the state is seen by many in Egypt as hand in glove with the US.” VP Biden http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Backchannels/2011/0127/Joe-Biden-says-Egypt-s-Mubarak-no-dictator-he-shouldn-t-step-down
Before Obama statement to the nation on Egypt this evening (7pm) in which he demanded from Mubarak full respect of the right of free pacific assembly, press and expression, (without mentioning explicit support to his remaining in power, though Obama made clear that Mubarack will be removed if the media show evidence of the slaughter.) the Sec of State Mrs Clinton -since the riot start- was demanding the army to take control of the streets, shut down the internet and restore order. (MSNBC , CNN and Fox News showed these statements before 7pm in which Obama spoke). The army in fact did it, they took control of the streets but in their own way: with tanks exhibing the Egipcian flag and soldier saying "Hosni is out", so the population clapped and joing the army parade. (MSNBC showed images of this show). ANOTHER NATIONALIST COUP D ETAT IN EGIPT? Nobody knows it.
Obama concern for HR could be read in 2 ways: a) Mubarack already exeded in his uses of force against demonstrators, SO is going to be removed , the US will avoid be consider as accomplice in the massacre, and avoid the big arab-muslim forest be flamed; b) get people support for the next dictator (the media already showed images welcoming the arrival of the military to the streets and depict peoples confrontation only with the police).
What happen with Mubarak ?. He is either, kidnapped for the army following the orders of Mrs Clinton and is ready to be removed once a new puppet servant of the US is found. Or, the military is getting independent control of the government and demanding similar treat as the Israelites are receiving. The fact is that the army took control of the gvmt (not only the streets) and Mubarak was silenced (he was spected to talk to the media and it did not happens) The army may be demanding more than $1.3 billons to keep the alliance with US foreign policies otherwise they will install independent regimen supported by the military coup. Nobody can predict what will be the political outcomes of the peoples riot.
Check this news
What do Egyptians think of the US?http://www.democracyandsociety.com/blog/tag/egypt/
Here an answer via an anecdote to consider:
Egyptian riot police are firing tear gas canisters bearing the label “Made in U.S.A” against street demonstrations in Cairo, according to protesters who provided ABC News with pictures of the canisters…
According to the canister labels, the tear gas is produced by Combined Systems International of Jamestown, Pennsylvania…
Egyptians who are part of the street demonstrations told ABC News that the evidence of the U.S.-made tear gas sends a powerful signal.
“The way I see it the U.S. administration supports dictators,”
What does The US government think of Mubarak rule?
Most media agreed that he was a good servant of the US. According to the VP Biden & Sec of State Mrs Clinton, he is not a dictator and should remain in power.
Joe Biden says Egypt's Mubarak no dictator, he shouldn't step down...
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Backchannels/2011/0127/Joe-Biden-says-Egypt-s-Mubarak-no-dictator-he-shouldn-t-step-down
By Dan Murphy, Staff writer / January 27, 2011
Vice President Joe Biden spoke to the PBS NewsHour tonight with the most direct US governent comments yet about the gathering Egypt protests against President Hosni Mubarak's 29-year reign.
Mr. Biden's comments are unlikely to be well-received by regime opponents, as they fit a narrative of steadfast US support for a government they want to bring down. About eight protesters and one policeman have died this week as Egypt has sought to bring down the heavy hand of the state against opponents. Since http://www.democracyandsociety.com/blog/tag/egypt/ the repressive apparatus of the state is seen by many in Egypt as hand in glove with the US.
Egypt shuts down Internet, rounds up opposition leaders as protests start
Dan Murphy, Staff writer / January 28
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Backchannels/2011/0128/Egypt-shuts-down-Internet-rounds-up-opposition-leaders-as-protests-start
Early signs of a massacre: President Barack Obama may have called for Egypt to avoid violence and to allow freedom of speech and assembly ahead of protests scheduled against President Hosni Mubarak today, but early signs are the regime is using most means at its disposal to crush a swelling and stunning wave of dissent in the Arab world's largest country.
Overnight in Egypt, the government shut down the vast majority of Egypt's Internet service, only allowing a network used by the stock exchange and most banks to stay live. Text message services were shut down in an effort to disrupt protest organization and all cell phone service was ordered shut in select locations according to Vodafone, one of Egypt's two main cellphone companies. There were reports of hundreds of activists detained by the police.
US foreign policies or it is an independent military coup from the US and nobody can predict what will be the political outcomes of the peoples riot.
Other titles in Cristian Science Monitor:
1. Joe Biden says Egypt's Mubarak no dictator, he shouldn't step down...
2. Egypt protests: US speaks again, but no one seems to be listening
3. Egypt shuts down Internet, rounds up opposition leaders as protests start
4. Egyptians flood the streets, defying police and calling for regime change
jueves, 27 de enero de 2011
SLAUGHTER OF ARIZONA: NOT A COMMON CRIME, IT WAS A TERRORIST ACT
SLAUGHTER OF ARIZONA: NOT A COMMON CRIME, IT WAS A TERRORIST ACT
THE TEA PARTY and SLAUGHTER in ARIZONA. ARMED CONSPIRACY IN ACTION? P1
Hugo Adam, January 17, 2011
Part 1
Key quotation
"There is not a social event without a system to which it belongs to. In the theory of autopoiesis, everything that exists must be redirected to the operation of any system. Every social event (object) is possible and only exists because there is a system that constitute it as fact, a system that gives its unity and its existence " Niklas Luhmann, quoted by Giancarlo Corsi, Elena Esposito and Claudio Baraldi in" On Luhmann's Social Theory, " 2007.
1. Thesis to be developed
In a violent system, a shooter who kills several people is a casual thing, an accident, something that happens by chance, or an act of god, like the death of someone hit by a lightning during storm time. What would be impossible to happens is a lightning under clear blue sky and much more improbable to hear saying that it was that lightning the death-cause of someone. I’m saying this because the focus of the mass media attention was on the shooter (depicted as mentally insane with the intention of cover up the fact that the shooting was an act politically motivated). The mass media focus should be on the social context, if finally they adopt systems analysis to understand and make comments on this type of phenomena. The legal conviction of the shooter and those directly and indirectly linked to crime should serve only to condemn the violent system we live in, that’s the storm of violence that gives context to crimes. The law enforcement does not solve the underlying problem, it would only serve to test whether or not the legal system is functional. And if not functional, the impunity of this crime will be an open invitation to more crimes. Applying the maximum sentence to the shooter and other stakeholders involved, won’t alter much the context of violence that created the massacre. Nor it serve the purpose of preventing the existence of new shooters ,and much less it would serve the purpose of repairing the damages caused, it maybe serve the purpose of saying that there are laws. No doubt it is important to have them. That should not be news. It is common sense. The application of existing laws is what matters. HAZ January 17, 1911
2. Top guiding principle for tackling terrorism in Arizona
Every social event (object) is possible and only exists because there is a system that constitute it as fact, a system that gives its unity and its existence “ Luhmann
Meaning:
The legal conviction of the shooter and those directly and indirectly linked to crime should serve only to condemn the violent system that gave us context. NOT condemning the crime is an open invitation to more crimes and conclusive evidence that Laws do not work and that we're on the brink of total chaos.
3. General proceeding:
In Part 1. I will develop the hypothesis that the crime of Arizona was a terrorist act. In Part 2. I will state why the terrorists of Arizona, direct and indirect actors, deserve the application of the so called anti-terrorist laws.
4. The SLAUGHTER OF ARIZONA was NOT A COMMON CRIME , IT WAS A TERRORIST ACT
Existing legislation and the official definition of Terrorism (State Department and CIA, see part 2) perfectly applies to the massacre of Arizona. The definition of terrorism includes four components:
a. It is premeditated-planned act in advance, Rather Than an impulsive act of rage.
b. It is Politically motivated, Not only criminal, but designed to change the Political Existing order.
c. It is Aimed at Civilians-not at military targets or combat-ready Troops.
d. It is carried out by sub national groups-not by the army of a country.
5. Direct and indirect actors. According to this and other official definitions of terrorism (see part 2) is possible to distinguish between direct and indirect actors to be investigated:
Possible Direct actors:
a. Jesse Kelly, ex-marine sargent who was defeated in the electoral contest in Arizona and show up during the campaign with an assault rifle M16 inviting the electorate to unloaded their magazines.
b. Jared Lee Loughner, the shooter, possible Tea Party zealot who took the invitation of Jesse Kelly to unload his magazine.
c. Sara Palin, the Tea Party leader who sign up and sponsor the above invitation in her web site “Take Back the 20″ in which one victim of the shooting, the U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was market among the 20 under the site of a rifle. National press said that she funded the candidacy of Jesse Kelly.
d. Jan Brewer, the racist governor of Arizona who poison the political environment by enacting the May 2010 legislation against Mexican immigrants and became radical enemy of U.S. District Judge John M. Roll (assesinated) and the U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords for opposing such rule.
Possible Indirect actors to be investigated:
a. Managers and lobbyist from Insurance companies and Pharmaceutical Corporation that fund the Tea Party before and after the elections.
b. Local official in charge of the implementation of the racist decrees of the governor Jan Brewer, especially those who where active members of the Tea Party.
6. Part 1: objective and proceeding
By applying the above definition of terrorism to the Arizona massacre I will show that the slaughter was a premeditated, politically motivated act, aimed at hurting civilians to prevent further advances of a the contending political cause. It is at the discretion of an independent committee to investigate the relations between Tea Party leaders and their financiers in all what connect them to the massacre (and the nexus of other potential actors as well). It is also up to an independent Forensic specialist to determine the size, similarity and trajectory of the bullets downloaded in the area of the crime . These studies will serve the purpose of indicating whether or not there were more than one shooter or the existence of armed groups behind the scenes of this massacre.
7. Here my arguments and rationality
A) The crime of Arizona was a logical consequence of the invitation from a marine-Tea Party candidate, to download a m16 against political rivals. This was an open apology to terrorism.
B) This invitation was reinforced by the image that Sarah Palin showed the mass media of its political objectives in the race, marking them with the sights of a rifle. The message was clear: change the existing political order by any means.
C) The use of vitriolic political speech was loaded -in the case of the Tea Party- with criminal intent ion. The aggressive language was used not to compete as usual but to eliminate physically to political rivals. The fact that Gabrielle Giffords received direct threats before the attack in January 8 confirmed such intentions. (Hence the immediate response from his father when was asked if he suspected of some enemies interested in silenced her) . That plus the fact that the Tea Party was defeated in the election in which they invest unusual sums of money indicate that was an “criminal retaliation” pending on. This is related to the political matters discussed as hot issues in Arizona (health and migration). The fact is that those issues still remain to be defined in the coming congressional debates in which the vote of Gabrielle Giffords is crucial. This is the main reason why the Tea Party wanted to remove her and the judge from the political scene.
D) The direct and indirect actors of the crime were perfectly aware of the effects that would bring the "apology" to terrorism (if loaded black clouds are in the sky, driven by strong winds, it is logical to predict that it will rain). Arizona's crime was therefore calculated by those who manage and finance the Tea Party. This is especially the case here if one considers the context of violence that precedes the crime and especially the fact that in Arizona even mentally insane person can easily get access to firearms. If an adult in his senses put a loaded weapon at the disposal of a child, he can not only be legally indicted but also put inside prison until his accomplice-degree is cleared. This is also the case here, if we have real existing Laws.
E) This was a massacre invited to happen and perfectly planned. The conclusive evidence in this regard is the fact that the terrorist attack targeted a specific sector of the civilian population, the adherents of the political message of congressional Gabrielle Giffords and the judge murdered. This means that the shooter was informed in advance of the public meetings convened by Gabrielle Giffords. It is not the case of one insane passing by chance during the meeting and opened fire at random. The intention to terrorize the civilian supporters of a political leader is perfectly clear. Even if those involved as indirect actors manage to delete all evidence of the link between the shooter and the Tea Party, those facts are conclusive (shooter pre-informed, combination of selected target and randomness against adherents of a political cause). These facts show a criminal planned act not only against Gabi and the Judge, but the intention to stop support for political cause: the health system reform and the rejection of anti-constitution laws against illegal migrants (physical abused and denigration of Mexican migrants in the worst language in Arizona).
F) It is possible that in addition to those directly involved in the crime (the shooter, the marine and Sara Palin) those who found the Tea Party are also involved. Since this is a case of terrorism, an investigation on E-mails, phone conversations and high-tech-internet devises may help a lot on this purpose. The hypothesis of indirect actors in the massacre raises two questions at the start: 1) "The Health industry managers and lobbyist and those similars related to Insurance and pharmaceutical corporation funded the Tea Party before and after the election results, yes or not. 2) Who were those zealots in the Tea Party that belongs to institutions responsible for anti-immigrant laws suspected of belonging also to clandestine armed groups?. To rule out the hypothesis of the existence of illegal armed groups inside the Tea Party an independent special team has to be set. ABCD facts above indicate that there were more than one actor behind the "disguised" apology for terrorism. It is also clear that those who participated as direct and indirect actors, acted under the guided principle that "the end justifies the means" , the cornerstone in any terrorist act. The no condemnation of this terrorist crime will be an open invitation to more crimes. We all have to avoid it.
PART 2. DEFINING TERRORISM and RECENT AMMENDS TO BE APPLIED IN THIS CASE.
THE TEA PARTY and SLAUGHTER in ARIZONA. ARMED CONSPIRACY IN ACTION? P1
Hugo Adam, January 17, 2011
Part 1
Key quotation
"There is not a social event without a system to which it belongs to. In the theory of autopoiesis, everything that exists must be redirected to the operation of any system. Every social event (object) is possible and only exists because there is a system that constitute it as fact, a system that gives its unity and its existence " Niklas Luhmann, quoted by Giancarlo Corsi, Elena Esposito and Claudio Baraldi in" On Luhmann's Social Theory, " 2007.
1. Thesis to be developed
In a violent system, a shooter who kills several people is a casual thing, an accident, something that happens by chance, or an act of god, like the death of someone hit by a lightning during storm time. What would be impossible to happens is a lightning under clear blue sky and much more improbable to hear saying that it was that lightning the death-cause of someone. I’m saying this because the focus of the mass media attention was on the shooter (depicted as mentally insane with the intention of cover up the fact that the shooting was an act politically motivated). The mass media focus should be on the social context, if finally they adopt systems analysis to understand and make comments on this type of phenomena. The legal conviction of the shooter and those directly and indirectly linked to crime should serve only to condemn the violent system we live in, that’s the storm of violence that gives context to crimes. The law enforcement does not solve the underlying problem, it would only serve to test whether or not the legal system is functional. And if not functional, the impunity of this crime will be an open invitation to more crimes. Applying the maximum sentence to the shooter and other stakeholders involved, won’t alter much the context of violence that created the massacre. Nor it serve the purpose of preventing the existence of new shooters ,and much less it would serve the purpose of repairing the damages caused, it maybe serve the purpose of saying that there are laws. No doubt it is important to have them. That should not be news. It is common sense. The application of existing laws is what matters. HAZ January 17, 1911
2. Top guiding principle for tackling terrorism in Arizona
Every social event (object) is possible and only exists because there is a system that constitute it as fact, a system that gives its unity and its existence “ Luhmann
Meaning:
The legal conviction of the shooter and those directly and indirectly linked to crime should serve only to condemn the violent system that gave us context. NOT condemning the crime is an open invitation to more crimes and conclusive evidence that Laws do not work and that we're on the brink of total chaos.
3. General proceeding:
In Part 1. I will develop the hypothesis that the crime of Arizona was a terrorist act. In Part 2. I will state why the terrorists of Arizona, direct and indirect actors, deserve the application of the so called anti-terrorist laws.
4. The SLAUGHTER OF ARIZONA was NOT A COMMON CRIME , IT WAS A TERRORIST ACT
Existing legislation and the official definition of Terrorism (State Department and CIA, see part 2) perfectly applies to the massacre of Arizona. The definition of terrorism includes four components:
a. It is premeditated-planned act in advance, Rather Than an impulsive act of rage.
b. It is Politically motivated, Not only criminal, but designed to change the Political Existing order.
c. It is Aimed at Civilians-not at military targets or combat-ready Troops.
d. It is carried out by sub national groups-not by the army of a country.
5. Direct and indirect actors. According to this and other official definitions of terrorism (see part 2) is possible to distinguish between direct and indirect actors to be investigated:
Possible Direct actors:
a. Jesse Kelly, ex-marine sargent who was defeated in the electoral contest in Arizona and show up during the campaign with an assault rifle M16 inviting the electorate to unloaded their magazines.
b. Jared Lee Loughner, the shooter, possible Tea Party zealot who took the invitation of Jesse Kelly to unload his magazine.
c. Sara Palin, the Tea Party leader who sign up and sponsor the above invitation in her web site “Take Back the 20″ in which one victim of the shooting, the U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was market among the 20 under the site of a rifle. National press said that she funded the candidacy of Jesse Kelly.
d. Jan Brewer, the racist governor of Arizona who poison the political environment by enacting the May 2010 legislation against Mexican immigrants and became radical enemy of U.S. District Judge John M. Roll (assesinated) and the U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords for opposing such rule.
Possible Indirect actors to be investigated:
a. Managers and lobbyist from Insurance companies and Pharmaceutical Corporation that fund the Tea Party before and after the elections.
b. Local official in charge of the implementation of the racist decrees of the governor Jan Brewer, especially those who where active members of the Tea Party.
6. Part 1: objective and proceeding
By applying the above definition of terrorism to the Arizona massacre I will show that the slaughter was a premeditated, politically motivated act, aimed at hurting civilians to prevent further advances of a the contending political cause. It is at the discretion of an independent committee to investigate the relations between Tea Party leaders and their financiers in all what connect them to the massacre (and the nexus of other potential actors as well). It is also up to an independent Forensic specialist to determine the size, similarity and trajectory of the bullets downloaded in the area of the crime . These studies will serve the purpose of indicating whether or not there were more than one shooter or the existence of armed groups behind the scenes of this massacre.
7. Here my arguments and rationality
A) The crime of Arizona was a logical consequence of the invitation from a marine-Tea Party candidate, to download a m16 against political rivals. This was an open apology to terrorism.
B) This invitation was reinforced by the image that Sarah Palin showed the mass media of its political objectives in the race, marking them with the sights of a rifle. The message was clear: change the existing political order by any means.
C) The use of vitriolic political speech was loaded -in the case of the Tea Party- with criminal intent ion. The aggressive language was used not to compete as usual but to eliminate physically to political rivals. The fact that Gabrielle Giffords received direct threats before the attack in January 8 confirmed such intentions. (Hence the immediate response from his father when was asked if he suspected of some enemies interested in silenced her) . That plus the fact that the Tea Party was defeated in the election in which they invest unusual sums of money indicate that was an “criminal retaliation” pending on. This is related to the political matters discussed as hot issues in Arizona (health and migration). The fact is that those issues still remain to be defined in the coming congressional debates in which the vote of Gabrielle Giffords is crucial. This is the main reason why the Tea Party wanted to remove her and the judge from the political scene.
D) The direct and indirect actors of the crime were perfectly aware of the effects that would bring the "apology" to terrorism (if loaded black clouds are in the sky, driven by strong winds, it is logical to predict that it will rain). Arizona's crime was therefore calculated by those who manage and finance the Tea Party. This is especially the case here if one considers the context of violence that precedes the crime and especially the fact that in Arizona even mentally insane person can easily get access to firearms. If an adult in his senses put a loaded weapon at the disposal of a child, he can not only be legally indicted but also put inside prison until his accomplice-degree is cleared. This is also the case here, if we have real existing Laws.
E) This was a massacre invited to happen and perfectly planned. The conclusive evidence in this regard is the fact that the terrorist attack targeted a specific sector of the civilian population, the adherents of the political message of congressional Gabrielle Giffords and the judge murdered. This means that the shooter was informed in advance of the public meetings convened by Gabrielle Giffords. It is not the case of one insane passing by chance during the meeting and opened fire at random. The intention to terrorize the civilian supporters of a political leader is perfectly clear. Even if those involved as indirect actors manage to delete all evidence of the link between the shooter and the Tea Party, those facts are conclusive (shooter pre-informed, combination of selected target and randomness against adherents of a political cause). These facts show a criminal planned act not only against Gabi and the Judge, but the intention to stop support for political cause: the health system reform and the rejection of anti-constitution laws against illegal migrants (physical abused and denigration of Mexican migrants in the worst language in Arizona).
F) It is possible that in addition to those directly involved in the crime (the shooter, the marine and Sara Palin) those who found the Tea Party are also involved. Since this is a case of terrorism, an investigation on E-mails, phone conversations and high-tech-internet devises may help a lot on this purpose. The hypothesis of indirect actors in the massacre raises two questions at the start: 1) "The Health industry managers and lobbyist and those similars related to Insurance and pharmaceutical corporation funded the Tea Party before and after the election results, yes or not. 2) Who were those zealots in the Tea Party that belongs to institutions responsible for anti-immigrant laws suspected of belonging also to clandestine armed groups?. To rule out the hypothesis of the existence of illegal armed groups inside the Tea Party an independent special team has to be set. ABCD facts above indicate that there were more than one actor behind the "disguised" apology for terrorism. It is also clear that those who participated as direct and indirect actors, acted under the guided principle that "the end justifies the means" , the cornerstone in any terrorist act. The no condemnation of this terrorist crime will be an open invitation to more crimes. We all have to avoid it.
PART 2. DEFINING TERRORISM and RECENT AMMENDS TO BE APPLIED IN THIS CASE.
MASACRE DE ARIZONA: NO UN CRIMEN COMUN, FUE UN ACTO TERRORISTA
EL TEA PARTY y la MASACRE en ARIZONA. CONSPIRACION ARMADA EN ACCION? P1
Hugo Adan, January 17, 2011
Parte 1
“No existe ningun hecho social sin un sistema al cual pertenezca. En la teoría de autopoiesis, todo lo que existe debe ser reconducido a las operaciones de algún sistema. Todo objeto (hecho social) es posible y solo existe porque algún sistema lo constituye en cuanto tal, le da unidad y existencia” Luhmann, quoted by Giancarlo Corsi , Elena Esposito y Claudio Baraldi en “Sobre la Teoria Social de Luhmann”, 2007.
Thesis a desarrollarse
En un sistema violento el shooter que asesina es lo casual, accidental, lo que ocurre by chance, un act of god, como la muerte de alguien alcanzado por un rayo en epoca de tormenta. Lo no casual seria que ocurra un rayo en cielo sereno y que se diga que eso ocasiono tal muerte. El foco de atencion de la mass media –si finalmente opta por el sistems analysis- es y debe ser el sistema. La condena legal al shooter y de quienes estan directa e indirectamente vinculados al crimen solo debe servir para condenar el sistema violento o la tormenta de violencia que da contexto al crimen. La aplicacion de la ley no resuelve el problema de fondo, solo serviria para probar si este sistema es o no functional. Y si no es functional, la NO condena del crimen es una invitacion abierta a mas crimenes. Si se aplica la maxima sentencia al shooter y otros directos implicados, eso no alteraria mucho el contexto de violencia que lo creo. No serviria para prevenir la existencia de nuevos shooters ni serviria para los propositos de reparar los danios ocasionados, quiza solo para decir que existe la ley. Nadie duda que es importante que exista. Eso no debe ser noticia. Es common sense] HAZ enero 17, 11
Part 1. January 11, 2011
1. Principio guia para abordar el fenomeno “ terrorismo en Arizona”:
“Todo objeto (hecho social) posible solo existe porque algún sistema lo constituye en cuanto tal, le da unidad y existencia” Luhmann
Meaning: La condena legal al shooter y de quienes estan directa e indirectamente vinculados al crimen solo debe servir para condenar el sistema violento que le dio contexto. NO condenar el crimen es invitacion abierta a mas crimenes y la prueba concluyente de que la Ley no funciona y que estamos al borde del caos total.
Objetivos : Part 1. Desarrollar la hypothesis de que el Crimen de Arizona si fue un acto terrorista. Part 2. Sustentar la tesis de que a los terroristas de Arizona, actors directos e indirectos, se les debe aplicar las llamadas leyes anti-terroristas.
MASACRE DE ARIZONA: NO UN CRIMEN COMUN, FUE UN ACTO TERRORISTA
En la definicion oficial de terrorism Departamento de Estado y CIA -ver part 2- se incluyen cuatro componentes:
a. It is premeditated—planned in advance, rather than an impulsive act of rage.
b. It is political, not only criminal, but designed to change the existing political order.
c. It is aimed at civilians—not at military targets or combat-ready troops.
d. It is carried out by sub national groups—not by the army of a country.
Aplicando tal definicion indicamos aqui que la masacre de Arizona fue un acto premeditado, politico, apunto contra civiles y solo estudios de lo actuado y dicho entre lideres del Tea Party y quienes los financian, mas los nexus con otros posibles actores en el atentado (estudio forensico de las balas usadas, su calibre y trayectora) indicaran si hubo o no grupos armados, o mas de un shooter detras del crimen.
A) El crimen de Arizona fue logica consecuencia de la invitacion por un marine -candidato del Tea Party- a descargar una m16 contra rivales politicos. Esto fue y es apologia al terrorismo.
B) Tal invitacion fue reforzada por la imagen que Sara Palin mostro a la mass media de sus objetivos politicos en la contienda electoral al marcarlos con la mira de un rifle. El mensaje fue claro: cambiar el orden politico existente por cualquier medio.
C) El uso del lenguaje politico vitriolico tuvo en el caso del Tea Party intencion criminal. Fue usado no para competir sino para eliminar al rival politico. Las amenazas directas que Gabrielle Gisselle (GG)antes del atentado del 8 de enero lo indicant asi. (por eso la respuesta inmediata de su padre cuando le preguntaron si sospecha de algun enemigo interesado en desaparecerla). Eso mas el hecho de haber sido derrotados en una contienda electoral en las que el Tea Party invirtio sumas de dinero inusuales indican que quedo pendiente “un ajuste de cuentas politicas” sobre todo porque los temas candentes que se debatieron (salud y migracion) aun estaban por definirse en las instancias de Ley en el que el voto de GGfue y es aun crucial. Por esto habia que eliminar a ella y al juez.
D) Los actores directos e indirectos del crimen estuvieron perfectamente concientes del efecto que traeria su “apologia” al terrorismo (si hay nubes negras cargadas en el cielo, movidas por vientos inusuales, es logico predecir que va a llover). El crimen de Arizona estuvo por tanto en los calculos de los que dirigen y financian el Tea Party. Ello sobre todo si se considera el contexto de violencia que precedio el crimen y sobre todo el hecho de que en Arizona incluso dementes pueden accede facilmente a armas de fuego como las que uso el shooter. Si poner un arma cargada a disposicion de un nino es no solo illegal sino sino que compromete directamente a los adultos en sus consecuencias, esto tambien lo es.
E) Se trato de un crimen invitado a suceder lo que se agrava por un hecho mas. Este atentado terrorista apunto contra un sector especifico de la poblacion civil, los adherentes al mensaje politico de GG y el juez asesinado. Esto significa que se supo con anticipacion del mitin publico convocado por GG. No se trato por tanto de un demente cualquiera que de casualidad paso por alli y abrio fuego at random. Se busco aterrorizar a los adeptos civiles de una posicion politica y aun si borro toda evidencia del nexo entre el shooter y el Tea Party, el conocimiento anticipado del mitin, la selectividad de los targets y la intencion politica detras de esto, incrimina a los directos-indirectos indoctrinadores del shotter. Se trato de un acto planeado no solo contra Gabi y el Juez de la corte, se busco liquidar o fenar la defenza de una razon politica: la reforma del Health system y el rechazo a leyes anti-constitucion contra los migrantes ilegales (abusados y descritos en el peor lenguaje en Arizona).
F) No se descarta que ademas de los implicados directos en el crimen esten tambien implicados quienes financiaron (antes y sobre todo despues de las elecciones) al Tea Party. Esta hypothesis plantea dos preguntas de orden: 1) Los “industrriales de la Salud –insurers and farmaceutical corp- fueron o no quienes financiaron al Tea Party antes y despues del resultado electoral; 2) Quienes dentro de las instituciones encargadas de las leyes antimigratoria militaban dentro del Tea Party antes de las elecciones?. Para descartar la hypothesis sobre la existencia de grupos armados clandestinos en este crimen, se necesita investigar y dar respuesta a esas preguntas. Los hechos ABCD indican que hubo mas de una actor detras de la “disfrazada” apologia al terrorismo descrita arriba. Queda claro ademas que quienes participaron como actores directos e indirectos del crimen obraron guiados por el principio de que “el fin justifica los medios”.
PART 2 QUE ES TERRORISMO y POR QUE APLICARLE LAS LEYES DEL CASO?
Hugo Adan, January 17, 2011
Parte 1
“No existe ningun hecho social sin un sistema al cual pertenezca. En la teoría de autopoiesis, todo lo que existe debe ser reconducido a las operaciones de algún sistema. Todo objeto (hecho social) es posible y solo existe porque algún sistema lo constituye en cuanto tal, le da unidad y existencia” Luhmann, quoted by Giancarlo Corsi , Elena Esposito y Claudio Baraldi en “Sobre la Teoria Social de Luhmann”, 2007.
Thesis a desarrollarse
En un sistema violento el shooter que asesina es lo casual, accidental, lo que ocurre by chance, un act of god, como la muerte de alguien alcanzado por un rayo en epoca de tormenta. Lo no casual seria que ocurra un rayo en cielo sereno y que se diga que eso ocasiono tal muerte. El foco de atencion de la mass media –si finalmente opta por el sistems analysis- es y debe ser el sistema. La condena legal al shooter y de quienes estan directa e indirectamente vinculados al crimen solo debe servir para condenar el sistema violento o la tormenta de violencia que da contexto al crimen. La aplicacion de la ley no resuelve el problema de fondo, solo serviria para probar si este sistema es o no functional. Y si no es functional, la NO condena del crimen es una invitacion abierta a mas crimenes. Si se aplica la maxima sentencia al shooter y otros directos implicados, eso no alteraria mucho el contexto de violencia que lo creo. No serviria para prevenir la existencia de nuevos shooters ni serviria para los propositos de reparar los danios ocasionados, quiza solo para decir que existe la ley. Nadie duda que es importante que exista. Eso no debe ser noticia. Es common sense] HAZ enero 17, 11
Part 1. January 11, 2011
1. Principio guia para abordar el fenomeno “ terrorismo en Arizona”:
“Todo objeto (hecho social) posible solo existe porque algún sistema lo constituye en cuanto tal, le da unidad y existencia” Luhmann
Meaning: La condena legal al shooter y de quienes estan directa e indirectamente vinculados al crimen solo debe servir para condenar el sistema violento que le dio contexto. NO condenar el crimen es invitacion abierta a mas crimenes y la prueba concluyente de que la Ley no funciona y que estamos al borde del caos total.
Objetivos : Part 1. Desarrollar la hypothesis de que el Crimen de Arizona si fue un acto terrorista. Part 2. Sustentar la tesis de que a los terroristas de Arizona, actors directos e indirectos, se les debe aplicar las llamadas leyes anti-terroristas.
MASACRE DE ARIZONA: NO UN CRIMEN COMUN, FUE UN ACTO TERRORISTA
En la definicion oficial de terrorism Departamento de Estado y CIA -ver part 2- se incluyen cuatro componentes:
a. It is premeditated—planned in advance, rather than an impulsive act of rage.
b. It is political, not only criminal, but designed to change the existing political order.
c. It is aimed at civilians—not at military targets or combat-ready troops.
d. It is carried out by sub national groups—not by the army of a country.
Aplicando tal definicion indicamos aqui que la masacre de Arizona fue un acto premeditado, politico, apunto contra civiles y solo estudios de lo actuado y dicho entre lideres del Tea Party y quienes los financian, mas los nexus con otros posibles actores en el atentado (estudio forensico de las balas usadas, su calibre y trayectora) indicaran si hubo o no grupos armados, o mas de un shooter detras del crimen.
A) El crimen de Arizona fue logica consecuencia de la invitacion por un marine -candidato del Tea Party- a descargar una m16 contra rivales politicos. Esto fue y es apologia al terrorismo.
B) Tal invitacion fue reforzada por la imagen que Sara Palin mostro a la mass media de sus objetivos politicos en la contienda electoral al marcarlos con la mira de un rifle. El mensaje fue claro: cambiar el orden politico existente por cualquier medio.
C) El uso del lenguaje politico vitriolico tuvo en el caso del Tea Party intencion criminal. Fue usado no para competir sino para eliminar al rival politico. Las amenazas directas que Gabrielle Gisselle (GG)antes del atentado del 8 de enero lo indicant asi. (por eso la respuesta inmediata de su padre cuando le preguntaron si sospecha de algun enemigo interesado en desaparecerla). Eso mas el hecho de haber sido derrotados en una contienda electoral en las que el Tea Party invirtio sumas de dinero inusuales indican que quedo pendiente “un ajuste de cuentas politicas” sobre todo porque los temas candentes que se debatieron (salud y migracion) aun estaban por definirse en las instancias de Ley en el que el voto de GGfue y es aun crucial. Por esto habia que eliminar a ella y al juez.
D) Los actores directos e indirectos del crimen estuvieron perfectamente concientes del efecto que traeria su “apologia” al terrorismo (si hay nubes negras cargadas en el cielo, movidas por vientos inusuales, es logico predecir que va a llover). El crimen de Arizona estuvo por tanto en los calculos de los que dirigen y financian el Tea Party. Ello sobre todo si se considera el contexto de violencia que precedio el crimen y sobre todo el hecho de que en Arizona incluso dementes pueden accede facilmente a armas de fuego como las que uso el shooter. Si poner un arma cargada a disposicion de un nino es no solo illegal sino sino que compromete directamente a los adultos en sus consecuencias, esto tambien lo es.
E) Se trato de un crimen invitado a suceder lo que se agrava por un hecho mas. Este atentado terrorista apunto contra un sector especifico de la poblacion civil, los adherentes al mensaje politico de GG y el juez asesinado. Esto significa que se supo con anticipacion del mitin publico convocado por GG. No se trato por tanto de un demente cualquiera que de casualidad paso por alli y abrio fuego at random. Se busco aterrorizar a los adeptos civiles de una posicion politica y aun si borro toda evidencia del nexo entre el shooter y el Tea Party, el conocimiento anticipado del mitin, la selectividad de los targets y la intencion politica detras de esto, incrimina a los directos-indirectos indoctrinadores del shotter. Se trato de un acto planeado no solo contra Gabi y el Juez de la corte, se busco liquidar o fenar la defenza de una razon politica: la reforma del Health system y el rechazo a leyes anti-constitucion contra los migrantes ilegales (abusados y descritos en el peor lenguaje en Arizona).
F) No se descarta que ademas de los implicados directos en el crimen esten tambien implicados quienes financiaron (antes y sobre todo despues de las elecciones) al Tea Party. Esta hypothesis plantea dos preguntas de orden: 1) Los “industrriales de la Salud –insurers and farmaceutical corp- fueron o no quienes financiaron al Tea Party antes y despues del resultado electoral; 2) Quienes dentro de las instituciones encargadas de las leyes antimigratoria militaban dentro del Tea Party antes de las elecciones?. Para descartar la hypothesis sobre la existencia de grupos armados clandestinos en este crimen, se necesita investigar y dar respuesta a esas preguntas. Los hechos ABCD indican que hubo mas de una actor detras de la “disfrazada” apologia al terrorismo descrita arriba. Queda claro ademas que quienes participaron como actores directos e indirectos del crimen obraron guiados por el principio de que “el fin justifica los medios”.
PART 2 QUE ES TERRORISMO y POR QUE APLICARLE LAS LEYES DEL CASO?
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)